The RIRAs legitimacy

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is by and large true, but how can you blame people put up against a wall in Kilmainham Jail because later governments didn't do a very good job?

You also make a fundamental leap of faith that freedoms the average Briton had would have been extended into Ireland - that wasn't the case up until the cord was cut...

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well since there are a number of definitions of "free" and in this case the word free meant having political independence and not, costing nothing, unoccupied, or used in the context "free to do anything whatsoever you want", picking your own definition and saying "the free state wasn't free" is a bit frivolous.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I gave 4 definitions of "free".
Which one are you picking now??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like Wales or Scotland, sans the theocracy, the Magdaline Laundries, the no divorce laws, etc etc.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Considering that NI was allowed "opt out" on legalisation of homosexuality, the 67 abortion act etc theres no reason to presume that a "home rule" government wouldn't have followed much the same path.

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Irrespective of whether we would be "under the jackboot of imperial tyranny" or not, the majority of people in Ireland (and the vast majority in what became the Free State) did not and do not want to be part of the UK. This is all that matters.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They cannot be blamed because of subsequent political decisions. If anything the political tradition that emerged from 1916 has been the most vocal critic of the Free State, even refusing to recognise it and getting supressed by it.

Its like blaming George Washington for the Vietnam war.

All they did was give us the right to make our own decisions. What we did with it is a seperate debate.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But Wales and Scotland traditionally had more freedoms than the Irish. When would that convergence have happened?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As opposed to the Jackboot of the Black and Tans....

We as a nation have the right to make our own mistakes.

Also, how 'secualar and pluralist' were the 6 counties? I don't see where you are getting the assumption that the Irish would suddenly be treated as full and equal members of the union...

Cú Giobach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe not to you, but you do not speak for the Irish people and I can guarantee you, having the ability to run ones own affairs and not be reliant on people who would be considered foreign, means a hell of a lot to the people of this country.

If having political independence means so little, how come the people of the planet have carved up the globe into nation states, mostly based on ethnicity, language, shared cultures etc.??

The Ireland of today is certainly not "under the jackboot of the catholic church", we as a people had the ability to change this country over the last 90 years, to the "free state" we have now, and we didn't have to plead for these changes from a foreign country.

Regarding your list of independent countries under dictatorships, there are "one or two" other independent states in the world, where life would be regarded as rather good (this being one).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

NI was/is part of the UK for the same period and there was very little either secular or pluralist about it, nor any urge on behalf of westminister to change it for most of its history. Thats something you don't seem in any rush to address.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Given a few of the comments here, its not a disease confined to some on the Republican side.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How was the drive for Irish independence 'sudden' in 1916?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Balls. The Tans happened at a time you expected people to sit back and wait for the lords and masters in London to magnaimiously grant freedom. You have a rather peculiar way of looking at the dynamic of how London ruled Ireland, and that shines through in your failure to explain how Stormont happened in this caring and sharing union.

oscarBravo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Balls. The Tans happened at a time you expected people to sit back and wait for the lords and masters in London to magnaimiously grant freedom.

The Tans didn't "happen", they were sent in as a direct consequence of armed insurrection in Ireland.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Tans didn't "happen", they were irresponsibly sent in as a direct consequence of armed insurrection in Ireland.

Fixed that for you.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

No disagreement. It was yet another stupid move on the part of the government, but you can't deny that it was a direct consequence of the 1916 rebellion.

OhNoYouDidn't

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Tans didn't "happen", they were sent in as a direct consequence of armed insurrection in Ireland.

...by the same people we are told would have granted home rule because they were such a sterling bunch....?

Not buying it. The dangling of Home Rule for 34 years (before the rebels forced it through) in front of the Redmondites was a delaying tactic. Nothing more, nothing less.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the majority turned away from the gradualist route (after 34 years no less) in favour of militant tactics at the first opportuity. Its clear at the time that people didn't believe they would ever get home rule democratically and supported the rebels approach instead.

Two questions:

A: do you believe that HR would actually have been granted off the third act?
b: how do you interpret the 1918 results if not an endorsement of the militiant approach and rejection of parlimentariansim?

KeithAFC

I thought this thread was about the RIRA? I do know why some posts are talking about 1916 but still, i think its going off topic a bit.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And the majority turned away from the gradualist route (after 34 years no less) in favour of militant tactics at the first opportuity. Its clear at the time that people didn't believe they would ever get home rule democratically and supported the rebels approach instead.

