John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

djpbarry

The Easter Rising and subsequent War of Independence were “completely unnecessary” because Home Rule was already on the statute books, former taoiseach John Bruton has said.

Mr Bruton has called on the Government to commemorate the centenary of the passage into law of the Home Rule Bill on September 18th, 1914. It was intended the law be brought into force at the end of the first World War, which broke out, from a British and Irish point of view, 100 years ago today. In his detailed submission to the Government, Mr Burton said the violence of that period “should not be retrospectively justified in the other commemorations that are to be undertaken over the next 10 years”.

He reiterated a case he made in a recent debate at the Irish Embassy in London that, “Ireland could have achieved better results, for all the people of the island, if it had continued to follow the successful non-violent parliamentary Home Rule path, and had not embarked on the path of physical violence, initiated by the IRB and the Irish Citizen Army in Easter Week of 1916” .

“Sinn Féin and the IRA should have used the Home Rule Act as a peaceful stepping stone to dominion status and full independence in the same way as the Treaty of 1921 was so used, but only after so much blood had been shed,” he wrote.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/former-taoiseach-says-easter-rising-unnecessary-1.1886582

A view which has been expressed by several posters on this forum over the years, myself included.

Whether you agree with him or not, I think it's refreshing to see the glorification of events such as The Rising questioned. I don’t think much consideration will be given to his suggestion, but it may at least provoke some discussion.

Manach

Whilst it is always good to discuss history issues in a counter-argument way, perhaps Mr. Bruton had not taken into account other factors.
One being the attitude of the Unionists, who had prior to WWI both weaponised the debate and were highly organised to resist Home Rule. Another was this was an era of colonial people turning against the central power of the state. From Berlin to the Pacific, almost all nations experienced some form of territorial breakup or radical re-org of their political structure.
Thus as an exercise in what-ifs. it is of course good have this to be subject to debate but in this case that the end-route of Dominion/Independance was a final end result of Home Rule is more debatable.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Whilst it is always good to discuss history issues in a counter-argument way, perhaps Mr. Bruton had not taken into account other factors.
One being the attitude of the Unionists, who had prior to WWI both weaponised the debate and were highly organised to resist Home Rule.

This is an argument I've never understood: it would have been futile to pursue the Home Rule route, because the Unionists would have started a war. This suggests that the argument against the political process is that it would lead to war, which would be fair enough, were it not simultaneously used as a justification for the IRB starting a war.

Thus as an exercise is what-ifs. it is of course good to be subject to debate that the end-route of Dominion/Independance was a final end result of Home Rule is debatable.

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence, but if it means what I think it does, the whole "we never would have achieved independence via Home Rule" argument can be easily countered with "we never would have achieved independence via a Free State".

Full independence (of the 26 counties, before I get pilloried) was achieved in 1937 without a shot being fired, which is all the argument that's needed against the idea that it could only have been achieved through violence.

Manach

Always happy to educate oscarBravo.
Given that the Unionist party already had a symbiotic relationship with the Conservatives of that era, then having as an additional factor the Unionist threatening violence would have overwhelmed the civil structures in place during and in the immediate end of WWI. In context, there was considerable unrest within the UK mainland; both within the army and in segments of society. A Unionist action could thus not have been dealt with politically or militarily without risk of even more instability. Hence this was not only political processes in operation.
As for full independence, you are perhaps mixing up the members of the Home Rule party who would have been more inclined to stay within the UK political structures rather than seek independence, with those of the actual leaders in the 1930s who had a differing viewpoint on the UK. BTW, I believe it was 1948(?) when a fully independent republic was established and perhaps you'd care to comment on the economic war that was a consequence of the Irish moves to fuller independence; it was not cost free option.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

Given that the Unionist party already had a symbiotic relationship with the Conservatives of that era, then having as an additional factor the Unionist threatening violence would have overwhelmed the civil structures in place during and in the immediate end of WWI. In context, there was considerable unrest within the UK mainland; both within the army and in segments of society. A Unionist action could thus not have been dealt with politically or militarily without risk of even more instability. Hence this was not only political processes in operation.

With respect, that's not much more than a long-winded reiteration of the argument that starting a war was necessary to avoid the war that would have resulted from a political process.

As for full independence, you are perhaps mixing up the members of the Home Rule party who would have been more inclined to stay within the UK political structures rather than seek independence, with those of the actual leaders in the 1930s who had a differing viewpoint on the UK.

And that's just a restatement of the view that Home Rule would have been a political dead end from which full independence could never have been achieved. It's not a view that I think there's any rational basis for.

BTW, I believe it was 1948(?) when a fully independent republic was established and perhaps you'd care to comment on the economic war that was a consequence of the Irish moves to fuller independence; it was not cost free option.

There were no shots fired in order to achieve either the abolition of the Free State in 1937, or the founding of the Republic in 1948.

I don't recall ever claiming that a political process is a cost-free option. The Anglo-Irish economic war was a result of protectionist policies and welshing on our debts, in the context of a global depression. I'm not sure what it has to do with whether or not 1916 was necessary.

partyguinness

There is so much wrong with Bruton's drivel that it's hard to know where to start...

I'll try to make some start, please feel free to add:

1. Sinn Fein and the IRA had nothing to do with the 1916 Rising.

Even the most basic knowledge of Leaving Certificate history will tell you that it was coordinated between the Volunteer and Citizen Army. But this is a blatant and quite pathetic attempt at revisionism.

Of course many of the founding members of his own party, Fine Gael, were directly involved in the planning and execution of the 1916 Rising and this does not sit very comfortably with him so he blatantly turns it on Sinn Fein.

2. Oh yeah, the small matter of the 'Ulster' Protestants, the Covenant etc etc. Remember that it was that side that first imported arms and weapons and Citizen and Volunteer Army armed in direct response.

