Would you wear an Easter Lily?

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

The so called armed struggle (Terrorist Campaign) in Northern Ireland/The ROI & Britain was never justified, .........

...in your opinion.

TheLastMohican

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and yet you quite happily wear the Lilly, despite it glorifying people who carried out their own atrocities.:rolleyes:

we've been here before Nodin. you do not have the right to critcise the poppy if you wear the Lilly.

If the British Army had not been in India, some of it's soldiers would not have been killed by Indian 'terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Aden, they would not have been killed by Yemeni "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Afghanistan (a few times) they would not have been killed by Afghani "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in America they would not have been killed by American Revolutionary "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Cyprus they would not have been killed by Cypriot "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 32 Counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 6 counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".

There are two constants here. The British Army and "terrorists".
Reading The Daily Telegraph, one would assume that the British Army were the victims. Fratton Fred, what are your thoughts on the above? Do Poppy wearers agree with the British invasions above?

TheLastMohican

Falthyron wrote: »

Ireland's history/memory is still selective. We choose to acknowledge/accept the parts of history that suit our cause for recognition of independence; 1798, Grattan's Parliament, The Famine, Parnell's Home Rule Party, 1916, War of Independence, etc. However, we don't take time to recognise and be proud of other moments in history, or people of significant repute who were Irish and contributed to world history, Richard Kane comes to mind.

Nobody wants to hear about 500,000 people turning out in Dublin to welcome Queen Victoria after The Famine, or the fact that she personally donated more money to famine relief than the Catholic Church. Nobody wants to talk about all the Irish who fought in WW2 against the Nazis because they signed up with 'the enemy'. Nobody wants to question why the 1916 rebels were openly rejected by the Irish people when the rebellion occurred - it took executions for treason to cause a more favourable reaction to the Irish cause. Nobody wants to discuss the fact that more Irish people died from pillaging and raiding rival clans, and inter-clan conflicts within the Irish countryside than at the hands of British soldiers.

Our history begins in 1922, and the only records we choose to observe of time before that are records demonstrating Ireland's ultimate cause for independence and how we longed for it for 800 years. The truth is, our independence was always a minority's cause, and most people in Ireland were happy with the status quo.

If you really want to understand history, you need to see all sides, all arguments, and all the facts - not just the one.

That's your's out the window straight away.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

...not really. An awful lot is romanticised by distance and/or time. Any violent conflict is a nasty business which inevitably will feature innocents being hurt and killed, abuses etc. Thus, the question must arise at the offset - is armed struggle justified? Given the reaction of the authorities to peaceful protest, it was felt that it was.

I can think of no major acheivement for Irish independence that was acheived through war rather than Westminster.

1916 was to any honest interpretation a terrorist attack that held a city to ransom against its will. There isn't a noble interpretation of it that I can think of.

The War of Independence was a pointless shedding of blood.

We could go through the previous but you get my point.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

...not really. An awful lot is romanticised by distance and/or time. Any violent conflict is a nasty business which inevitably will feature innocents being hurt and killed, abuses etc. Thus, the question must arise at the offset - is armed struggle justified? Given the reaction of the authorities to peaceful protest, it was felt that it was.

Some people still think it is, yet you condemn them. So who gets to choose?

Are any acts in a supposedly justified campaign acceptable? Is this how you reconcile the atrocities carried out by republicans? Or is it by pretending the peaceful protests and the terrorist campaign were connected? Because we all know the IRA had no interest in civil rights.

Thomas_I

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... Then do what the Americans did and make your own, sell them and put the money towards the Irish armed forces retirement fund. My counter example is only being used to show that the poppy is not a British symbol. It's international.
...
Yes, yes it is. The British selling poppies does not make it a British symbol. I really don't understand your mentality.

We don´t have it here in Germany, so that internationality applies probably for the Commonwealth Nations, maybe the French have it too (but I don´t know). We´ve a different symbol to commemorate the fallen of both world wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_War_Graves_Commission

Their logo is on display of some button sized pins, sold for an individual chosen donation every year from 30. October to 01. November.