Two questions:

A: do you believe that HR would actually have been granted off the third act?
b: how do you interpret the 1918 results if not an endorsement of the militiant approach and rejection of parlimentariansim?

Ah... 1918. The great non majority endorsement of militant Republicanism. I always find it amazing how local factors are completely ignored (Such as the on the ground reality that many candidates were clearly not running on the platform of revolutionary violence, or the fact that the political wing of Sinn Féin and the military wing of the IRA were very obviously clearly at odds with one another from this early stage)

Oh yeah, lets also ignore the fact that Sinn Féin utilised the conscription crisis... Lets do that.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

I thought this thread was about the RIRA? I do know why some posts are talking about 1916 but still, i think its going off topic a bit.

Two schools of thought.

One; you can't venerate the leaders of 1916 without supporting all militant Republicans since.

Two. Yes you can.

Thats why we are on this tangent. Revisionists point to one and object to anyone, let alone the state, celebrating the rising as if you support one, you support them all, hence the debate about whether the leaders of 16 were justified in rising at the time. In other words are they like the the dissidents today are rejecting a recognised peace deal voted for by 79% of the Island by going to war when there was home rule on offer.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Ah... 1918. The great non majority endorsement of militant Republicanism. I always find it amazing how local factors are completely ignored (Such as the on the ground reality that many candidates were clearly not running on the platform of revolutionary violence, or the fact that the political wing of Sinn Féin and the military wing of the IRA were very obviously clearly at odds with one another from this early stage)

Oh yeah, lets also ignore the fact that Sinn Féin utilised the conscription crisis... Lets do that.

So people voted for SF by accident?

Explain why they DIDN'T vote for the IPP then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

I thought this thread was about the RIRA? I do know why some posts are talking about 1916 but still, i think its going off topic a bit.

Keith, these threads (im not exactly on here a long time either) all turn into giant republican themed clusterfcuks featuring around a dozen posters.

A very good reason to support the northern politics forum, whee we could talk about the issues at hand and not the usual debate.

FlutterinBantam

Indeed they do.

Not helped by people taking intransigent lines and using signatures guaranteed to incense some other posters.


Time the kerb painting and bunting flying were taken out of the equation and genuine attempts to resolve issues were used.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So people voted for SF by accident?

Explain why they DIDN'T vote for the IPP then?

You accuse me of revisionism. I find it funny. You view 1918 through an historical vacuum that is only a few diva's away from being a gigantic opera, such is the rose tint in your lense. As DF has alluded too, the success of SF has far less glamourous reasons than the ones usually attributed to it by the Republican canon.

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Indeed they do.

Not helped by people taking intransigent lines and using signatures guaranteed to incense some other posters.


Time the kerb painting and bunting flying were taken out of the equation and genuine attempts to resolve issues were used.

Have a problem with my sig?

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I disagree as clearly did most people at the time.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So even when the Irish people, en masse, voted for a party who explicitly endorsed insurrection and abandoned a party who espoused parlimentariansim, they actually didn't? What patronising twaddle.

If 80% of the electorate vote SWP next time out, they are voting for socialism. Its on the tin. Not because FF are in disarray or because they are 'thugs'.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

You accuse me of revisionism. I find it funny. You view 1918 through an historical vacuum that is only a few diva's away from being a gigantic opera, such is the rose tint in your lense. As DF has alluded too, the success of SF has far less glamourous reasons than the ones usually attributed to it by the Republican canon.

Blah blah blah.

I view 1918 through the commonly accepted viewpoint - that it was a vote for an abstentionist government who explicitly stated they were going to war. You are the one arguing that the accepted historical narrative is wrong, and you will have to do better than 'people didn't understand what they were voting for'...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If its good enough for John Lee, its good enough for me!!

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Hmm. I thought you like to see things subjectively? Interpret motives? See it from 'their' side? Or is that only for dissident terrorists? Do you reserve the 'open mind' *Snigger* for murderers and thugs?

I view 1918 through the commonly accepted viewpoint - that it was a vote for an abstentionist government who explicitly stated they were going to war. You are the one arguing that the accepted historical narrative is wrong, and you will have to do better than 'people didn't understand what they were voting for'...

The mind boggles.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If its good enough for John Lee, its good enough for me!!

