John Bruton says Easter Rising was ‘unnecessary’

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

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!

And starting a war was worthwhile because Dublin gained authority over its lighthouses?

Reekwind wrote: »

So the idea that Home Rule provided the same freedoms as those enjoyed by the Free State is simply fantasy.

Nobody has said it was the same. What is being said is the relatively small differences were not worth the violence.

Reekwind wrote: »

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.

Does it? Why?

Reekwind wrote: »

Again, the key word there is "slight". Regardless of what happened in Dublin, the Unionists were almost certainly going their own way.

Probably – a fact that Republicans seem to have a hard time accepting.

Reekwind wrote: »

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.

Of course it was possible by parliamentary means – Pearse just had absolutely no interest in achieving independence peacefully.

Reekwind wrote: »

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.

Eh, no. Had the protagonists not been executed, The Rising would have been forgotten.

Reekwind wrote: »

My point is simple: the Home Rule Bill was unworkable…

…but full independence was not?

Reekwind wrote: »

So tell me how the British government plans to make the unworkable workable. Tell me how armed resistance in Ulster is overcome.

You accept that most of Ulster remains part of the UK. Simples.

djpbarry

irishfeen wrote: »

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.

There was no “democratic process of the 32 counties”?

djpbarry

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

I don’t think either party was reasonable. That’s kind of my point.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can you imagine peaceful protests ending apartheid in South Africa?

So peaceful protest has never, ever brought about change?

irishfeen

djpbarry wrote: »

There was no “democratic process of the 32 counties”?

In terms of partition? - absolutely not, it was as undemocratic as you get... It split the country in two both socially and politically. The consequences of which are still very much alive and kicking almost 100 years later.

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet The Commons passed three Home Rule bills?

And yet when their dominion over the country was threatened in a meaningful sense they sent in rafts of paramilitary police and the military in order to beat the country back into submission. In 1918 the Irish people voted overwhelmingly for independence and a Republican platform. The British response to the democratically-elected Dáil Éireann was to round up its members, intern them in prison and then charge them with sedition. That was the real British attitude to democracy in Ireland; anything that wasn't watered-down devolution on their terms was a threat to be a smashed immediately.

And yet, the Empire is no more.

I'm sorry but this point is ridiculous. The "Empire is no more" precisely because people across the world struggled in pretty much the same way the IRA did, in fact we were one of the first people in the world to do it. The French didn't leave Vietnam and Algeria because they were politely remonstrated with by native political elites, similarly the Brits didn't leave Kenya and Malaysia as part of a natural decolonisation process. In short, they had to be f*cked out on their ear on the back of popular and often violent resistance movements. Basically on one hand you're bemoaning anti-imperialist armed struggle and on the other you're lauding the dismantling of Empire that that struggle achieved.

Similarly the above independence struggles raged on until the swinging 1960s, well after WW2 was supposedly fought to defeat 'tyranny' and all of the lark. Never mind what the climate was like in the early part of the 20th Century when Western imperialism was in full effect. Similarly, considering the Brits fought a very dirty 25 year war in Ireland (which included them colluding with Loyalist death squads) in order to maintain their sovereignty there, I would be very suspicious indeed in their commitment to democracy in Ireland.

djpbarry

irishfeen wrote: »

In terms of partition? - absolutely not, it was as undemocratic as you get... It split the country in two both socially and politically.

The island, not country, was already split.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

And yet when their dominion over the country was threatened in a meaningful sense they sent in rafts of paramilitary police and the military in order to beat the country back into submission. In 1918 the Irish people voted overwhelmingly for independence and a Republican platform. The British response to the democratically-elected Dáil Éireann was to round up its members, intern them in prison and then charge them with sedition. That was the real British attitude to democracy in Ireland; anything that wasn't watered-down devolution on their terms was a threat to be a smashed immediately.

Which of course had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the meeting of the First Dail just happened to coincide with the beginning of the War of Independence.

But for the record, just because I question the need for The Rising and all the followed, it does not mean I implicitly support or condone anything that the British authorities of the time were responsible for.

FTA69 wrote: »

I'm sorry but this point is ridiculous. The "Empire is no more" precisely because people across the world struggled in pretty much the same way the IRA did, in fact we were one of the first people in the world to do it.