Fratton Fred

TheLastMohican wrote: »

If the British Army had not been in India, some of it's soldiers would not have been killed by Indian 'terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Aden, they would not have been killed by Yemeni "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Afghanistan (a few times) they would not have been killed by Afghani "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in America they would not have been killed by American Revolutionary "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Cyprus they would not have been killed by Cypriot "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 32 Counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 6 counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".

There are two constants here. The British Army and "terrorists".
Reading The Daily Telegraph, one would assume that the British Army were the victims. Fratton Fred, what are your thoughts on the above? Do Poppy wearers agree with the British invasions above?

Ah, the good old "Warrington was ok because the British had an empire" line it didn't take long.

The Lilly doesn't just glorify those that killed soldiers, it glorifies those that committed atrocities.

Morally, it is no different to the poppy.

Happyman42

TheLastMohican wrote: »

If the British Army had not been in India, some of it's soldiers would not have been killed by Indian 'terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Aden, they would not have been killed by Yemeni "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Afghanistan (a few times) they would not have been killed by Afghani "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in America they would not have been killed by American Revolutionary "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in Cyprus they would not have been killed by Cypriot "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 32 Counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".
If the British Army had not been in the 6 counties, they would not have been killed by Irish "terrorists".

There are two constants here. The British Army and "terrorists".
Reading The Daily Telegraph, one would assume that the British Army were the victims. Fratton Fred, what are your thoughts on the above? Do Poppy wearers agree with the British invasions above?

But, but...that's history ^ it's not like that anymore and the inscrutable natives should have known that the invaders where bearing gifts.
Stupid natives and now they won't wear the poppy with pride. Ungrateful baxtards!

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

I can think of no major acheivement for Irish independence that was acheived through war rather than Westminster.

1916 was to any honest interpretation a terrorist attack that held a city to ransom against its will. There isn't a noble interpretation of it that I can think of.

The War of Independence was a pointless shedding of blood.

Generations of Magdelene women didn't object to their treatment either, it called 'subjugation'. Sometimes that is done via physical force and sometimes it is done by mental conditioning. Takes years and even generations to end the mental conditioning. Obviously.
Wearing of the poppy and the insistence on the same by a peer group is conditioning.
I am glad that my forebears where brave enough to make a stand, my mind is free to think for itself.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Generations of Magdelene women didn't object to their treatment either, it called 'subjugation'. Sometimes that is done via physical force and sometimes it is done by mental conditioning. Takes years and even generations to end the mental conditioning. Obviously.
Wearing of the poppy and the insistence on the same by a peer group is conditioning.
I am glad that my forebears where brave enough to make a stand, my mind is free to think for itself.

Have you seen that film made about the story of four of them who were sent there in the 1960s? In that film it has also been shown that it was the then Irish society which were in a kind of agreement to that. An interesting film about that matter and it´s some ten years since I´ve seen it the first time.

gobnaitolunacy

Thomas_I wrote: »

We don´t have it here in Germany, so that internationality applies probably for the Commonwealth Nations, maybe the French have it too (but I don´t know). We´ve a different symbol to commemorate the fallen of both world wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_War_Graves_Commission

Their logo is on display of some button sized pins, sold for an individual chosen donation every year from 30. October to 01. November.

The French have a blue cornflower as an equivalent, but I don't think very many wear it now.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

Generations of Magdelene women didn't object to their treatment either, it called 'subjugation'. Sometimes that is done via physical force and sometimes it is done by mental conditioning. Takes years and even generations to end the mental conditioning. Obviously.
Wearing of the poppy and the insistence on the same by a peer group is conditioning.
I am glad that my forebears where brave enough to make a stand, my mind is free to think for itself.

Completely unrelated.

Most of the residents in Dublin in 1916 didn't want it. That's all that matters.

Much in the same way as when someone blows explosives on public transport in the name while saying 'Allah hu akbar" or in the name of nationalism against the will of it's populace.

One could even claim that these acts are justified. For example our local native Khalid Kelly saying that the 7/7 London bombings were justified because of unbelievers at war in Islamic countries the same logic was applied with nationalism in 1916.