You have read J.J. Lee, yes? I think he would be highly amused by your simplistic interpretation of 1918.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

You have read J.J. Lee, yes? I think he would be highly amused by your simplistic interpretation of 1918.

Not as amused as he would be at your idea that the electorate ticked the wrong boxes....

Of course 1918 was a little bit more complicated than a vote for war, but its mystifying that you can't concede it was at least in part a rejection of the Home Rule movement and a mandate for SF, who were resurrectionist.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Hmm. I thought you like to see things subjectively? Interpret motives? See it from 'their' side? Or is that only for dissident terrorists? Do you reserve the 'open mind' *Snigger* for murderers and thugs?



The mind boggles.

So lets be clear here, you are saying that the crushing of the IPP was not in any way a change in attitudes towords the national question?

they didn't lose 80 of their 86 seats becasue they had gotten old and stale

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not as amused as he would be at your idea that the electorate ticked the wrong boxes....

Please show me where I said that.

Of course 1918 was a little bit more complicated than a vote for war, but its mystifying that you can't concede it was at least in part a rejection of the Home Rule movement and a mandate for SF, who were resurrectionist.

'At least in part'. A couple of minutes ago it was a flat out endorsement of revolutionary seperatism. A close study of the local campaigns paints an entirely different picture. In many constituencies, the thought of a return to war hadn't even been countenanced, by prospective MP or voter. The entire year has been washed with ahistorical justification and it has now got to the stage that if you suggest anything different to a justification of war you are automatically a revisionist.

Lee is a revisionist, and a damn good historian. The Modernisation of Irish Society is one of the most important little books by an Irish historian in donkey's years. He would scoff if he knew you were claiming him in your camp

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo

Denerick wrote: »

Ah... 1918. The great non majority endorsement of militant Republicanism. I always find it amazing how local factors are completely ignored (Such as the on the ground reality that many candidates were clearly not running on the platform of revolutionary violence, or the fact that the political wing of Sinn Féin and the military wing of the IRA were very obviously clearly at odds with one another from this early stage)

Oh yeah, lets also ignore the fact that Sinn Féin utilised the conscription crisis... Lets do that.

So the majority did not vote for Sinn Fein?
Sinn Fein did not get a majority of seats? Tell me in what way voting for Sinn Fein can be separated from giving Sinn Fein a mandate to implement its policies in this Case when the same logic dose not apply in any other case?


The IRA and the Leadership of SF were very much two sides of the same coin, Many Ira leaders were elected ad TDs and their objectives were the same. The Ira was used as an Instrument by SF. There were disagreements and the Ira could and did go and do its own thing from time to time at a local level ie Soloheadbeg but to claim that they were at odds at each other is basically incorrect. At best it is a massive exaggeration, at worst downright dishonesty.


Lets Ignore the fact that SF won a majority of seats in Ireland on the basis that they promised to set up a parliament and government in Ireland outside of British rule and that when they did this Britain used Violence to suppress it.

Denerick

deise go deo wrote: »

So the majority did not vote for Sinn Fein?

Correct. The majority of the Irish people voted for either the unionists or the Home Rulers.

The IRA and the Leadership of SF were very much two sides of the same coin,

This is simply factually inaccurate.

Many Ira leaders were elected ad TDs and their objectives were the same. The Ira was used as an Instrument by SF. There were disagreements and the Ira could and did go and do its own thing from time to time at a local level ie Soloheadbeg but to claim that they were at odds at each other is basically incorrect. At best it is a massive exaggeration, at worst downright dishonesty.

I am not suggesting there was a profound disagreement of motive between the two. But survivors of the Old IRA would have told you how much they disliked and indeed despised the political leaders of the movement, with a few exceptions. The politics and the military were completely different. The IRA was essentially a youth movement, it was a war fought and won by men in their twenties. The political leadership couldn't handle the young hotheads in the IRA, and the IRA couldn't understand the (generally youthful) politicians.

Lets Ignore the fact that SF won a majority of seats in Ireland on the basis that they promised to set up a parliament and government in Ireland outside of British rule and that when they did this Britain used Violence to suppress it.

I love the way Republicans despise Britain and everything related to it but are more than content with the anti democratic first past the post electoral system.

deise go deo

Denerick wrote: »

This is simply factually inaccurate.