I would argue that armed struggle generally achieves very little. It is grass roots civil rights and political movements that have been far more effective at bringing about change. Do I really need to cite the example of Gandhi?

FTA69 wrote: »

The French didn't leave Vietnam and Algeria because they were politely remonstrated with by native political elites, similarly the Brits didn't leave Kenya and Malaysia as part of a natural decolonisation process. In short, they had to be f*cked out on their ear on the back of popular and often violent resistance movements.

Just because violence occurred, it doesn’t mean it was necessary.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

And starting a war was worthwhile because Dublin gained authority over its lighthouses?

How about the right to conduct an independent foreign policy? Maintain an army? Have complete control over tax policy? Determine trade/customs policy? Legislate on coinage, telegraphs or patents? Or indeed independently alter the Act itself and change Dublin's relationship with London?

And that's not even digging into the constitutional niceties. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the degree of autonomy/independence won historically in 1921 was far greater than that on offer in 1914. The Free State was de facto an independent nationstate (increasingly so as successive governments bulldozed the Treaty) to a degree that Home Rule never came close to promising.

Nobody has said it was the same. What is being said is the relatively small differences were not worth the violence.

No, the claim has been made. Witness: "The violence in 1916 onwards didn't achieve anything materially better than the Home Rule that was already on the table". Hence my response. It's also been used in reference to the ease with which Ireland achieved formal independence in 1937.

In fact, you've contributed to this yourself by referring to "relatively small differences". See above.

Does it? Why?

Because in 1916, not only did the Home Rule Bill promise a very limited degree of autonomy, Unionist objections meant that there were major questions over what its final form would actually take and if it were ever implemented at all. Which was borne out by subsequent events.

So when people look back and chastise the IRB/ICA for rising when there was the Bill on the table, they are completely ignoring both the limitations and uncertainty over Home Rule. Even that, with its pale shadow of independence, was not a certainty in 1916.

Of course it was possible by parliamentary means – Pearse just had absolutely no interest in achieving independence peacefully.

Snore. See my previous post on putting together a plausible counterfactual scenario. And my previous post on Pearse's role. And below on the silliness of Great Man history.

Eh, no. Had the protagonists not been executed, The Rising would have been forgotten.

This is primary school history. So in your world, pre-1916 most Irish people were happy citizens of the Empire and were perfectly content with the limitations of Home Rule (with the glimmer of independence in decades to come). Then BAM. Suddenly the British execute 16 men and the whole country turns rabidly Nationalist and votes en masse for a separatist party at the next opportunity.

The legacy of the Rising came not from its actions or even the executions (which is not the ignore the impact of either) but the fact that it chimed with a well established Nationalist current in Ireland. (One that had been poorly served in that regard by the IPP.) The very act of rising automatically tapped into the tradition of anti-British protest* and conveyed an automatic degree of legitimacy to those associated with it.

A single atrocity does not suddenly flip the attitudes of an entire nation. The executions amplified the impact of the Rising but the latter (and, more generally, independence) was by no means out of step with popular opinion.

*Which had never gone away. Even the IPP had used God Save Ireland (a hymn to IRB 'martyrs') as the pre-war Nationalist anthem.

…but full independence was not?

No. Excepting Ulster, the War of Independence secured de facto independence for the nation and allowed for an easy exit from the Empire in the next decade. The fact that it actually happened tends to suggest that the pro-independence solution was 'workable'.

You accept that most of Ulster remains part of the UK. Simples.

You understand that this is not what the Home Rule Bill ever planned?

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

Which of course had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the meeting of the First Dail just happened to coincide with the beginning of the War of Independence.

The two events were unrelated actually. Dan Breen and Seán Treacy undertook Soloheadbeg on their own volition and much to the surprise of most of the Republican Movement at the time. The IRB actually tried to force the two of them to jump on the boat to the US but the men were having none of it. Anyway, your point doesn't hold up as the British authorities had long planned to suppress the establishment of the Dáil, well before a shot was fired. They had a long history of coercing democratically elected politicians and even interned Parnell, the quintessential parliamentarian, without trial at one stage.

But for the record, just because I question the need for The Rising and all the followed, it does not mean I implicitly support or condone anything that the British authorities of the time were responsible for.