This drivel from Bruton is just a naked and not very good attempt at revisionism. Quite frankly it is a dangerous distortion of history.

Either Bruton is an idiot or he thinks the Irish public are idiots.

eyescreamcone

Bruton is an idiot!

partyguinness

oscarBravo wrote: »

With respect, that's not much more than a long-winded reiteration of the argument that starting a war was necessary to avoid the war that would have resulted from a political process. And that's just a restatement of the view that Home Rule would have been a political dead end from which full independence could never have been achieved. It's not a view that I think there's any rational basis for. There were no shots fired in order to achieve either the abolition of the Free State in 1937, or the founding of the Republic in 1948.

I don't recall ever claiming that a political process is a cost-free option. The Anglo-Irish economic war was a result of protectionist policies and welshing on our debts, in the context of a global depression. I'm not sure what it has to do with whether or not 1916 was necessary.

That is rather simplistic. The period and series of events between, say, 1912 and 1937 cannot be viewed in isolation. Indeed, history no matter what period we are looking at, cannot be cherry picked and viewed on its own.

History is like a set of dominoes and are inextricably linked whether or not you support or agree with a particular event.

Manach

Re-iteration of points that have not been addressed is always good tactic as it shows underscores their strength of premises which have not been meaningful answered.

My central premise is not that the rising was a positive/negative event, but that arguing that independence was a natural consequence of it not occurring is a major stretch by Mr. Bruton. This natural consequence is simple to argue, that if only one particular pathway was followed then the consequent would have applied. Of course this imaginary scenario, only works if one relies on simpilfications: ie that event A begat B begat C. History however does not precede in a linear manner. There are complexities. Thus retrofitting 2014 political structures into to that era makes it easier to understand but that fails to address the complex institutional and societal factors that would disrupt the simple narrative that Home Rule -> {insert magic} -> Full Independence.
In the real world, the social/governmental structures were crafted to achieve independence, which would have been absence in the alternative Home Rule Ireland were the natural orbit of such would have remained centred on London.

As an OT point, my understanding that the UK also "welched" at times on its own debts, the case in point being from WWI as owned to the US at roughly the same time as Ireland did.

FTA69

partyguinness wrote: »

1. Sinn Fein and the IRA had nothing to do with the 1916 Rising.

Even the most basic knowledge of Leaving Certificate history will tell you that it was coordinated between the Volunteer and Citizen Army. But this is a blatant and quite pathetic attempt at revisionism.

Sinn Féin had nothing to do with the Rising that's true. However most Republicans would see the Rising as the first act of what Connolly called the "Army of the Irish Republic."

2. Oh yeah, the small matter of the 'Ulster' Protestants, the Covenant etc etc. Remember that it was that side that first imported arms and weapons and Citizen and Volunteer Army armed in direct response.

The Citizen Army would have existed regardless as they were born out of the industrial strife of that period and were used to defend workers' demonstrations against the cops. Similarly, many of the figures involved in the Rising were dedicated physical-force Nationalists who probably would have done what they did irrespective of whether Unionism was armed or not. The likes of Thomas Clarke had been plugging at armed struggle away since 1880 odd and spent 15 years in jail for a bomb plot.

However, I do agree with your general argument that Bruton is a bit of a langer to put it bluntly. The Republican struggle against British imperialism and colonisation of Ireland is nothing to be ashamed of. As much as a failure as the Rising was in practical terms, it remained a far more noble endeavour than leading tens of thousands of Irishmen into the British Army to be slaughtered in trenches because various European elites had a spat.

partyguinness

FTA69 wrote: »

partyguinness wrote: »

Sinn Féin had nothing to do with the Rising that's true. However most Republicans would see the Rising as the first act of what Connolly called the "Army of the Irish Republic."




The Citizen Army would have existed regardless as they were born out of the industrial strife of that period and were used to defend workers' demonstrations against the cops. Similarly, many of the figures involved in the Rising were dedicated physical-force Nationalists who probably would have done what they did irrespective of whether Unionism was armed or not. The likes of Thomas Clarke had been plugging at armed struggle away since 1880 odd and spent 15 years in jail for a bomb plot.

However, I do agree with your general argument that Bruton is a bit of a langer to put it bluntly. The Republican struggle against British imperialism and colonisation of Ireland is nothing to be ashamed of. As much as a failure as the Rising was in practical terms, it remained a far more noble endeavour than leading tens of thousands of Irishmen into the British Army to be slaughtered in trenches because various European elites had a spat.

I am aware of those points and them some, it's just time constraints prevents me from turning a post into a dense history lesson. Indeed, may of the architects did not expect to win. They wanted to light a fuse so while they did not win the battle they certainly went a long way to winning the war.

As for the WWI slaughter, a interesting contrast was made last week, the 1916 Volunteers were Volunteers in the true sense and were not paid but the British Army soldiers were paid. Rather controversially, the author said the British soldiers were essentially paid mercenaries and were far from going on some noble and courageous battle to fight in a European civil war.

Brutal's comments are incredibly dangerous and irresponsible. Who can forget the cringefest when he toasted 'her Majesty the Queen'...:o:o

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

My central premise is not that the rising was a positive/negative event, but that arguing that independence was a natural consequence of it not occurring is a major stretch by Mr. Bruton. This natural consequence is simple to argue, that if only one particular pathway was followed then the consequent would have applied.

In the cited excerpt from the article, he didn't say that independence would have been achieved; merely that it could have been achieved, and that, given the opportunity to pursue political means to an end rather than violent, it's regrettable that we choose to commemorate the violence.