Both are deeply horrific, both are deeply immoral, both recieve my complete condemnation.

If you want to test the 1916 Rising explain the context to someone who isn't Irish, explain that most people in Dublin never wanted it at the time, I can guarantee you when presented with the raw facts most would say that it was a terrorist attack.

Better still, use a hypothetical with all the same information and facts while excluding the time and date and ask if it took place in the 21st century and see what response you get.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ah, the good old "Warrington was ok because the British had an empire" line it didn't take long.

The Lilly doesn't just glorify those that killed soldiers, it glorifies those that committed atrocities.

Morally, it is no different to the poppy.

TheLastMohican said no such thing and the fact that you feel the need to resort to this type of childish straw man shows you really have nothing to say in response to the points they made.

Crooked Jack

philologos wrote: »

I can think of no major acheivement for Irish independence that was acheived through war rather than Westminster.

1916 was to any honest interpretation a terrorist attack that held a city to ransom against its will. There isn't a noble interpretation of it that I can think of.

The War of Independence was a pointless shedding of blood.

We could go through the previous but you get my point.

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

Thomas_I

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

I doubt that very much (your last line).

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

What forceful act brought about an end to the penal laws?

Lelantos

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Its not a symbol of sinn fein. however, i think your undermining statement is funny given that sinn fein played a key role in founding the state

Are you suggesting that the Sinn Féin we know today is the same party?

philologos

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well this is just preposterous. As a student of history I can think of no concession Ireland got from Britain, from catholic emancipation up to the GFA, that didn't have to be wrestled from their hands through the use or threat of force.
Irish people are not atavistic maniacs, the sad fact of the matter is that we have largely been dealing with an opponent who understands nothing but force.
The only way Westminster could ever have helped solve any Irish problem is if it had have been blown up.

The Home Rule bill wasn't acheived by violence.

Indeed it was because of the legislative process at Westminster. In part the 1911 Parliament Act was created to pass the Home Rule legislation through the more resistent House of Lords.

Diplomacy did far far more than violence.

Fratton Fred

philologos wrote: »

The Home Rule bill wasn't acheived by violence.

Indeed it was because of the legislative process at Westminster. In part the 1911 Parliament Act was created to pass the Home Rule legislation through the more resistent House of Lords.

Diplomacy did far far more than violence.

Probably worth noting that Scotland will be holding a referendum on its future which they achieved with zero loss of life.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

Completely unrelated.

Most of the residents in Dublin in 1916 didn't want it. That's all that matters.

Much in the same way as when someone blows explosives on public transport in the name while saying 'Allah hu akbar" or in the name of nationalism against the will of it's populace.

One could even claim that these acts are justified. For example our local native Khalid Kelly saying that the 7/7 London bombings were justified because of unbelievers at war in Islamic countries the same logic was applied with nationalism in 1916.

Both are deeply horrific, both are deeply immoral, both recieve my complete condemnation.

If you want to test the 1916 Rising explain the context to someone who isn't Irish, explain that most people in Dublin never wanted it at the time, I can guarantee you when presented with the raw facts most would say that it was a terrorist attack.

Better still, use a hypothetical with all the same information and facts while excluding the time and date and ask if it took place in the 21st century and see what response you get.

I don´t think that the way you´re comparing the Easter Rising with the London bombings is appropriate in many ways, aside from the fact that normal people don´t like to be drawn into terror acts.

Most of the Dublin residents even didn´t know what has started on Easter Monday 1916, let alone were informed that an uprising is prepared. Following your thoughts, it would mean that also the Irish War of Independence was not wanted by the Irish public, despite the fact that they supported the Volunteers. The Black and Tans changed many views by many Irish people and they were not invited to come over by the Irish themselves, they were sent by the British government.

The London bombings was a terror act by home grown Islamic fanatics.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What forceful act brought about an end to the penal laws?

O'Connell's monster rallies terrified the British and they only acted on catholic emancipation once the threat of absolute anarchy in Ireland became real.
Remaining penal laws were dropped piece by piece with any lingering remnants ending due to the 1920 Government of Ireland act, which also came about through force.