That's fair enough, I'm simply trying to point out what the Irish people were up against. They weren't dealing with a benevolent democracy in a free and fair political system, they were dealing with an armed imperial superpower who didn't give two sh*ts about using force to overturn any challenge to their dominion in Ireland. I reject this notion that the men and women of 1916 and afterward were simply die-hard militarists who were throwing a spanner in the works of an inevitable peaceful transition; and that's exactly the sort of b*llocks that hand-wringing revisionists like Bruton espouse.

I would argue that armed struggle generally achieves very little.

It worked for the Cubans, Algerians, Angolans and countless other colonies didn't it? The Vietnamese didn't tickle the French and Americans out of their country.

It is grass roots civil rights and political movements that have been far more effective at bringing about change.
Do I really need to cite the example of Gandhi?

Need I cite Ho Chi Minh, Ben Bella, Fidel Castro, Jomo Kenyatta? Most of the armed revolutionaries also engaged in political and social struggle at the same time, the armed struggle was merely the spearhead of that. In places like Vietnam and Algeria armed struggle was the only means by which they could achieve freedom due to the opposition they faced. One thing I won't be doing is condemning those who struggled for freedom against imperialism.

DarkyHughes

Of course it was necessary. If WW1 hadn't broke there would have been a bloodier war between the UVF & Irish volunteers than 1916 - 21.

The country was getting impatient, it had been 30 years since Home rule had been promised & the country was getting fed up with it been put on the shelves for WW1 which looked like it could go on for years in 1916 was natural they would have wanted something more radical. Maybe the timing was bad that's all.

Sierra Oscar

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Of course they wouldn't. When the British authorities attempted to put in place contingency plans to counter a unionist rebellion against Home Rule, which was being openly threatened and was a very real possibility, we had the occurrence of the Curragh Mutiny in 1914. The officers in the British Army basically made it very clear that they would not turn on the unionist community if they started to rebel, and to be honest they probably would have supported the unionists over nationalists. So I don't see how people can claim with certainty that Home Rule would have been a success considering that the unionists were threatening armed action to ensure it failed and the British Army had made it known that it was not going to stand in the way of the UVF.

Those that try and claim through whataboutery that the Easter Rising was not necessary are being selective with their historical analysis.

LordSutch

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Of course it was necessary.

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Maybe the timing was bad that's all.

Everything about it was wrong, from the planning to the execution of (the rising) to the execution of the rebels after their failed rising, to the many civilian deaths, to the hurt brought upon the country, to the destruction, to the instability it brought to the 250.000 Irish troops fighting on the home front + the instability it brought to people back home . . . .

The 1916 Easter rising was a big mistake.

Nice to hear Bruton speaking out and bursting the rebel hero 'myth' that many Irish republicans seem to be brainwashed by.

Sierra Oscar

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Yeah well Sinn Féin did manage to decisively win the Irish General Election in 1918, a mere two years after the rising, while the Irish Parliamentary Party suffered a spectacular collapse. Everyone knew what position Sinn Féin had regarding the rising. Bruton and other revisionists conveniently try and forget about the democratic election in 1918 though.

Also the vast majority of those Sinn Féin MP's elected actually fought in the Easter Rising.

LordSutch

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!
.

I wasn't aware that being correct was decided by simple majority.

Nodin

LordSutch wrote: »

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

Yes, two years later and not in the heat of the moment. You object to "physical force violence" because it was used by Republicans, just after you complain about the effect it has on troops fighting on the front. You don't have a problem with violence per se, but with Republican violence specifically.

Ash.J.Williams

I wonder how we would view the rising if there were no executions afterwards.

Ash.J.Williams

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, two years later and not in the heat of the moment. You object to "physical force violence" because it was used by Republicans, just after you complain about the effect it has on troops fighting on the front. You don't have a problem with violence per se, but with Republican violence specifically.

The republicans chickened out of the rising beforehand didn't they? What we had on the rising were a minority bunch of armed academics and teachers and the like???

Nodin

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The republicans chickened out of the rising beforehand didn't they? What we had on the rising were a minority bunch of armed academics and teachers and the like???

Academics and teachers can be Republicans too.