The Republican thesis is that there is no conceivable way that independence could have been achieved without 1916, which is a premise you should reject as vehemently as you have rejected the idea that independence would inevitably have followed from pursuit of solely political means.

It's possible that independence could have been achieved peacefully. When people argue otherwise, it's hard to avoid the feeling that their core unspoken argument is that war was necessary; why else would we be celebrating it? Which is nothing but a roundabout way of arguing from your conclusion.

Of course this imaginary scenario, only works if one relies on simpilfications: ie that event A begat B begat C. History however does not precede in a linear manner. There are complexities. Thus retrofitting 2014 political structures into to that era makes it easier to understand but that fails to address the complex institutional and societal factors that would disrupt the simple narrative that Home Rule -> {insert magic} -> Full Independence.

I'm not sure how this differs from the fundamentally post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that indepence followed 1916, therefore independence could only have been achieved as a result of 1916.

I'm not arguing that independence would inevitably have followed from Home Rule. I'm arguing against the completely unsupported but oft-voiced assertion that independence couldn't possibly have followed from Home Rule.

djpbarry

partyguinness wrote: »

There is so much wrong with Bruton's drivel that it's hard to know where to start...

I'll try to make some start, please feel free to add:

1. Sinn Fein and the IRA had nothing to do with the 1916 Rising.

I don’t believe he said they did:

“Ireland could have achieved better results, for all the people of the island, if it had continued to follow the successful non-violent parliamentary Home Rule path, and had not embarked on the path of physical violence, initiated by the IRB and the Irish Citizen Army in Easter Week of 1916”

partyguinness wrote: »

Even the most basic knowledge of Leaving Certificate history will tell you that it was coordinated between the Volunteer and Citizen Army. But this is a blatant and quite pathetic attempt at revisionism.

Maybe take some time to read what was actually said before you go accusing people of “pathetic attempts at revisionism”?

partyguinness wrote: »

2. Oh yeah, the small matter of the 'Ulster' Protestants, the Covenant etc etc. Remember that it was that side that first imported arms and weapons and Citizen and Volunteer Army armed in direct response.

Bruton said otherwise?

partyguinness wrote: »

Either Bruton is an idiot or he thinks the Irish public are idiots…

…or you didn’t read what he said, but rather concocted some notion of what he said so that you could get irate about it?

partyguinness wrote: »

Brutal's comments are incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

How so? Might they cause people to question why The Rising should be commemorated? Can’t have that now, can we?

djpbarry

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Bruton is an idiot!

Thanks for that thoroughly enlightening contribution.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

The Republican struggle against British imperialism and colonisation of Ireland is nothing to be ashamed of.

Avoidable loss of life in the pursuit of a political goal is always something to be ashamed of.

FTA69 wrote: »

As much as a failure as the Rising was in practical terms, it remained a far more noble endeavour than leading tens of thousands of Irishmen into the British Army to be slaughtered in trenches because various European elites had a spat.

Because you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?

partyguinness

John Bruton would do well to remember that the Irish electorate was given a choice between Sinn Fein and the Home Rule party in the 1918 elections and overwhelming voted for Sinn Fein and their 'violent' methods.

Reekwind

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is an argument I've never understood: it would have been futile to pursue the Home Rule route, because the Unionists would have started a war. This suggests that the argument against the political process is that it would lead to war, which would be fair enough, were it not simultaneously used as a justification for the IRB starting a war.

The issue is not just an aversion to war but that fact that Unionist opposition made the Third Home Rule Bill a dead duck. Bruton is arguing that 1916 was unnecessary because Home Rule had already been legislated for but everyone knew that the Bill was entirely unworkable. Absolutely nobody was fooled by the idea that the war would end and then, poof, suddenly there would be Home Rule and a road to independence.

Besides, it would never have led to war. The suspicion of Nationalists, borne out by events, was that London would never have used force to compel Ulster to accept a solution that it did not want. Which brings us back to the above.

Full independence (of the 26 counties, before I get pilloried) was achieved in 1937 without a shot being fired, which is all the argument that's needed against the idea that it could only have been achieved through violence.

There are two things here. In the first place, it's deeply anachronistic to talk of 'independence for the 26 counties'. That wasn't on the agenda in 1916 and, while both the IRB and ICA can be criticised for their blindness or naivety to Ulster, I don't believe that they can or should be criticised for either not contemplating or rejecting partition. That was not a happy solution.

Secondly, Ireland became de facto independent in 1921. Whatever the constitutional niceties, we achieved a level of autonomy far greater than that promised by Home Rule. The most obvious example of that is of course foreign affairs, where Ireland quickly established itself in an area that would have been verboten to it under the Home Rule Bill. Making the step to full independence in 1937 (and a republic in 1949) was easy precisely because independence had been effectively won the previous decade.

In the cited excerpt from the article, he didn't say that independence would have been achieved; merely that it could have been achieved, and that, given the opportunity to pursue political means to an end rather than violent, it's regrettable that we choose to commemorate the violence.

Could've, would've, should've. It's a matter of probabilities, not possibilities. Whatever about the theoretical possibility of a peaceful road to independence, that route was not clear or certain (certainly not as much as Bruton suggests). Anyone in 1914 looking back at Irish history would have seen decades of failed initiatives, broken promises and stalled progress. The probability of a Redmondite strategy succeeding cannot be considered high.

Which is what bugs me. Criticising the Rising is fair enough. I disagree with a lot of it but c'est la vie. But to criticise it by holding up an illusory counter-factual is not playing fair. Home Rule and the IPP were perceived as dead ends by 1916 and roundly rejected in 1919. They can't seriously be held up as potential avenues for independence (having conveniently forgotten all the failures) to attack the IRB/ICA.