Is it, Without SF there would have been no Republican landslide in 1918, Without the IRA the Dail would have been suppressed.
These men often held positions in both organisations and considered themselves to be on the same side. Its true that some IRA men had reservations in relation to the perceived cautiousness and inactivity of the political organisation and felt that they were being held back but to claim that these was anything more than minor localized disagreements is ''Simply factually inaccurate.'

I am not suggesting there was a profound disagreement of motive between the two. But survivors of the Old IRA would have told you how much they disliked and indeed despised the political leaders of the movement, with a few exceptions. The politics and the military were completely different. The IRA was essentially a youth movement, it was a war fought and won by men in their twenties. The political leadership couldn't handle the young hotheads in the IRA, and the IRA couldn't understand the (generally youthful) politicians.

You do realise that many of the Leaders of the IRA were also Leaders in SF?
Collins, MacSwiney, Mulchay to name but a few. I think its bisare to claim that the IRA and SF were ''very obviously clearly at odds with one another from this early stage'' and then use IRA mens dislike of the Political leaders as proof.
That ignores the fact that the reason for the dislike stemmed from the Civil war and the Feeling amongst many Old IRA men that the Political leaders had sold out the Republic with the Treaty. Not from a long standing and generally felt Dislike that predated the War.:rolleyes:

I love the way Republicans despise Britain and everything related to it but are more than content with the anti democratic first past the post electoral system.

I dont despise Britain or its people, I can see that what was done in this country in the past was wrong, I prefer the PR system actually, I have to accept that the election was run that way, I cant go back and change it, The system that was used dosent change the fact that SF won the majority of seats from a starting point of nothing.
If first past the post made SF's victory somehow less valid then surely it also makes the victory's of the IPP before it less valid too?

Do you disagree that the majority of people who Voted for SF were voting for their stated policy of setting up a Government in Ireland free of British (mis)Rule

Was the Dail legitimate in being the Government of Ireland when it was set up, given that those who formed it were democratically elected by the Irish people and had a mandate to set up such a government and finally Do you think that Britain had the right to suppress this Government with Violence?

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

Correct. The majority of the Irish people voted for either the unionists or the Home Rulers.

There were a few IPP strongholds left in 1918 - But they had very clearly lost a huge base of their voters. Unionists continued to be a small minority of the electorate.

While technically - the Irish Unionist Party and the Irish Parliamentary Party had 47% of the vote, Sinn Féin had 46.9% of the vote.

If you look at the results in terms of seats won - Sinn Féin most certainly did have the majority of seats with almost 70% of all seats won.

In anycase - there were pacts between Home Rulers and Sinn Féin in certain constituencies - because they both viewed the higher goal of Irish independence as a more important issue.

Going from a complete political unknown to capturing almost 70% of the seats in the space of a few years is surely a remarkable one.

Denerick

deise go deo wrote: »

Is it, Without SF there would have been no Republican landslide in 1918, Without the IRA the Dail would have been suppressed.

The first meeting of Dáil Eireann was guarded by a couple of RIC men so that the proceedings of the gathered representatives of the Westminster parliament could proceed uninhibited. One of the more humourous incidents in the run up to the war of independence. You are correct, the IRA existed so as to serve Dáil Eireann, an oath they broke when they abandoned the decision of the Dáil in relation to the treaty. Does this particular fact interfere with your logic at all?

These men often held positions in both organisations and considered themselves to be on the same side. Its true that some IRA men had reservations in relation to the perceived cautiousness and inactivity of the political organisation and felt that they were being held back but to claim that these was anything more than minor localized disagreements is ''Simply factually inaccurate.'

You do realise that many of the Leaders of the IRA were also Leaders in SF?
Collins, MacSwiney, Mulchay to name but a few. I think its bisare to claim that the IRA and SF were ''very obviously clearly at odds with one another from this early stage'' and then use IRA mens dislike of the Political leaders as proof.

I'm more than aware of that, thank you. While you can ream of a list of military leaders involved in the political movement, I can ream off political leaders not involved in the military movement - Cosgrave, O'Higgens, McNeil. Griffith among others. There were diverse aims between the military leaders at any rate. Tom Barry's influence in the party for example was neglible.

I dont despise Britain or its people, I can see that what was done in this country in the past was wrong, I prefer the PR system actually, I have to accept that the election was run that way, I cant go back and change it, The system that was used dosent change the fact that SF won the majority of seats from a starting point of nothing.
If first past the post made SF's victory somehow less valid then surely it also makes the victory's of the IPP before it less valid too?