Use or threat of force has sadly been the only way to get anything from the brits.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Probably worth noting that Scotland will be holding a referendum on its future which they achieved with zero loss of life.

America achieved its independence through massive loss of life. Are we going to sit here and go through every country in the world because if we are I think you'll find that discussion heavily weighted on the violent side.

9959

Wouldn't wear a 'Poppy' or a 'Lily', don't trust nationalism of any stripe, I do like hoops though, so I'll wear my Shamrock Rovers badge.

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

I don´t think that the way you´re comparing the Easter Rising with the London bombings is appropriate in many ways, aside from the fact that normal people don´t like to be drawn into terror acts.

Most of the Dublin residents even didn´t know what has started on Easter Monday 1916, let alone were informed that an uprising is prepared. Following your thoughts, it would mean that also the Irish War of Independence was not wanted by the Irish public, despite the fact that they supported the Volunteers. The Black and Tans changed many views by many Irish people and they were not invited to come over by the Irish themselves, they were sent by the British government.

The London bombings was a terror act by home grown Islamic fanatics.

What is the difference between Islamic fanatics and Republican fanatics apart from one being about religion and the other being about nationalism?

Nobody is denying that the British did many things wrong but in fact in 1916 most opposed the rising. Thus its legitimacy is questionable.

The civil war was also a pointless shedding of blood.

None of these events acheived anything instead of killing many people.

Home Rule was already coming. The war in Europe is what delayed it.

gobnaitolunacy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Probably worth noting that Scotland will be holding a referendum on its future which they achieved with zero loss of life.

Going seriously off topic but what were Bannockburn/Stirling Bridge/Falkirk? Games of tiddleywinks??

Crooked Jack

philologos wrote: »

The Home Rule bill wasn't acheived by violence.

Indeed it was because of the legislative process at Westminster. In part the 1911 Parliament Act was created to pass the Home Rule legislation through the more resistent House of Lords.

Diplomacy did far far more than violence.

THe Home Rule Bill wasn't achieved at all. Three times the Irish took the question of Home Rule to Britain peacefully. Twice it was discarded without thought and the third time it was "postponed."
"Yes Ireland, we'll give you home rule just as soon as you die in your thousands in British uniforms."

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

O'Connell's monster rallies terrified the British and they only acted on catholic emancipation once the threat of absolute anarchy in Ireland became real.
Remaining penal laws were dropped piece by piece with any lingering remnants ending due to the 1920 Government of Ireland act, which also came about through force.

Use or threat of force has sadly been the only way to get anything from the brits.

And you're a history student?

Crooked Jack

Lelantos wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Sinn Féin we know today is the same party?

yes

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

What is the difference between Islamic fanatics and Republican fanatics apart from one being about religion and the other being about nationalism?

Nobody is denying that the British did many things wrong but in fact in 1916 most opposed the rising. Thus its legitimacy is questionable.

The civil war was also a pointless shedding of blood.

The civil war happened because of the mess the British made of and left their colony in. Repeated almost every where they spead their 'gifts'.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

What is the difference between Islamic fanatics and Republican fanatics apart from one being about religion and the other being about nationalism?

Nobody is denying that the British did many things wrong but in fact in 1916 most opposed the rising. Thus its legitimacy is questionable.

The civil war was also a pointless shedding of blood.

None of these events acheived anything instead of killing many people.

Home Rule was already coming. The war in Europe is what delayed it.

You´re speaking in general terms about two different parties which have just a few things in common. Regarding the Irish years of urprising and civil war you forget to take the Unionists and Loyalsts in NI into account. As for the Islamic fanatics that is quite another matter because they´re not "fighting" for the independence of their country, they want to change the whole of the UKs society and they´re home grown because born and raised in the UK.

This Home Rule for Ireland issue has been taken up and delayed a couple of times and I think that less people were really believing that with the end of WWI, Home Rule would had come into effect automatically. Also important in this matter was the strong reistance from the Unionists to implement Home Rule for Ireland. There you´ve the equal threat of violence from their side because they threatened to march on Dublin Castle to prevent Home Rule for Ireland.