As for the violence comment, I hope it suffices here to note that neither the French nor Americans nor Italians, etc, etc see any harm in commemorating their independence/unifications, despite the bloodshed involved.

djpbarry wrote:

Because you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?

Tying into the violence comment just above, this is a bizarre thing I find: people who condemn the Rising for its use of violence yet have no problem commemorating the infinitely greater and more pointless slaughter of the Great War.

Let's be honest about this: either violence is an acceptable, if regrettable, option or it's not. The latter is called pacifism. If you don't have a pacifist objection to violence itself then of course your opinion of a campaign of violence is going to be predominately determined my its aims (plus scale, nature, etc).

(And by these measures the violence in Ireland 1916-1923, however unfortunate and traumatic for the country, was incredibly more understandable or acceptable than the destruction of a generation elsewhere in Europe at the time.)

djpbarry

partyguinness wrote: »

John Bruton would do well to remember that the Irish electorate was given a choice between Sinn Fein and the Home Rule party in the 1918 elections and overwhelming voted for Sinn Fein and their 'violent' methods.

And if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates always know best, right?

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

Home Rule and the IPP were perceived as dead ends by 1916 and roundly rejected in 1919. They can't seriously be held up as potential avenues for independence (having conveniently forgotten all the failures) to attack the IRB/ICA.

Well sure, if you dismiss everything that Parnell, Redmond, O’Connell and the IPP had achieved up to that point and ignore that every armed rebellion in Irish history was a catastrophic failure, then yeah, sure, you could conclude that diplomacy was a dead end and shooting up O’Connell St was the only way to go.

Reekwind wrote: »

Tying into the violence comment just above, this is a bizarre thing I find: people who condemn the Rising for its use of violence yet have no problem commemorating the infinitely greater and more pointless slaughter of the Great War.

I can’t condemn both?

Reekwind wrote: »

Let's be honest about this: either violence is an acceptable, if regrettable, option or it's not. The latter is called pacifism.

Eh, no, it’s not. If you think that’s pacifism, then you don’t know what pacifism is.

Reekwind wrote: »

(And by these measures the violence in Ireland 1916-1923, however unfortunate and traumatic for the country, was incredibly more understandable or acceptable than the destruction of a generation elsewhere in Europe at the time.)

So your argument essentially boils down to “The Rising was fine because World War I”?

partyguinness

djpbarry wrote: »

And if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates always know best, right?

and your alternative is.....?

Like it or not, the electorate rejected Home Rule but they were obviously not blessed with the 20/20 hindsight vision that you have..;)

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

Avoidable loss of life in the pursuit of a political goal is always something to be ashamed of.

That's the thing though, sometimes violence and loss of life is made inevitable by an oppressive force. John Bruton seems to be of the opinion that British imperialism could be challenged by peaceful means alone and that would have resulted in success. The reality of the situation however, was that England had always maintained its dominance over Ireland and systemically shut down any peaceful opposition to its rule there. When its rule was challenged to any serious degree it had no problem deploying legions of police, secret police, agent provocateurs etc etc and ultimately its military in order to crush any resistance.

Ireland wasn't exactly the last colony the Brits lost either. They had very little qualms in brutally suppressing independence movements in places like Cyprus, India, Kenya and a variety of others. From the 1970s onwards they fought a long and dirty war in Ireland with a view to keeping a part of that country within the UK.

I fail to see the inevitability of a peaceful transition to independence considering the violent imperial power Britain was.

Because you agree with the aims of one, but not the other?

No, because there's a difference between using physical force to resist colonisation and create a country of "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens" and getting slaughtered wholesale to preserve the rule of elitist monarchies and capitalists across Europe.

steddyeddy

There is no way unionists would have allowed a home rule bill to go through. Bruton's knowledge of history is brutal.

steddyeddy

djpbarry wrote: »

And if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates always know best, right?

What do you suggest we do in a democracy? Allow the electorate to vote and then get a minority to decide if the electorate were right or not?

partyguinness

I wonder what exactly Bruton was referring to when he said:

"should not be retrospectively justified in the other commemorations that are to be undertaken over the next 10 years"

Does he mean that there are other violent episodes of that period that were justified? Obviously we know that the 1916 Rising and WofI were not justified in his eyes.

Any thoughts?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishfeen

Absolutely ridiculous statement from Bruton - without the Easter rising and the resulting WOI Ireland today would more then likely be the same as Scotland and Wales - remaining under the monarchy. As already said the Unionist population in the north would never have stood for Home Rule from Dublin. Even today any question of taking power from London in the north would create a massive revolt from unionists. Partition though was one of the worst things that London ever inflicted on the country, London should have stood behind democracy in 1921 and held a 32 county vote on the issue. Home rule under London or Full Independence - let the people decide.

partyguinness

Let's not forget the peaceful methods used by the British to colonise the island over several centuries or those peace loving Black n Tans sent over to defeat the IRA.

Or let's not forget Churchill's violent threat to mobile 250k troops in an instance if the Treaty was not signed...

Using peaceful methods is all well and good if your dealing with peaceful opponent. The British Empire was a war mongering 'empire' built on war and violence. Call it fighting fire with fire if you like. What did you expect them to do?

I have been hearing this 'anti violence' argument for the best part of 25 years from people. Most of it is pure and simple dislike/disdain for the Republican movement but dressed up as some sort of 'anti violence' platform. I've seen it and heard it all before.

Criticise the 1916 Rising all you want and you don't agree with it fine but at least be honest about it.

Happyman42

What I wouldn't give to have been there to say, 'So what John?'

More of the classic FG 'If it had been left to us we would have done better' nonsense, ignoring the realities of the time. They talk the same nonsense about Sunningdale, ignoring as always, the elephant in the room.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It doesn't matter how long the road leading up to it is, a dead end is a dead end. How many more decades should people have blindly trusted the IPP to muddle through? Or how much longer could they put off actually competing at the ballot box?