The IPP were winning clear pluralities of the popular vote prior to this, so I don't know what point you are making.

Do you disagree that the majority of people who Voted for SF were voting for their stated policy of setting up a Government in Ireland free of British (mis)Rule

Kinda. I doubt many really thought it would lead to violence though. Undoubtedly there was wide support for the principle of abstentionist agitation - shades of O'Connells 'Corn Hall Parliament' perhaps. This is very different from an authorisation for the use of force.

Was the Dail legitimate in being the Government of Ireland when it was set up, given that those who formed it were democratically elected by the Irish people and had a mandate to set up such a government and finally Do you think that Britain had the right to suppress this Government with Violence?

1) The Dáil was not legitimate as it purported to represent the minority of the popular vote who voted for SF. It was essentially a meeting of the SF party, with a few Labour party members running around and given the chance to shape the odd declaration here or there. Considering that a body was convened so as to be the first representatives of an independent Irish parliament, I find it rather odd that it ended up being a bit more like a Sinn Féin Conference.

2) Britain certainly had a right from a whollely logical view to suppress the Dáil, according to any interpretation of any treason law ever devised by man. I personally feel it was wrong and wrong headed to do so. But I doubt many members of SF were surprised when it was - I doubt anyone in the world was surprised when the British Empire moved to suppress the Dáil. What state in its right mind would allow a declaration of seccession to go by without clamping down on it?

Anyway, my opinions on the war of independence are by and large less vociforous than on the Easter Rising, eventually we'll end agreeing with each other around 1922 (Assuming you would have supported the Treaty)

Denerick

dlofnep wrote: »

There were a few IPP strongholds left in 1918 - But they had very clearly lost a huge base of their voters. Unionists continued to be a small minority of the electorate.

While technically - the Irish Unionist Party and the Irish Parliamentary Party had 47% of the vote, Sinn Féin had 46.9% of the vote.

If you look at the results in terms of seats won - Sinn Féin most certainly did have the majority of seats with almost 70% of all seats won.

In anycase - there were pacts between Home Rulers and Sinn Féin in certain constituencies - because they both viewed the higher goal of Irish independence as a more important issue.

Going from a complete political unknown to capturing almost 70% of the seats in the space of a few years is surely a remarkable one.

Aha! You are an admirer of that inveterate British disease, the first past the post system. I should have known.

I'm not claiming the SF landslide of 1918 (Which it was, at any case) wasn't remarkable. I'm just saying it didn't happen within an historical vacuum or that it legitimises any subsequent violence. The reason I take such an interest in the election is because generations of terrorists have used its legacy to further their own campaign of madness. Which led me to come to condemn the root cause of evil in Ireland - Easter 1916...

deise go deo

Denerick wrote: »

The first meeting of Dáil Eireann was guarded by a couple of RIC men so that the proceedings of the gathered representatives of the Westminster parliament could proceed uninhibited. One of the more humourous incidents in the run up to the war of independence. You are correct, the IRA existed so as to serve Dáil Eireann, an oath they broke when they abandoned the decision of the Dáil in relation to the treaty. Does this particular fact interfere with your logic at all?

Sorry but facts seam to have failed you, The IRA never broke their oath, then never swore to serve the Dail, They swore to serve the republic.

I'm more than aware of that, thank you. While you can ream of a list of military leaders involved in the political movement, I can ream off political leaders not involved in the military movement - Cosgrave, O'Higgens, McNeil. Griffith among others. There were diverse aims between the military leaders at any rate. Tom Barry's influence in the party for example was neglible.

That there were political leaders not directly involved in the IRA dosent mean they were at odds with one another, What issues sparked such high tensions at that time?

Tom Barrys influence on anything in 1918 was negligible considering he dident join the IRA till 1919.

Kinda. I doubt many really thought it would lead to violence though. Undoubtedly there was wide support for the principle of abstentionist agitation - shades of O'Connells 'Corn Hall Parliament' perhaps. This is very different from an authorisation for the use of force.



1) The Dáil was not legitimate as it purported to represent the minority of the popular vote who voted for SF. It was essentially a meeting of the SF party, with a few Labour party members running around and given the chance to shape the odd declaration here or there. Considering that a body was convened so as to be the first representatives of an independent Irish parliament, I find it rather odd that it ended up being a bit more like a Sinn Féin Conference.