Reekwind

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Unless you're reading another article, no it's not. At least nor directly. Bruton's argument is the more cowardly suggestion that it was simply unnecessary - that the Home Rule argument had been won and that the road to independence via parliamentary means was clear. Which, as we've extensively covered in this thread, is just gross revisionism.

Ash.J.Williams wrote:

The republicans chickened out of the rising beforehand didn't they? What we had on the rising were a minority bunch of armed academics and teachers and the like???

What? No. The Irish Volunteers leadership (ie MacNeill) wanted no part in the Rising, which was seen as an IRB plot. The latter were committed until then end. Nor was it a matter of a few academics - the IRB/IRA could rely on a fairly diverse social base, to say nothing of the ICA.

I wonder how we would view the rising if there were no executions afterwards.

See my ponderings in the post above.

irishfeen

LordSutch wrote: »

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

Absolute bollocks, its almost like you think Ireland pre-1916 was a bed of roses... the famine sown the seeds of real Irish nationalism and eventually it was going to come to a head. The rebels used WW1 to the up-most advantage culminating in the 1916 rising and the declaration of Irish independence.

The shooting of the leaders was the moment where the country galvanised against British rule, up to that point it seemed too much of a big task but after that point society as a whole decided enough was enough, the introduction of the Black and Tans in March 1920 was also a complete an utter disaster from a British point of view - it further more drove public opinion against London.

People can argue about whether full Home Rule/A Republic would have came about without using a gun at the time but to argue with the motives of these men as "unnecessary" is downright disrespectful.

Because of their sacrifice we were born into a fully democratic political entity, you have to remember only 2-3 generations have passed since the creation of this state - most of our grandparents including my own were born into an occupied Ireland ruled from London with an iron fist, they were taxpaying pawns to an empire. Those who fought for our independence should be thanked every single day.

irishfeen

BTW I bet the part founder of Bruton's beloved Fine Gael will turn in his grave with such talk - Collins paid the ultimate price for Irish freedom, its easy for this clown to stand up almost 100 years later and question their motives.

Sand

@Reekwind

How about the right to conduct an independent foreign policy? Maintain an army? Have complete control over tax policy? Determine trade/customs policy? Legislate on coinage, telegraphs or patents? Or indeed independently alter the Act itself and change Dublin's relationship with London?

And that's not even digging into the constitutional niceties. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the degree of autonomy/independence won historically in 1921 was far greater than that on offer in 1914. The Free State was de facto an independent nationstate (increasingly so as successive governments bulldozed the Treaty) to a degree that Home Rule never came close to promising.

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland? Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

I hope you can see why I don't consider it impossible that Home Rule would have only meant a starting position a little further back. Once Home Rule was on the books, the genie was out of the bottle. That was why the Ulster Unionists were so opposed to it - they knew it could only go one way when there was an Irish nationalist majority.

irishfeen

Sand wrote: »

@Reekwind


And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland? Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

I hope you can see why I don't consider it impossible that Home Rule would have only meant a starting position a little further back. Once Home Rule was on the books, the genie was out of the bottle. That was why the Ulster Unionists were so opposed to it - they knew it could only go one way when there was an Irish nationalist majority.

If anything we would be left with exactly what we have today basically with home rule although southern Ireland probably would be like Australia as a constitutional monarchy with the north remaining a full part of the UK... yes there would have been less violence in the north over the decades but to say we would have an All-Ireland republic is very very optimistic at best.

Sand

irishfeen wrote: »

If anything we would be left with exactly what we have today basically with home rule although southern Ireland probably would be like Australia as a constitutional monarchy with the north remaining a full part of the UK... yes there would have been less violence in the north over the decades but to say we would have an All-Ireland republic is very very optimistic at best.

We don't have an All-Ireland republic today either. If we could even achieve the status quo without violence in the north, then that's got to be a positive. Especially as less violence would imply a little less bitterness on either side, allowing more fertile ground for progress towards an All-Ireland republic.

partyguinness

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

The Home Rule Bill was passed into law in 1920 but did not take effect in the 'south'. The Irish electorate were given the choice in the 1918 Elections and they rejected it. Therefore Home Rule as far as the Irish public was concerned was a dead duck. They were not interested. The 1916 Rising gave the Irish people another choice i.e. a more militant approach and they accepted. You may not like that but that's what happened.

djpbarry wrote: »

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

When does war ever make sense?