Frankly, the bigger fantasy here is that a single event (ie the Rising) suddenly precipitated the collapse of a thriving parliamentary party with a bright future. The reality was that the IPP was in decline and was done for as soon as it attached itself to the (always unpopular) war. Hence it was trounced as soon as a rigorous Nationalist alternative emerged that actually challenged the party at the ballot box.

So your argument essentially boils down to “The Rising was fine because World War I”?

No idea where you got that one.

And if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates always know best, right?

If there actually is one thing history has taught us, it's that electorates are the only real basis for national sovereignty.

Permabear wrote:

I have no trouble condemning both the First World War and the 1916 Rising. The only reason for commemorating either event is to reflect upon the pointlessness of using violence as a "solution" to political problems.

I'm fine with people rejecting both. But insisting on a distinction between politics and violence (or rejecting outright any role for the latter) is a facile judgement. Again, other countries have no problem in accepting that use of violence in the formation of their political or national institutions.

The problem is that Irish politicians have long been so terrified of lending legitimacy to the post-Independence IRA that they reject outright the possibility of using violence for acceptable means. Hence we get Bruton preferring to laud some meaningless parliamentary bill than accept the key role that the events of the "other commemorations" played. Safer in Ireland to hail the politicians than the gunmen.

FTA69

partyguinness wrote: »

I have been hearing this 'anti violence' argument for the best part of 25 years from people. Most of it is pure and simple dislike/disdain for the Republican movement but dressed up as some sort of 'anti violence' platform. I've seen it and heard it all before.

Criticise the 1916 Rising all you want and you don't agree with it fine but at least be honest about it.

Very popular during the 1990s that lark was; the whole anti-violence thing (while noble in itself) was often used in Ireland as a euphemism for anti-Republican violence. People who raised the inherent violence of the British establishment were often shouted down.

Sand

Bruton is right. The violence in 1916 onwards:

1 - Didn't achieve anything materially better than the Home Rule that was already on the table. Sunningdale for slow learners 8 decades early.
2 - Didn't prevent the partition of Ireland - in fact it probably doomed any slight chance of a compromise.
3 - Heavily contributed to, if not outright caused, the Irish Civil War and the political bitterness that has defined our main political parties since.

But for the likes of Pearse, what was critically important was the concept of blood sacrifice. Pearse was as much a jingoistic eejit as the imperialists the Provos denounce today. He was overjoyed when WW1 broke out:

It is patriotism that stirs the people. Belgium defending her soil is heroic, and so is Turkey . . . . . .
It is good for the world that such things should be done. The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefields.
Such august homage was never before offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country

The idea of an independent Ireland coming to pass peacefully was disgusting to him. In Pearse's view there *had* to be blood and conflict to consecrate Ireland as a *real* nation. Freedom and independence was something the Irish had to take violently, it wasn't something the British could give us. Let alone a certain self interest - a peaceful handover of power would leave violent men and violent groups out in the cold politically. Whereas, after the Rising and the resulting conflicts, the Dail was dominated by parties and men with militant records and backgrounds.

So while Bruton is right, he is thinking about it from the point of view of what benefits the Irish people. Pearse and his ilk thought about it from an entirely different perspective.

djpbarry

partyguinness wrote: »

and your alternative is.....?

I’m pointing out that the electorate is obviously not infallible.

partyguinness wrote: »

I have been hearing this 'anti violence' argument for the best part of 25 years from people. Most of it is pure and simple dislike/disdain for the Republican movement but dressed up as some sort of 'anti violence' platform.

And I’ve been hearing this “anti-Rising = pacifist” nonsense all my life – it’s a real lazy argument.

Are you honestly suggesting that there was absolutely no alternative to The Rising whatsoever?

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

That's the thing though, sometimes violence and loss of life is made inevitable by an oppressive force. John Bruton seems to be of the opinion that British imperialism could be challenged by peaceful means alone and that would have resulted in success. The reality of the situation however, was that England had always maintained its dominance over Ireland and systemically shut down any peaceful opposition to its rule there. When its rule was challenged to any serious degree it had no problem deploying legions of police, secret police, agent provocateurs etc etc and ultimately its military in order to crush any resistance.

And yet The Commons passed three Home Rule bills?

FTA69 wrote: »

I fail to see the inevitability of a peaceful transition to independence considering the violent imperial power Britain was.

And yet, the Empire is no more.

FTA69 wrote: »

No, because there's a difference between using physical force to resist colonisation and create a country of "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens"….

First of all, The Rising was not about “resisting colonization” – it had already happened centuries before. The lads involved well and truly missed the boat on that one.

Secondly, independent Ireland was a nation conferring “religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens”? Well sure, as long as you were a Catholic, adult male.

djpbarry

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is no way unionists would have allowed a home rule bill to go through.

Once again, this is the whole “a war was inevitable so it might as well have been the Republicans who started it” argument. Wars are only inevitable when the two sides involved fail to see the alternatives, largely because they don’t want to.

djpbarry

irishfeen wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous statement from Bruton - without the Easter rising and the resulting WOI Ireland today would more then likely be the same as Scotland and Wales - remaining under the monarchy.

Seems pretty unlikely, given the overwhelming support for independence in Ireland, as opposed to Wales and Scotland.

irishfeen wrote: »

As already said the Unionist population in the north would never have stood for Home Rule from Dublin.

Has it occurred to you that maybe they had good reason to oppose it (not violently, of course)?

irishfeen wrote: »

Partition though was one of the worst things that London ever inflicted on the country, London should have stood behind democracy in 1921 and held a 32 county vote on the issue. Home rule under London or Full Independence - let the people decide.

