Authenticity of the Ulster Covenant ??

HellsAngel

The 1912 Ulster Covenant is alleged to have been signed by half a million individual Ulster unionists. However I have heard that under examination many of the signatures were signed by one person putting down the names of their family, friends, neighbors, Mickey Mouse whatever. And also many of the books were sent to be signed in Scotland and Canada not to mention other parts of Ireland. Anyone have any links or knowledge of this ??

It should also be pointed out that the Ulster Unionist Council who organized the signing meant it for the nine Ulster counties and representatives on it were also drawn from Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan. However despite the usual threats of "bloodbath's, no surrender, not an inch etc " their brethren in the other six counties barely issued a murmur about losing 1/3 of Ulster and ditching their brethren in Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan.

BTW, can we keep this thread on topic and not have wannabe funny guys attempting to drag it off topic with unrelated posts on what the IRA did or didn't do during 1969 - 1994 etc as it bears practically zero in relation to the Ulster Covenant in 1912

owenc

Yes the covenant was sent to Scotland and Canada aswell as England and the USA according to proni there was 23 signatures in the USA 56 in Canada and 64 in Scotland

HellsAngel

owenc wrote: »

Yes the covenant was sent to Scotland and Canada aswell as England and the USA according to proni there was 23 signatures in the USA 56 in Canada and 64 in Scotland

:eek: Only 23 signatures in the USA 56 in Canada and 64 in Scotland - and time and time again I hear from unionists how they are supposed to have so many supporters there

Anyway, have you the link regarding the above numbers in USA, Scotland Canada etc ??

CDfm

OK, the Ulster Covenant was a big dea and I am not trying to lessen its importance in any way.

A few things do cross my mind.

A Covenant is a very powerful word and is almost religious a bit more than an oath or a promise.

Half a million is a massive number.

The logistics of collecting half a million signatures is massive and what criteria were used.

Who was eligible to sign ? At that time you did not have universal suffrage and I estimated before that only around 30 % or so of men actually had thr right to vote.

Could women sign ?

Was it organised as a "plebsicate" and how was it monitored.?

What was the total population from which signatures were collected i.e. what would have been the maximum amount.

Is the half a million figure credible versus the voting patterns of voters in the electotate.

500,000 is a massive figure as part of a movement as popular support.

Xxsparkyxx

CDfm wrote: »

OK, the Ulster Covenant was a big dea and I am not trying to lessen its importance in any way.

A few things do cross my mind.

A Covenant is a very powerful word and is almost religious a bit more than an oath or a promise.

Half a million is a massive number.

The logistics of collecting half a million signatures is massive and what criteria were used.

Who was eligible to sign ? At that time you did not have universal suffrage and I estimated before that only around 30 % or so of men actually had thr right to vote.

Could women sign ?

Was it organised as a "plebsicate" and how was it monitored.?

What was the total population from which signatures were collected i.e. what would have been the maximum amount.

Is the half a million figure credible versus the voting patterns of voters in the electotate.

500,000 is a massive figure as part of a movement as popular support.

I think women were allowed to sign but they signed a different document to the men.

Xxsparkyxx

CDfm wrote: »

OK, the Ulster Covenant was a big dea and I am not trying to lessen its importance in any way.

A few things do cross my mind.

A Covenant is a very powerful word and is almost religious a bit more than an oath or a promise.

Half a million is a massive number.

The logistics of collecting half a million signatures is massive and what criteria were used.

Who was eligible to sign ? At that time you did not have universal suffrage and I estimated before that only around 30 % or so of men actually had thr right to vote.

Could women sign ?

Was it organised as a "plebsicate" and how was it monitored.?

What was the total population from which signatures were collected i.e. what would have been the maximum amount.

Is the half a million figure credible versus the voting patterns of voters in the electotate.

500,000 is a massive figure as part of a movement as popular support.

I think women were allowed to sign but they signed a different document to the men.

CDfm

Xxsparkyxx wrote: »

I think women were allowed to sign but they signed a different document to the men.

insteresting - did the unionists have a votes for women policy ?

owenc

Hi i know quite a bit about the covenant. Nearly everyone around here signed it, it was very important to us everyone in my family signed it woman and men together. I believe the woman had to sign a different covenant to the men though. Usually the covenants were either signed in the local orange hall, town hall,presbyterian church or a manse. People as young as 15 had to sign it.

Here is a womans sample from here:
http://applications.proni.gov.uk/UlsterCovenant/image.aspx?image=W0015920003

Here is a mans sample from here:
http://applications.proni.gov.uk/UlsterCovenant/image.aspx?image=M0015090001

Here is a picture of the actual covenant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yournlireland/5721715125/

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

insteresting - did the unionists have a votes for women policy ?