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably.

Conjecture.

djpbarry wrote: »

He refused to consider alternatives. That’s what.

Really? How do you know? I am sure Pearse et al had a good long look at the Home Rule movement and said 'No, I am going to pursue this route.' Yes, he was on the militant side, nothing ground breaking there and he paid with his life.

djpbarry wrote: »

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

Oh come on, not this infantile argument. Yes, the political climate in 1949 was pretty much the same as in 1916-1922. You cannot actually be serious. That point was been addressed already.

djpbarry wrote: »

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

That's noble. Good luck with that one.

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.

Careful now. You are in danger of showing your true colours.

If you are trying to make sense of something nearly a 100 years on, you are probably pissing against the wind. Give it up for your own sanity.

partyguinness

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!

Ah yes this old 'no mandate' argument and yes it's true. Its wasnt an unpoplular and devisive farce for long thanks to the subsequent executions.

They did not hold a national vote, yes that's true. Bad rebels. Likewise, let's not forget that the Irish electorate was a given a choice in the following elections and they overwhelmingly voted in support of Sinn Fein and the goal/aims of the 1916 Rising.

Can quite easily call this a form of retrospective mandate.

LordSutch wrote: »

Everything about it was wrong, from the planning to the execution of (the rising) to the execution of the rebels after their failed rising, to the many civilian deaths, to the hurt brought upon the country, to the destruction, to the instability it brought to the 250.000 Irish troops fighting on the home front + the instability it brought to people back home . . . .

The 1916 Easter rising was a big mistake.

Big mistake in what context? The Irish electorate did not think so in the subsequent elections. Yes, I know I keep banging on about this point but it is of critical importance.

LordSutch wrote: »

Nice to hear Bruton speaking out and bursting the rebel hero 'myth' that many Irish republicans seem to be brainwashed by.

It is good to have debate and discussion about the 1916 Rising but Bruton certainly wnet about it arseways as usual.

Not entirely sure though where he is' bursting the rebel hero 'myth''...? If that was intention, I don't think he has done a very good job. Do you know many brainwashed Irish republicans?

partyguinness

LordSutch wrote: »

1918 was of course two years later . . .

I still say that physical force violence by an unelected minority (1916) was totally wrong.

As opposed to say the 'elected' violence of the British over hundreds of years...okay good one. Violence by the majority against minorities is far more fashionable anyway.

Fair enough you deem it wrong.

Reekwind

Sand wrote: »

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland?

Nothing is impossible. But that's not the question. Let me come back to that below.

Irish independence was an inevitability. It was going to happen sooner or later - we're just another nation and were never on par with Scotland or Wales. But parliamentary means had made pitiful progress by 1916. Decades had been wasted to obtain something much less than that seized by the IRA in three years*. I see no reason to believe that this would have sped up or that London would have become more eager to release Ireland.

So would Ireland have become independent without the War of Independence? Almost certainly. But it would have taken decades more at best and quite possibly still erupted in violence (either through the same sentiments at the 1910s or continued British repression). Who knows what could happen in an alternative universe.

But, to bring us back to the top, the question is not what might have happened but what looked likely to happen in 1916. By this point - the point at which people had to make the calculation that we're now questioning - the odds of Home Rule (never mind actual independence) looked as distant as ever. Crucially, that was the conclusion reached by the population at large when Nationalist opinion swung from the IPP to Sinn Fein.

*Ignoring for a minute the actual impracticalities of implementing Home Rule. For example, the very suggestion of accepting partition would have torn the IPP apart as easily as it did the IRA. No Nationalist of any stripe was willing to accept that before the event. Really, Home Rule was unworkable.

Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

I think it's worth emphasising that the history of British rule in Ireland, right up to the Troubles, shows that London has never had much hesitation in deploying repressive measures to quell dissent in Ireland. Certainly to a degree unimaginable in GB itself - can anyone imagine Crown paramilitaries being given licence to burn Glasgow or Swansea to the ground? So yes, I very much think that Britain would have resisted Irish independence by force.