Why did it have to be a binary choice?

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

It doesn't matter how long the road leading up to it is, a dead end is a dead end. How many more decades should people have blindly trusted the IPP to muddle through? Or how much longer could they put off actually competing at the ballot box?

You seem to be arguing against a point I haven’t made?

Reekwind wrote: »

Frankly, the bigger fantasy here is that a single event (ie the Rising) suddenly precipitated the collapse of a thriving parliamentary party with a bright future. The reality was that the IPP was in decline and was done for as soon as it attached itself to the (always unpopular) war. Hence it was trounced as soon as a rigorous Nationalist alternative emerged that actually challenged the party at the ballot box.

Em – ok?

Reekwind wrote: »

No idea where you got that one.

Sure you do, but you’re not the only one who has attempted to draw moral comparisons between The Rising and WWI.

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm fine with people rejecting both. But insisting on a distinction between politics and violence (or rejecting outright any role for the latter) is a facile judgement. Again, other countries have no problem in accepting that use of violence in the formation of their political or national institutions.

Again, this is a poor argument. Everyone else celebrates violence, so stop questioning and just grab a flag and start waving.

Reekwind wrote: »

Hence we get Bruton preferring to laud some meaningless parliamentary bill than accept the key role that the events of the "other commemorations" played.

Just to be clear, are you dismissing everything that was ultimately achieved by the parliamentarians, or just the Home Rule Bill?

steddyeddy

djpbarry wrote: »

Once again, this is the whole “a war was inevitable so it might as well have been the Republicans who started it” argument. Wars are only inevitable when the two sides involved fail to see the alternatives, largely because they don’t want to.

Indeed and unionists have never seen an alternative.

partyguinness

Sand wrote: »

Bruton is right. The violence in 1916 onwards:

1 - Didn't achieve anything materially better than the Home Rule that was already on the table. Sunningdale for slow learners 8 decades early.
2 - Didn't prevent the partition of Ireland - in fact it probably doomed any slight chance of a compromise.
3 - Heavily contributed to, if not outright caused, the Irish Civil War and the political bitterness that has defined our main political parties since.

But for the likes of Pearse, what was critically important was the concept of blood sacrifice. Pearse was as much a jingoistic eejit as the imperialists the Provos denounce today. He was overjoyed when WW1 broke out:



The idea of an independent Ireland coming to pass peacefully was disgusting to him. In Pearse's view there *had* to be blood and conflict to consecrate Ireland as a *real* nation. Freedom and independence was something the Irish had to take violently, it wasn't something the British could give us. Let alone a certain self interest - a peaceful handover of power would leave violent men and violent groups out in the cold politically. Whereas, after the Rising and the resulting conflicts, the Dail was dominated by parties and men with militant records and backgrounds.

So while Bruton is right, he is thinking about it from the point of view of what benefits the Irish people. Pearse and his ilk thought about it from an entirely different perspective.

1. As mentioned early, Home Rule was a dead duck and never on the table. There is this false notion that Home Rule was in place, done and dusted- simply waiting for the inconvenience of WWI to finish. No it wasn't. The electorate in 1918 saw this and rejected it.

Plus, we have not idea how (violently?) the UVF would have acted even if Home Rule magically came into being.

2. So do you think partition was inevitable in 1916? Partition was never on the table in 1916 and was a compromise to the northern Protestants during Treaty negotiations.
3. Heavily contributed to? Yes of course. All the events in that period are inextricable linked. Downright caused? No, that's stretching it, it was pro v. anti Treary that was the downright cause.

Yes, Pearse was all about blood sacrifice and glory and sought to rouse patriotic jingoism. So what? Somebody had to rouse Mother Ireland from her slumber..that was the concept. It was all the fashion in them times across all nations. Even a superficial glances at writers from that period will show you how heavy the concept of blood sacrifice was. Not unique to Ireland and let's not take it out of context. Afterall the imperial powers in Europe were using the same language while sending their troops off the Flanders.

How likely was Britain going to hand back Ireland peacefully? Unlikely.

Would there have been a better Ireland through Home Rule and without 1916 et al? Who knows. It's a somewhat a pointless exercise because 1916 etc did happen like it or not.

partyguinness

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m pointing out that the electorate is obviously not infallible.
And I’ve been hearing this “anti-Rising = pacifist” nonsense all my life – it’s a real lazy argument.

No far from it. In fact you have missed my point completely. Maybe I wasnt clear. There are people (not all and not directing this at you) who criticise the 1916 Rising. Fine. But they dress up their criticism on an anti-violence platform when really the true root of their disdain is not the 1916 Rising in itself but a rather more broad hatred/disdain for the Republican movement generally. Mixing the modern day version with the 1916 version. John Bruton and his ilk fall into that category. Start a debate about 1916 great, I am all up for that- prob my favourite topic. But I find some commentators disingenuous and quite frankly nauseating.

For example, the likes of Kevin Myers castigating the violence and that they had no mandate etc. That's fine. But the next week weeping into their breakfast when writing about the glorious sacrifices on the Somme etc. Incidently, I wonder how many of the dead soldiers actually had the vote?

It's fine and dandy for the Brits or whoever to the send thousands of people to their slaughter for some imperial jolly but use the 'no mandate' stick against the 1916 Rising. It's bizarre.

Not saying that at all. What I have said is that the alternative at the time was Home Rule. The Irish people roundly rejected it,

djpbarry

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed and unionists have never seen an alternative.

Ah yes, if only the other side wasn’t so blinkered, eh?

djpbarry

partyguinness wrote: »

1. As mentioned early, Home Rule was a dead duck and never on the table. There is this false notion that Home Rule was in place, done and dusted- simply waiting for the inconvenience of WWI to finish. No it wasn't.