What do you mean? You didn't vote it was a covenant to stop home rule.

owenc

HellsAngel wrote: »

:eek: Only 23 signatures in the USA 56 in Canada and 64 in Scotland - and time and time again I hear from unionists how they are supposed to have so many supporters there

Anyway, have you the link regarding the above numbers in USA, Scotland Canada etc ??

Yes we do have support but i don't think it was widely available to sign. Nearly everyone signed it here it was very important... for example here in the north londonderry constituency nearly 17,000 people signed it which shows the support it had.

http://applications.proni.gov.uk/UlsterCovenant/SearchResults.aspx

Interestingly we had more signatures than north antrim! :P As-well as most of the other antrim constituencies the only one to beat us was mid antrim.

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

Hi i know quite a bit about the covenant. Nearly everyone around here signed it, it was very important to us everyone in my family signed it woman and men together. I believe the woman had to sign a different covenant to the men though. Usually the covenants were either signed in the local orange hall, town hall,presbyterian church or a manse. People as young as 15 had to sign it.

Interesting that you say had to sign it and it was something you did as part of your community.

Now I am not implying coercion but it was not a democratic era anywhere

In 1900 there was not a single country in the world that would qualify as a democracy by today’s standards. As of January 2000, there were 120 democracies, the highest number in the history of the world.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7310

Here is a womans sample from here:
http://applications.proni.gov.uk/UlsterCovenant/image.aspx?image=W0015920003

Here is a mans sample from here:
http://applications.proni.gov.uk/UlsterCovenant/image.aspx?image=M0015090001

Here is a picture of the actual covenant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yournlireland/5721715125/

Thanks for the links -the guys signed as citizens and the women as loyal subjects.

Its an aside really as the suffargette and suffragist movements had gained ground i.e. the Labour Party and I wonder if it was part Unionism.

owenc wrote: »

What do you mean? You didn't vote it was a covenant to stop home rule.

What was the composition of the unionist leadership in your opinion -did it comprise the people or the establishment.

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

Interesting that you say had to sign it and it was something you did as part of your community.

Now I am not implying coercion but it was not a democratic era anywhere






Thanks for the links -the guys signed as citizens and the women as loyal subjects.

Its an aside really as the suffargette and suffragist movements had gained ground i.e. the Labour Party and I wonder if it was part Unionism.



What was the composition of the unionist leadership in your opinion -did it comprise the people or the establishment.

no i didn't mean it that way... i don't think it would've affected it anyway because the kids would've picked up the parents political views anyway and if they didn't sign it they would've probably got battered because its disrespectful to your family not signing it. As for your question I personally believe the unionist leadership comprised the establishment and it still does here and everywhere else the people don't get a say in what happens in any country. (not that it mean't if they signed it or not)

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

no i didn't mean it that way...

I didn't mean it in a perjorative way more like a peer pressure thing in an emerging situation and a potentially new ruling class. You can't compare it with today.

Xxsparkyxx

The unionist women had a suffragette movement aswell didn't they?I can't remember the name of the leader it's on the tip of my tongue:/

It's interesting about the authenticity of the covenant.I never heard the argument before although I have only read a little on the subject of the home rule crisis.it certainly meant alot to theunionists though some even signed it in their own blood.
I have read quite a bit about the history of NI in general though and while perhaps pressure within the community played into it a bit I think ultimately it was something that was instilled in people due to family and their environment...same with the nationalists!

HellsAngel

owenc wrote: »

Yes we do have support but i don't think it was widely available to sign. Nearly everyone signed it here it was very important... for example here in the north londonderry constituency nearly 17,000 people signed it which shows the support it had.

http://applications.proni.gov.uk/UlsterCovenant/SearchResults.aspx

Interestingly we had more signatures than north antrim! :P As-well as most of the other antrim constituencies the only one to beat us was mid antrim.

You mean it was probably more like 4,000 signed it but also wrote down the names of their family, neighbours, drinking buddies, Mickey Mouse etc. Another unionist sacred cow slaughtered, just like "million unionists in NI" - when in fact their's never been a million of them or anywhere near it

HellsAngel

Xxsparkyxx wrote: »

The unionist women had a suffragette movement aswell didn't they?I can't remember the name of the leader it's on the tip of my tongue:/

Not putting you down Xxsparkyxx and don't want to drag the subject off topic but anway, I'm not aware of a unionist sufferagette movement, but the only women's unionist movement I can think of is the Association of Loyal Orange Women whose first meeting was held in 'loyal' Dublin

The sufferagette movement in Ireland was mainly run by nationalist women through such organisations such as the Ladies Land League founded by Anna Parnell, and later ofcourse firey Republicans such as Countess Markiewicz and Maud Gonne McBride.