Thankfully, we'd probably have been spared the 'pacification' methods used elsewhere in the Empire - aerial bombardment and poison gas.

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

I do feel that people underestimate the advance that the Free State was. True, nobody was entirely happy with it but that was more a matter of failed ambitions/dreams (and there were a lot of those) than any intrinsic weaknesses on the new state's part.

I've dealt with this above but, crucially, it was a new state that was effectively, if not constitutionally, independent. It would take time (not much) to unravel the legal ties but Ireland effectively became independent in 1922. As a 'stepping stone', the Free State was actually pretty successful and a very effective platform for finalising the divorce with London.

So when you say that it was "constitutional and diplomatic means" that saw this freedom out, I counter that this was only possible because 90% of the progress towards independence had been achieved by physical force in the years 1916-1921. The independence question was settled as soon as the British Army was forced out of the 26 counties.

As an aside, it's worth noting that I, and everyone here, would have preferred to avoid a war. Wars, in fact. But, as i said above, parliamentary means had gotten nowhere in decades and by 1916 and independence looked as far away as ever. Unfortunately physical force proved 'necessary' to force the issue and provide the platform for an independent Ireland.

partyguinness

Sand wrote: »

And is your view that it would have been impossible for Ireland to achieve these from the starting point of Home Rule? That the Irish MPs couldn't withdraw from the House of Commons to form a Dail to force the introduction of Home Rule? That they couldn't have achieved more concessions (including Dominion status) from a war weary, exhausted and bankrupt Britain as the price of recognising (nominally at least) the partition of Northern Ireland? Would a bankrupt Britain really go to war over giving Ireland dominion status if it was given access to the Treaty ports?

Nothing was impossible. We will never know.

War weary? Look how the British reacted to the 1916 Rising in the midst of 1916. They also sent 'war weary' soldiers over to form the Black n Tans. Look at Churchill's threat to mobilise 250k troops if the Treaty was not signed? War weary my ass...when has Britain was never ever been war weary.

Of the biggest concern to Britain was not letting a country on it's own doorstep breaking free. What type of example would that set to India etc?

Sand wrote: »

The Free State as delivered in 1921 was very much an ugly, unloved, red headed step child. It offered nothing that justified the violence and sacrifices over the past 5 years, and indeed the Irish Civil War was a direct result of militant republicans taking the view that it *couldn't* possible promise an independent nation-state. They were wrong.

Step by step, by constitutional and diplomatic means full Irish freedom and sovereignty was achieved without a shot being fired, from a very unpromising start.

LOL...almost eloquent. I have read that before so don't try to lay claim on that.

Cherry picking historical events out of conext. As if the Free State just magicaly appeared over night which rendered the previous 6 years redundant and unnecessary. Really?

Plus I think you are forgetting '32 county independent nation state'.

Sand wrote: »

I hope you can see why I don't consider it impossible that Home Rule would have only meant a starting position a little further back. Once Home Rule was on the books, the genie was out of the bottle. That was why the Ulster Unionists were so opposed to it - they knew it could only go one way when there was an Irish nationalist majority.

That's nothing new. You are simply reciting the election campaign of the Home Rule party in 1918. The inference that Ulster Unionists would go quietly and accept the position, while we will never know this, is cute but a little naive.

irishfeen

Sand wrote: »

We don't have an All-Ireland republic today either. If we could even achieve the status quo without violence in the north, then that's got to be a positive. Especially as less violence would imply a little less bitterness on either side, allowing more fertile ground for progress towards an All-Ireland republic.

You see hindsight is an absolute wonderful thing, of course there isn't an All Ireland republic yet as you say but under home rule we could very well still be part of the UK in some form or another. The Irish Anglo Agreement was a horrible nasty compromise (notably massively in the favour of London) to the "Irish situation"- it ensured that division, fear and hatred could thrive between the two traditions on the island decade after decade.