It was. You can ignore historical facts as much as you like, but the reality is it was due to come into law. Now, you can argue that you didn’t like what Home Rule represented and you can argue that Unionists would not have been happy with it, but what you can’t do is ignore that it was passed by The Commons three times.

partyguinness wrote: »

Plus, we have not idea how (violently?) the UVF would have acted even if Home Rule magically came into being.

So let’s start a war to force them to become completely independent? Yeah, that makes sense.

partyguinness wrote: »

2. So do you think partition was inevitable in 1916?

Probably.

partyguinness wrote: »

Yes, Pearse was all about blood sacrifice and glory and sought to rouse patriotic jingoism. So what?

He refused to consider alternatives. That’s what.

partyguinness wrote: »

How likely was Britain going to hand back Ireland peacefully? Unlikely.

How much violence was the declaration of a republic met by?

partyguinness wrote: »

Would there have been a better Ireland through Home Rule and without 1916 et al? Who knows. It's a somewhat a pointless exercise because 1916 etc did happen like it or not.

Yeah, let’s never examine history and try to learn from past mistakes.

djpbarry

partyguinness wrote: »

No far from it. In fact you have missed my point completely. Maybe I wasnt clear. There are people (not all and not directing this at you) who criticise the 1916 Rising. Fine. But they dress up their criticism on an anti-violence platform when really the true root of their disdain is not the 1916 Rising in itself but a rather more broad hatred/disdain for the Republican movement generally.

Or maybe just the more militant elements?

oscarBravo

partyguinness wrote: »

Would there have been a better Ireland through Home Rule and without 1916 et al? Who knows. It's a somewhat a pointless exercise because 1916 etc did happen like it or not.

So we should triumphantly celebrate some jingoistic idiots starting a war just because we have no idea whether or not their goals could have been achieved peacefully?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Reekwind

Sand wrote: »

1 - Didn't achieve anything materially better than the Home Rule that was already on the table. Sunningdale for slow learners 8 decades early.

Really? I suspect the weasel word there is "materially". Because the Treaty provided Ireland with substantially more independence than anything laid out in the various Home Rule bills. The latter didn't even concede Ireland Dominion status, never mind the right to conduct an independent foreign policy. The 1920 Home Rule Bill didn't even give Dublin authority over its lighthouses!

So the idea that Home Rule provided the same freedoms as those enjoyed by the Free State is simply fantasy. As I said earlier, the Free State governments were effectively independent of London, something that made eventual independence a formality when it finally came.

And, to point out again, this all assumes that the Home Rule Bill actually came into force and was accepted by the Unionists without any major alterations. That is, the fact that a document was sitting in a drawer in London made very little difference to people if it wasn't possible to turn it into action in Dublin. And the track record of turning good words on Home Rule into something akin to independence was terrible. The constitutional niceties of Home Rule were irrelevant given that it was never going to work.

2 - Didn't prevent the partition of Ireland - in fact it probably doomed any slight chance of a compromise.

Again, the key word there is "slight". Regardless of what happened in Dublin, the Unionists were almost certainly going their own way. They were out of synch with not just Sinn Fein and the Gaelic movement but also the IPP - which was generally no more considerate of the North than its successor.

But for the likes of Pearse, what was critically important was the concept of blood sacrifice. Pearse was as much a jingoistic eejit as the imperialists the Provos denounce today.

I've always found Pearse to be an interesting character, partly because almost nobody agreed with his nonsense and yet he somehow found himself front and centre. Clarke and Connolly (who rightly dismissed Pearse's jingoistic nonsense as that of a 'blighting idiot') were the brains of 1916 while the later generation (Collins, Dev, Cosgrave, etc) were cut from an entirely different cloth.

So the question is not what motivated Pearse but what he had in common with his more level-headed contemporaries and, as shown by 1918, the rest of the country. You can dismiss him all you want but he was clearly on the money with something. And that was the twin belief that Ireland should be independent and this was not possible by parliamentary means. If either of those had not been common currency throughout the country then 1916 would not have had the resonance it did.

(The irony is that placing an undue emphasis on Pearse's odder writings, critics actually give them more credit than they deserve. Blood sacrifice goes from being overly florid prose to actually explaining what happened post-Rising. That is, Pearse was either this mad figure bent on blood and violence whose death inspired exactly that OR he shared many of the mainstream sentiments that united much of the country and his actions happened to tap into these.)

In short: if the Rising hadn't tapped into popular opinion throughout the rest of the country then it would have been a footnote of history. That it had such an effect strongly suggests that the proclamation of the Republic (or at least the sentiments of the Rising) fell on fertile ground.

djpbarry wrote:

You seem to be arguing against a point I haven’t made?

My point is simple: the Home Rule Bill was unworkable and the IPP, whose fate it was tied to, was in decline. Hence I disagree when Bruton claims that this was an alternative to the Rising (ie the latter being "completely unnecessary because Home Rule was already on the statute books").

That's a basic restatement because I can't read your mind. If you want to argue the validity of the Home Rule approach (with or without the IPP) then you'll have to go ahead and put it into more than cryptic one liners.

Sure you do, but you’re not the only one who has attempted to draw moral comparisons between The Rising and WWI.

Still in the dark. But, out of curiosity, what's your objection to situating the Rising and the War of Independence in the landscape WWI and its aftermath?

Just to be clear, are you dismissing everything that was ultimately achieved by the parliamentarians, or just the Home Rule Bill?

Not unless every parliamentary bill is "meaningless".

Reekwind

[Double post but the below is a separate point and was made late enough not to include in the above. Soz.]