It's interesting about the authenticity of the covenant.I never heard the argument before although I have only read a little on the subject of the home rule crisis.it certainly meant alot to theunionists though some even signed it in their own blood.
I have read quite a bit about the history of NI in general though and while perhaps pressure within the community played into it a bit I think ultimately it was something that was instilled in people due to family and their environment...same with the nationalists!

Allegedly Carson and others are supposed to have signed it in their own blood. Interesting that the unionists wanted a southerner interfairing in the affairs of ' Northern Ireland ' isn 't it.

*Loyal Orange Women http://lol52.club24.co.uk/orange/owomen.html

owenc

HellsAngel wrote: »

You mean it was probably more like 4,000 signed it but also wrote down the names of their family, neighbours, drinking buddies, Mickey Mouse etc. Another unionist sacred cow slaughtered, just like "million unionists in NI" - when in fact their's never been a million of them or anywhere near it

Excuse me how dare you! Who hell gives you the right to tell us all how it was. :mad: Republicans as usual at their dirty tricks trying to downplay everything. :rolleyes: You don't have a clue what your talking about. I'm sick of republicans and people generally down south trying to tell us how it is and how we are all wrong when really you all don't have a clue what the hell its like here so just shut up and let the natives talk. :mad: :rolleyes: Half of yous haven't even been to northern ireland anyway. The covenant was very important if it was not signed all hell would break loose and their would be a riot! People here would not have like to join your country. Everyone signed it and everyone was present at signing it no one else signed it for them and you can look at the individual signatures and compare them if you like. Also i'm nearly sure they had to provide some type of identification to sign it as-well. Very disrespectful in my opinion.

Xxsparkyxx

Orite lol I apologise if I'm wrong il have to drag up my old history book and have a look as I said the facts on this area area are sketchy to me:)I could of sworn though that hannah sheey skeffington had a counterpart on The unionist side!maybe I'm mixing it up with the uk suffragette movement!!:)

Xxsparkyxx

I think the covenant is a very significant document in irish history both for northern Ireland and the south.it was a pledge to resist home rule by force if necessary.the same year the ulster volunteer force was founded.in 1913 as a consequence of the formation of the UVF the Irish volunteer force was founded in the south.now you had two sides with diametrically opposing aims facing eachother. Since 1868 on
The republican side anyway violence
For political aims had all but disappeared.by 1913 pearse (who used to be a home ruler)became a separatist in
Favour of violence to achieve complete separation of Britain. This all came out of the threat of the covenant and the UVF. It changed the course of irish history!


It's not really fair to label everyone down south as republicans. I'm a history student...I try to look at things objectively. I have read a few books and articles from the unionist perspective aswell:/

I have been to NI.maybe it's not the case
In all areas but the atmosphere is still kinda tense:/

MarchDub

Numbers aside Graham Walker in his History of the Ulster Unionist Party has some insightful comments to make on the place the Covenant played in shaping a separate ‘Ulster’ identity.

The Covenant demonstrated the radical populism defining Ulster Unionism, the notion of the sovereign people, which arguably derived in large part from a history of grievance felt in particular by Presbyterians. Ian McBridie has identified this in relation to the Siege of Derry commemorations; it might be said that it also was instrumental in the making of the ‘Ulsterman’ and the shaping of an ethnic consciousness around notions of contracts and rights, and entitlements to separate treatment. Donald Atkinson’s study of the Ulster-Scots has illuminated such themes in the course of advancing the thesis that Ulster-Scots Presbyterians derive their world view from Old Testament scriptures. ..

It might also be added that this reached its height in the 1912-14 period when Presbyterian ethno-history and Scottish aspects of Ulster’s makeup were pressed tellingly into service for Ulster Unionism. This involved obscuring other aspects of Ulster which did not fit the needs of the time and ‘ironing out' the complexities of the past.

Also the issue of the willingness to use violence as means of stopping Home Rule. It was shortly after the signing of the Covenant that the UDF was formed.

Implicit in the text of the Covenant was the belief that all methods, including force, would be justified in the pursuit of the defeat of Home Rule.

owenc

MarchDub wrote: »

Numbers aside Graham Walker in his History of the Ulster Unionist Party has some insightful comments to make on the place the Covenant played in shaping a separate ‘Ulster’ identity.

Also the issue of the willingness to use violence as means of stopping Home Rule. It was shortly after the signing of the Covenant that the UDF was formed.