I don´t think that the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence is questionable but I agree on your view about the Irish civil war which was imo unneccessary.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

The civil war happened because of the mess the British made of and left their colony in. Repeated almost every where they spead their 'gifts'.

Not quite so. Malta is the exception, they invited the British to become their colony and they managed to end it by peaceful means in the 1960s / 1970s. They even wanted to become an integrated part of the UK themselves in the 1950s, but that has been rejected by the British for constitutional reasons.

philologos

Crooked Jack wrote: »

THe Home Rule Bill wasn't achieved at all. Three times the Irish took the question of Home Rule to Britain peacefully. Twice it was discarded without thought and the third time it was "postponed."
"Yes Ireland, we'll give you home rule just as soon as you die in your thousands in British uniforms."

It was discarded because of parliament. That's partly why the 1911 Parliament Act came in to assist on Home Rule.

It was postponed legitimately during a tine of national instability and it was going to be fulfilled after the war irrespective of what pointless and gratuitous violence presented itself in the interim against the will of most Dublin residents.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Not quite so. Malta is the exception, they invited the British to become their colony and they managed to end it by peaceful means in the 1960s / 1970s. They even wanted to become an integrated part of the UK themselves in the 1950s, but that has been rejected by the British for constitutional reasons.

Did you see the words 'almost everywhere' in my post?

Fratton Fred

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Going seriously off topic but what were Bannockburn/Stirling Bridge/Falkirk? Games of tiddleywinks??

No, but they happened 400 years prior to the act of union, so aren't really relevant.

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

You´re speaking in general terms about two different parties which have just a few things in common. Regarding the Irish years of urprising and civil war you forget to take the Unionists and Loyalsts in NI into account. As for the Islamic fanatics that is quite another matter because they´re not "fighting" for the independence of their country, they want to change the whole of the UKs society and they´re home grown because born and raised in the UK.

This Home Rule for Ireland issue has been taken up and delayed a couple of times and I think that less people were really believing that with the end of WWI, Home Rule would had come into effect automatically. Also important in this matter was the strong reistance from the Unionists to implement Home Rule for Ireland. There you´ve the equal threat of violence from their side because they threatened to march on Dublin Castle to prevent Home Rule for Ireland.

I don´t think that the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence is questionable but I agree on your view about the Irish civil war which was imo unneccessary.

None of the three events acheived anything other than death. I'm routinely skeptical about nationalism being used to justify things which most rational people would never condone otherwise.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The civil war happened because of the mess the British made of and left their colony in. Repeated almost every where they spead their 'gifts'.

Lol.

Apparently the British are responsible for the rain in Sligo, bread going stale and the late running of the no.7 bus.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

None of the three events acheived anything other than death. I'm routinely skeptical about nationalism being used to justify things which most rational people would never condone otherwise.

Have you ever told this to some Unionists / Loyalists in Northern Ireland?

I agree with you on your last line but I think that with hindsight it´s easy to say that the Easter Rising 1916 and the Irish War of Independence 1919 to 1921 achieved nothing but death. Britain hasn´t been always that kind of a moderate state as looks better to be depicted as such. Imperialism was the core of the British Empire and Britain acted according to that when this was still in tact. That changed after WWII when she got on the path of decolonization which was not a British initiative by the way. It was the idea of the US President FDR of a new post-war world order.

Hidalgo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

well, now you're just lying, yes they do.











The poppy does not represent Irish soldiers. No Irish soldiers fought in WW1. It may represent Irish people duped into fighting for the British Army. They are British soldiers.

I do not find the lily's connections with the IRA to be negative in the least. Of course it has a special link to Easter 1916 but it represents all Ireland's patriot dead and I am quite happy to honour them.

They were still Irish soldiers, many fighting under the banner of irish regiments. Going buy that logic, if someone moves from Ireland to England for employment, do they automatically become British

Pray tell who 'duped' them into fighting for the British Army???
Kitchener or Llyod George I suppose was it??