The popular vote was not what political legitimacy was derived from at the time, as you should know, it was how many seats they held.
The representatives that were elected by the Irish people were elected on the basis of setting up a new government and had a mandate to do so from the people who voted them in. Sinn Fein TD's had a mandate to set up such a government, To not do so would have been going against the wishes of the people who elected them.

That the government then set up derived its legitimacy from a democratic election it was the legitimate government of Ireland, While I accept that not every vote cast for SF in 1918 was a vote for war, A fact accepted by IRA men afterwards, the Government that was set up was a legitimate national government and had the right to defend its self from armed aggregation from another government.

Take for example The US Involvement in WWII, Americans who voted for FDR were not voting to enter WWII, that fact dose not however make their involvement in WWII illegitimate dose it?

2) Britain certainly had a right from a whollely logical view to suppress the Dáil, according to any interpretation of any treason law ever devised by man. I personally feel it was wrong and wrong headed to do so. But I doubt many members of SF were surprised when it was - I doubt anyone in the world was surprised when the British Empire moved to suppress the Dáil. What state in its right mind would allow a declaration of seccession to go by without clamping down on it?

Britain had the right to violently suppress the will of the Irish electorate being carried out, Sorry, I have to disagree.

Anyway, my opinions on the war of independence are by and large less vociforous than on the Easter Rising, eventually we'll end agreeing with each other around 1922 (Assuming you would have supported the Treaty)

My stance on the treaty is complex, as indeed is the issue its self. Personally I feel that it would have been better had the War continued longer as the IRA was gaining in strength when the Truce was declared, Personally, while I accept that Collins truly believed that the Treaty was 'the freedom to win freedom' I think that when it became clear that a Civil War was unavoidable if the Treaty was upheld he should have thrown out the treaty and faced the the British as that would have been better than ripping the Nation asunder for dominion status.

I assume you hold the Anti-Treaty side to be the Wrong doers in the whole affair but from reading about the time it seams to me that it was the free staters who caused the Civil War by breaking the pact.

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

Aha! You are an admirer of that inveterate British disease, the first past the post system. I should have known.

I'm not claiming the SF landslide of 1918 (Which it was, at any case) wasn't remarkable. I'm just saying it didn't happen within an historical vacuum or that it legitimises any subsequent violence. The reason I take such an interest in the election is because generations of terrorists have used its legacy to further their own campaign of madness. Which led me to come to condemn the root cause of evil in Ireland - Easter 1916...

Then surely by your logic, the root cause of evil in Ireland is British rule and it's legacy? In the interests of being fair and balanced with your logic. To attribute the root cause of evil in Ireland to the Easter Rising and not the centuries of injustice that occurred prior to it and after it, is thoroughly skewed.

Denerick

dlofnep wrote: »

Then surely by your logic, the root cause of evil in Ireland is British rule and it's legacy? In the interests of being fair and balanced with your logic. To attribute the root cause of evil in Ireland to the Easter Rising and not the centuries of injustice that occurred prior to it and after it, is thoroughly skewed.

I've said what I think about the quasi fascist nature of Irish Republicanism several times, how it rests on retrospective justification, how it lauds violence as a means to an end above all others (Constitutionalism is a 'contaminate that will infect the Fenian movement and ruin morale' after all) I find the entire idea of it all to be incredibly boring and archaic. Nationalism is an anachronism, belongs to an earlier age. Who cares if we are governed by France, Britain, America, China or Nigeria so long as we have personal liberty?

dlofnep

Denerick wrote: »

I've said what I think about the quasi fascist nature of Irish Republicanism several times, how it rests on retrospective justification, how it lauds violence as a means to an end above all others (Constitutionalism is a 'contaminate that will infect the Fenian movement and ruin morale' after all) I find the entire idea of it all to be incredibly boring and archaic. Nationalism is an anachronism, belongs to an earlier age. Who cares if we are governed by France, Britain, America, China or Nigeria so long as we have personal liberty?

You conveniently skewed past my question.

Moreover - "Personal Liberty" isn't the only defining factor of a desirable Government. Not that personal liberty existed under British rule. Up until 1970's, Irish people were still marching for civil rights in the north.

When you attribute the Easter Rising as the root cause of evil in Ireland - You are not only beyond hyperbole - you are bordering on the ridiculous. I don't expect you to respect Irish Republicanism - But I do expect you to be reasoned and balanced with your logic. You are neither of those.