If anything the south (apart form economic stagnation) has been extremely stable since the Civil war came to a close - the ironic thing is that the London re-enforcing partition back in 1921 via the Anglo Irish Agreement has meant that the population of the north for which partition was meant to protect has caused untold misery and damage to a society which even today is massively divisive. Had London put the issue to a vote on an All-Ireland basis it could be argued that it would have saved as many if not more lives then the partitioning the country and the subsequent Irish Civil war including "the troubles" to this very day.

partyguinness

Sand wrote: »

We don't have an All-Ireland republic today either. If we could even achieve the status quo without violence in the north, then that's got to be a positive. Especially as less violence would imply a little less bitterness on either side, allowing more fertile ground for progress towards an All-Ireland republic.

Unfortunately, even with the reduction of violence. The divide and bitterness is far greater now than during the violence in some parts. But here's hoping.

partyguinness

irishfeen wrote: »

If anything the south (apart form economic stagnation) has been extremely stable since the Civil war came to a close - the ironic thing is that the London re-enforcing partition back in 1921 via the Anglo Irish Agreement has meant that the population of the north for which partition was meant to protect has caused untold misery and damage to a society which even today is massively divisive. Had London put the issue to a vote on an All-Ireland basis it could be argued that it would have saved as many if not more lives then the partitioning the country and the subsequent Irish Civil war including "the troubles" to this very day.

I have seen the point being made (by a Unionist- can't for the life of me remember his name) that 'Orangism' etc would actually be better off in an all Ireland state and for one simple reason. The UK as a whole does not give a crap about the Unionists/Orangism etc but in an All Ireland state, he is of the opinions that 'we' would bend over backwards to make them feel welcome. Pretty much over compensate and the Unionist 'tradition' would be better protected and allowed to even flourish.

Knowing us we would prob remove the white and green from the flag and ban St Patrick's Day in our haste to welcome our new friends.

DarkyHughes

LordSutch wrote: »

Don't forget that the 1916 rising was carried out by a very small group of people, and as such they had no right to act in Irelands name. This is the crux of John Bruton's argument. Not only was the rising a violent & deadly farce, but it was also an unpopular devisive farce without the consent of the Irish population at large!



Everything about it was wrong, from the planning to the execution of (the rising) to the execution of the rebels after their failed rising, to the many civilian deaths, to the hurt brought upon the country, to the destruction, to the instability it brought to the 250.000 Irish troops fighting on the home front + the instability it brought to people back home . . . .

The 1916 Easter rising was a big mistake.

Nice to hear Bruton speaking out and bursting the rebel hero 'myth' that many Irish republicans seem to be brainwashed by.

1916 happened when their was political upheaval all over Europe. Revolution in Russia , revolution in Germany 2 years later.

Blood would have been spilled all over Ireland as Loyalist armed to the teeth would have resisted Home Rule with the help of conservative officers. 1916 was a god send really.

Bruton is a Blueshirt who couldn't give a sh!t what the Irish people think of course you FG fanboys love to hear a bit of anti-Republican rhetoric

partyguinness

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Bruton is a Blueshirt who couldn't give a sh!t what the Irish people think of course you FG fanboys love to hear a bit of anti-Republican rhetoric

It just kills Bruton and his ilk that his FG forefathers were involved in the 1916 Rising. To maintain the moral high ground in his own head, he must come out with this nonsense. The more he can distance himself the better and just lump in Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Expect a lot more of it over the next 2 years.

Leaving aside personal opinions about the 'ifs' and 'buts' of the period, commemorating a piece of legisation that never took effect in this country? I have never heard such bizarre nonsense.

Is it like some sort of memorial service to lament 'what could have been'?

Good loser

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed. The result would have been an exodus of Unionists from the North probably to Scotland and the colonies.

This might have taken decades I agree. Probably when Indian independence was achieved. The momentum created by the ridiculous 1916 rebellion precluded this ever happening.

Always assuming there would have been a democratic majority for independence along the line.

irishfeen

partyguinness wrote: »

I have seen the point being made (by a Unionist- can't for the life of me remember his name) that 'Orangism' etc would actually be better off in an all Ireland state and for one simple reason. The UK as a whole does not give a crap about the Unionists/Orangism etc but in an All Ireland state, he is of the opinions that 'we' would bend over backwards to make them feel welcome. Pretty much over compensate and the Unionist 'tradition' would be better protected and allowed to even flourish.

Knowing us we would prob remove the white and green from the flag and ban St Patrick's Day in our haste to welcome our new friends.