I'm not going to disagree that it did help develop an identity. But there was always an ulster identity. People up here spoke totally differently (partly due to isolation from the rest of the island) they didn't really have any links with yous and of course we had different traditions so i believe it has just strengthened and it still continues too. Because of the way the thing is set up we have always been isolated from yous so i think it will continue to form. When you compare the belfast to the dublin accent its extremely different, yes i know that cork is different but we have a totally different way of speaking like we do not pronounce the words the same cork does etc. When you look at words like three you people pronounce it like "tree" and we pronounce it more like the actual word, differences like that etc.

owenc

Heres a bit about ulster english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_English

Some parts are wrong but the most of it is correct.

Also this : http://www.craigavonhistoricalsociety.org.uk/rev/kellyenglandulst.html

MarchDub

owenc wrote: »

I'm not going to disagree that it did help develop an identity. But there was always an ulster identity. People up here spoke totally differently (partly due to isolation from the rest of the island) they didn't really have any links with yous and of course we had different traditions so i believe it has just strengthened and it still continues too. Because of the way the thing is set up we have always been isolated from yous so i think it will continue to form. When you compare the belfast to the dublin accent its extremely different, yes i know that cork is different but we have a totally different way of speaking like we do not pronounce the words the same cork does etc. When you look at words like three you people pronounce it like "tree" and we pronounce it more like the actual word, differences like that etc.

Owen I wouldn't disagree with you on that point. I think the point that Walker is making is that it helped to mobilise that sense and make it a cohesive political force.

I find his comments interesting though especially in the face of a counter 'Gaelic' and 'Celtic' identify being fostered in the rest of the country via the 'Celtic Renaissance' work of the 1890s Gaelic Leaguers, GAA etc.

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

Excuse me how dare you! Who hell gives you the right to tell us all how it was.

I think the point is that it was not an election with a secret ballot and was far more than a survey and was open to abuse.

While it might be difficult for you to prove that did not take place the method of signiture collection is important and you can use other sources.

Now you could seek to verify your figures against subsequent elections and against the actual population census of 1901 and 1911 to confirm its accuracy.

You do have other sources available.

Xxsparkyxx wrote: »

Orite lol I apologise if I'm wrong il have to drag up my old history book and have a look as I said the facts on this area area are sketchy to me:)I could of sworn though that hannah sheey skeffington had a counterpart on The unionist side!maybe I'm mixing it up with the uk suffragette movement!!:)

It would surprise me if there wasn't and you should keep digging.

Sir Edward Carson was against votes for women as was John Redmond of the Irish Parlimentary Party -though he did not want it to distract from the Home Rule issue.

You did not have 100% male suffrage either -probably around 30 or so percent of men had the vote so "suffrage" was viewed as a seperate political issue.

owenc wrote: »

I'm not going to disagree that it did help develop an identity. But there was always an ulster identity. People up here spoke totally differently (partly due to isolation from the rest of the island) they didn't really have any links with yous and of course we had different traditions so i believe it has just strengthened and it still continues too. Because of the way the thing is set up we have always been isolated from yous so i think it will continue to form. When you compare the belfast to the dublin accent its extremely different, yes i know that cork is different but we have a totally different way of speaking like we do not pronounce the words the same cork does etc. When you look at words like three you people pronounce it like "tree" and we pronounce it more like the actual word, differences like that etc.

Until recently the Wicklow & Wexford accents were very similar to the Northern Irish accents .

And you had a dialect of Old English called Yola spoken in parts of Wexford until the mid 19th Century

http://saiminu.blogspot.com/2008/09/language-more-on-yola-language.html

So while you may consider your identity seperate -it is not unique and you have protestant communities in areas of West Cork like Bandon etc . They are a lot more open nowadays.

owenc

CDfm wrote: »

I think the point is that it was not an election with a secret ballot and was far more than a survey and was open to abuse.

While it might be difficult for you to prove that did not take place the method of signiture collection is important and you can use other sources.

Now you could seek to verify your figures against subsequent elections and against the actual population census of 1901 and 1911 to confirm its accuracy.

You do have other sources available.



It would surprise me if there wasn't and you should keep digging.

Sir Edward Carson was against votes for women as was John Redmond of the Irish Parlimentary Party -though he did not want it to distract from the Home Rule issue.

You did not have 100% male suffrage either -probably around 30 or so percent of men had the vote so "suffrage" was viewed as a seperate political issue.



Until recently the Wicklow & Wexford accents were very similar to the Northern Irish accents .

And you had a dialect of Old English called Yola spoken in parts of Wexford until the mid 19th Century

http://saiminu.blogspot.com/2008/09/language-more-on-yola-language.html

So while you may consider your identity seperate -it is not unique and you have protestant communities in areas of West Cork like Bandon etc . They are a lot more open nowadays.