Some went in the hope that it would assist the calls for the suspended Home Rule bill.
Some went for the money as a means of supporting loved ones at home in Ireland
Some went for adventure

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did you see the words 'almost everywhere' in my post?

Of course I did, after that you´ve pointed it out again.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lol.

Apparently the British are responsible for the rain in Sligo, bread going stale and the late running of the no.7 bus.

What do you make them responsible for Fred, all the good stuff?

Lelantos

Crooked Jack wrote: »

yes

Incorrect, but thank you for playing.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

What do you make them responsible for Fred, all the good stuff?

Lots of things. None of which include the Irish civil war. That was about two sets of revolutionaries fighting for power.

Hidalgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ah, the good old "Warrington was ok because the British had an empire" line it didn't take long.

The Lilly doesn't just glorify those that killed soldiers, it glorifies those that committed atrocities.

Morally, it is no different to the poppy.

Nobody has justified Warrington in this thread have they?

That was a despicable and cowardly act of terrorism. Noone is saying its ok

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

Have you ever told this to some Unionists / Loyalists in Northern Ireland?

I agree with you on your last line but I think that with hindsight it´s easy to say that the Easter Rising 1916 and the Irish War of Independence 1919 to 1921 achieved nothing but death. Britain hasn´t been always that kind of a moderate state as looks better to be depicted as such. Imperialism was the core of the British Empire and Britain acted according to that when this was still in tact. That changed after WWII when she got on the path of decolonization which was not a British initiative by the way. It was the idea of the US President FDR of a new post-war world order.

Why are unionists relevant to your point?

It's easy to say that they acheived nothing because they actually didn't.

Hidalgo

philologos wrote: »

What is the difference between Islamic fanatics and Republican fanatics apart from one being about religion and the other being about nationalism?

Nobody is denying that the British did many things wrong but in fact in 1916 most opposed the rising. Thus its legitimacy is questionable.

The civil war was also a pointless shedding of blood.

None of these events acheived anything instead of killing many people.

Home Rule was already coming. The war in Europe is what delayed it.

No guarantees that the Home Rule Bill would have been passed had the war ended by Christmas 1914 as many first envisioned. Westminster passing it would have created as much trouble amongst Northern Unionists as scrapping it would have amongst Southern Nationalists.

Unionists were already bringing guns into the north in anticipation of any Home Rule Bill being passes, Nationalists followed suit. IMO had the Home Rule Bill passed, there would have been a heck of a lot of trouble in the north at the time

Hidalgo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

O'Connell's monster rallies terrified the British and they only acted on catholic emancipation once the threat of absolute anarchy in Ireland became real.
Remaining penal laws were dropped piece by piece with any lingering remnants ending due to the 1920 Government of Ireland act, which also came about through force.

Use or threat of force has sadly been the only way to get anything from the brits.

Ireland changed from a Free State to a Republic via peaceful means. She also regained control over her ports (which became an important point re Irish neutrality in WWII

philologos

Hidalgo wrote: »

No guarantees that the Home Rule Bill would have been passed had the war ended by Christmas 1914 as many first envisioned. Westminster passing it would have created as much trouble amongst Northern Unionists as scrapping it would have amongst Southern Nationalists.

Unionists were already bringing guns into the north in anticipation of any Home Rule Bill being passes, Nationalists followed suit. IMO had the Home Rule Bill passed, there would have been a heck of a lot of trouble in the north at the time

I condemn that as much as the other.

Home Rule did pass through parliament. It was waiting until after the war for implementation.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lots of things. None of which include the Irish civil war. That was about two sets of revolutionaries fighting for power.

Brilliant!, can I quote that to my history class?

Hidalgo

philologos wrote: »

I condemn that as much as the other.

Home Rule did pass through parliament. It was waiting until after the war for implementation.

I didn't realise it had gone that far along the legislation path. I still think that pass or fail, it would have caused violence from the 'losing' side

philologos

Hidalgo wrote: »

I didn't realise it had gone that far along the legislation path. I still think that pass or fail, it would have caused violence from the 'losing' side

Of course but the violence wouldn't have achieved the change it would happen as a result.

Nor does it serve as justification for violence.