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should triumphantly celebrate some jingoistic idiots starting a war just because we have no idea whether or not their goals could have been achieved peacefully?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Look, we're almost four pages in and at the point where threads usually go off the rails. So let's get down to brass tacks. I've explained above why I believe that the Home Rule Bill was unworkable but let's hear the opposite case be made.

So. Build me a counter-factual scenario in which London and the IPP manage to successfully implement the 1914 Home Rule Bill. The Rising and War of Independence do not happen (I'm being generous by handwaving away the latter) but other events (eg the Conscription Crisis, Larne gun-running, Curragh Mutiny) proceed as they did historically.

So tell me how the British government plans to make the unworkable workable. Tell me how armed resistance in Ulster is overcome. Tell me how Redmond sells this to an increasingly radicalised population. Tell me how, when the map of Europe is being redrawn according to Wilson's principles, the Irish accept Home Rule that denies them even Dominion status. Tell me how this leads to independence on roughly the same timeline as our history.

Let's put together a scenario that makes the Rising "completely unnecessary". Then we'll look at each link to see just how much "sense" it makes to simply dismiss out of hand those Nationalists who didn't trust London to deliver for Ireland.

[Edit: Keep in mind that this is not supposed to be easy. Like any of the other 19th C 'Questions', people struggled for decades to try and resolve this conundrum. If there were an easy answer then I'm sure it would have been taken.]

RED L4 0TH

The reactionary violence of the British authorities to 1916 that culminated in the execution of the Rising's leaders didn't help the Home Rule cause either. John Redmond urged the British to exercise leniency in this regard because of what might happen next.

partyguinness

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should triumphantly celebrate some jingoistic idiots starting a war just because we have no idea whether or not their goals could have been achieved peacefully?

Yeah, that makes sense.

If that's how you see it, fine. More power to you.

Nobody is forcing you or 'we' to triumphantly celebrate anything. How do you feel about commemorating it?

irishfeen

djpbarry wrote: »

Seems pretty unlikely, given the overwhelming support for independence in Ireland, as opposed to Wales and Scotland.
Has it occurred to you that maybe they had good reason to oppose it (not violently, of course)?
Why did it have to be a binary choice?

Of course unionists by their very nature could oppose an independent Ireland back then but for them to arm themselves and defy the democratic process of the 32 counties was disgraceful.

What actually made it worse was London's refusal to stop Unionists having this power and letting partition take hold which effect some 100 years later is still felt in hatred, fear and power struggles in the 6 counties.

You cannot say for certain that Ireland would have gained full independence from Britain as a republic if the WOI and the Easter rising didn't take place, you have to remember up to and including the Easter rising itself the rich and powerful catholic elite along with their protestant unionist counterparts firmly wanted to stay in the Union. The shooting of the 1916 leaders changed absolutely everything - men, women, young and old volunteers from every city, town, parish and townland flocked to set up or join their local IRA grouping. After the leaders were shot, the country was ungovernable from a British point of view, nothing bar complete ethnic cleansing of the local population could have worked.

For every Irishman or woman they beat or killed 5 more joined the fight in some way or another as Collins and his men became cult hero's in their fight against British tyranny.

Of course one of many "what if's" is what Collins would have done about the 6 counties as his "stepping stone" faded into the embers of the Civil war - IMO and I have no proof of this I think he would have eventually brought the two treaty sides together, eventually re-armed with funds from the states and re-engaged across the border against the orange government.

We will never know what Collins would have done but I refuse to believe he would have took the DeValera stance of shouting at a distance at Belfast and London - although my view also has to be balanced with Collins obvious war weariness which stretched all the way back to Easter 1916, WOI and Civil war. In truth he could very well have know there was a big big chance he would not return from Cork - he was entering bandit country and who know maybe deep down he welcomed it as had seen his county tear itself apart over his treaty.

steddyeddy

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah yes, if only the other side wasn’t so blinkered, eh?

Yes frankly. You think they would have been the reasonable party?

steddyeddy

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we should triumphantly celebrate some jingoistic idiots starting a war just because we have no idea whether or not their goals could have been achieved peacefully?

Yeah, that makes sense.

So you think we shouldn't celebrate any armed struggle or member of an armed force because they were jingoistic idiots for starting a war?

By the way you realise jingoistic refers to a tendency to act aggressively to a country with who you have peaceful relations with? No country that was ruled as a colony had peaceful relations with the colonial power.

steddyeddy

FTA69 wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

That's the thing though, sometimes violence and loss of life is made inevitable by an oppressive force. John Bruton seems to be of the opinion that British imperialism could be challenged by peaceful means alone and that would have resulted in success. The reality of the situation however, was that England had always maintained its dominance over Ireland and systemically shut down any peaceful opposition to its rule there. When its rule was challenged to any serious degree it had no problem deploying legions of police, secret police, agent provocateurs etc etc and ultimately its military in order to crush any resistance.

Ireland wasn't exactly the last colony the Brits lost either. They had very little qualms in brutally suppressing independence movements in places like Cyprus, India, Kenya and a variety of others. From the 1970s onwards they fought a long and dirty war in Ireland with a view to keeping a part of that country within the UK.

I fail to see the inevitability of a peaceful transition to independence considering the violent imperial power Britain was.



No, because there's a difference between using physical force to resist colonisation and create a country of "religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens" and getting slaughtered wholesale to preserve the rule of elitist monarchies and capitalists across Europe.

My uncle was one of the chief organisers of the civil rights movement in the north. When Bloody Sunday happened they realised that the peaceful method had been rejected by the British government. He left to live in the south of Ireland and the IRA filled the gap, Sometimes the peaceful method will be tried and rejected. Can you imagine peaceful protests ending apartheid in South Africa?