How do you expect me to prove its accuracy county out all the protestants in the 1911 census? As for the wexford accent sounding like us yeah right you can't pull that one off. :pac: We are still unique we developed english differently to down south because we had the influence of english, welsh and scottish people aswell as the isolation from the rest of the island as already stated.

owenc

Have you got any clips so i can hear it to see? Have you actually heard an ulster scots accent lol? EDIT: just looked it up on wikipedia and the words are foreign to me i cannot understand it at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yola_language It looks a tad german.

Cavehill Red

The Covenant was a major issue. It would be incorrect to assume fraud or coercion. It was a mass movement in opposition to Home Rule. In my own family, there are two Presbyterians who didn't sign while the rest did, indicating that it was very much a personal decision for most. On the Catholic side, there is one that signed, indicating that, perhaps cognate with Catholics voting Unionist today, there is always a small percentage from both communities who relate to the political values of the other.
It's a highly useful historical document, and I've found it helpful in identifying where family members were at that time. It's almost like a mini-Unionist census.

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

How do you expect me to prove its accuracy county out all the protestants in the 1911 census?

I am not suggesting you do it know but if you do come accross election results or statistics in your reading for the era you will be able to cross check the data.

EDIT - It would surprise me if this has not been covered by someone.

When you find a source or check the facts you will know them and have a source for whenever you see this again. Simples.

We are still unique we developed english differently to down south because we had the influence of english, welsh and scottish people aswell as the isolation from the rest of the island as already stated.

All places were different in their own way.

As for the wexford accent sounding like us yeah right you can't pull that one off.

I am not a linguist but Hiberno English is a mid 19th Century thing and my aunt used to speak a bit of Yola and had prayers and hymns and childrens rhymes in it.

Everywhere else was a region and dialects werent standardised into RTE Speak until recently.

The population of the south was not homogenous either and the english spoken may have been influenced by the region a regiment garrisoning it was from in England and if it was settled/planted the date it was settled and the origan of the settlers/planters.

CDfm

owenc wrote: »

Have you got any clips so i can hear it to see? Have you actually heard an ulster scots accent lol? EDIT: just looked it up on wikipedia and the words are foreign to me i cannot understand it at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yola_language It looks a tad german.

No clips I am afraid and it is old english which was a tad german

CDfm

Xxsparkyxx wrote: »

Orite lol I apologise if I'm wrong il have to drag up my old history book and have a look as I said the facts on this area area are sketchy to me:)I could of sworn though that hannah sheey skeffington had a counterpart on The unionist side!maybe I'm mixing it up with the uk suffragette movement!!:)

I had an inkling too and came up with this

Suffragette mayhem


I had no idea the Suffragettes were so active in Northern Ireland until Jenny and I went on a tour of Belfast's Crumlin Road Gaol and discovered that many suffragettes were sent there for bombings and arson attacks.

The gaol is no longer in use, but in the early 19th century militant women campaigning for the right to vote were often inmates.

There were the same moderate and militant factions that existed in the movement generally. It was the more forceful women who planted bombs, set fire to buildings, destroyed mail in post boxes and smashed windows.

They included Dorothy Evans and Madge Muir who were arrested for possessing explosive materials.

During the court hearing, Dorothy Evans put up so much resistance she had to be restrained by six constables and the hearing had to be reconvened in Crumlin Road Gaol.

Remanded in custody, they promptly went on hunger strike and were released.

Then they hired a car, decorated it with suffragette flags and drove defiantly round Belfast before being rearrested.

http://nickhereandnow.blogspot.com/search/label/Crumlin%20Road%20Gaol

It mentions the Crumlin Road website and links though I havent been able to have a look.

HellsAngel

owenc wrote: »

Excuse me how dare you! Who hell gives you the right to tell us all how it was. :mad: Republicans as usual at their dirty tricks trying to downplay everything. :rolleyes: You don't have a clue what your talking about. I'm sick of republicans and people generally down south trying to tell us how it is and how we are all wrong when really you all don't have a clue what the hell its like here so just shut up and let the natives talk. :mad: :rolleyes: Half of yous haven't even been to northern ireland anyway. The covenant was very important if it was not signed all hell would break loose and their would be a riot! People here would not have like to join your country. Everyone signed it and everyone was present at signing it no one else signed it for them and you can look at the individual signatures and compare them if you like. Also i'm nearly sure they had to provide some type of identification to sign it as-well. Very disrespectful in my opinion.

Forgive me for thinking owenc is a nationalist pretending to be a a unionist trying his best to bring ridicule upon unionism !!!!!