I worked on a little project on the last general elections in both Ireland and N.Ireland - if similar results were seen on an all-Ireland ballot ironically the DUP could hold massive balance of power as a minority party in a Dublin government because they would have a healthy number of TD's from the Unionist vote and even more ironically they would have more power if they went into a Dublin coalition government then they have had since direct rule was imposed on the north (1972).

I would have no problem allowing their culture to flourish in a UI, once its peaceful and lawful they should have every right to. I also would also have no problem in re-joining the commonwealth in a UI, it would show the moderate Unionist population that the south would accept and welcome them and in fact it would finally release the shackles and we could talk and accept our "British history" pre independence.

irishfeen

Good loser wrote: »

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed. The result would have been an exodus of Unionists from the North probably to Scotland and the colonies.

This might have taken decades I agree. Probably when Indian independence was achieved. The momentum created by the ridiculous 1916 rebellion precluded this ever happening.

Always assuming there would have been a democratic majority for independence along the line.

My dear man - you obviously have forgotten how the Unionist population armed themselves and were fully prepared to engage nationalists in a national civil war even over Home Rule... the Unionist population would never ever have conceded a UI republic without fighting back.

oscarBravo

partyguinness wrote: »

Careful now. You are in danger of showing your true colours.

...and I'm sure I can rely on you to explain to me what my "true colours" are.

If you are trying to make sense of something nearly a 100 years on, you are probably pissing against the wind. Give it up for your own sanity.

How thoughtful of you. Don't worry about me; my sanity is perfectly capable of surviving the apparently heretical idea that political change is possible without killing people.

Reekwind wrote: »

Irish independence was an inevitability. It was going to happen sooner or later...

...but if it's possible to speed up political change by killing people, then (apparently) that's an acceptable price to pay.

Unfortunately physical force proved 'necessary' to force the issue and provide the platform for an independent Ireland.

So independence was inevitable, but violence was necessary to bring it about. How... internally consistent of you.

irishfeen wrote: »

My dear man - you obviously have forgotten how the Unionist population armed themselves and were fully prepared to engage nationalists in a national civil war even over Home Rule... the Unionist population would never ever have conceded a UI republic without fighting back.

Which would, of course, have been utterly reprehensible of them. Using violence to fight for a political end? Don't they know that that's only acceptable behaviour from one side?

irishfeen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which would, of course, have been utterly reprehensible of them. Using violence to fight for a political end? Don't they know that that's only acceptable behaviour from one side?

You see you have to balance it out with democracy - the unionist population (mainly in Ulster) armed themselves and kept the country to ransom albeit being a small minority. The signing of the Ulster Covenant in 1912 drove the IRA/nationalists to arm themselves in perpetration for a possible Irish civil war, of course the London government actively tried to prevent arms reaching nationalists while turning a blind eye to unionists for the main.

Manach

My own 2c on the Easter Rising violence, whilst the meme of Ireland's opportunity during England's difficulty has a historical precedent, I would state that in a vast majority of historical cases, violence is never justified. It was certainly not in this case. Given the then parliamentary make-up of Redmondite Home Rule party, it had the legitimate and democratic support of a majority of people. So while (IMHO) there never would have been anything near independence being achieved, the rising was not justified because the Irish people had a voice in the political metreopole with its alliance with the Liberal Party.

partyguinness

Good loser wrote: »

I think Bruton is basically correct.

If the Irish had simply adopted the position that they wanted an independent country and absolutely refused to accept anything less than a 32-county free state (probably dominion status) eventually it would have been conceded without a drop of blood being shed.

'simply'.....interesting

So you are with the anti-Treaty side on this? Hold out for 32 county of nothing. Have you anything to back this up with?

The Unionists were already positioning themselves for a fight and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 already divided the county up and then was replaced by the Treaty. The country was already partitioned by the time negotiations came along.[/QUOTE]

Good loser wrote: »

The momentum created by the ridiculous 1916 rebellion precluded this ever happening.

Any chance of an elaboration?

partyguinness

I have no issue with people expressing the opinion that things could would have been different if the 1916 Rising had not taken place. That is unquestionable.

Essentially what Burton is saying is 'Ireland was going to achieve independence anyway so there really no need for the 1916 Rising.' Personally I am not sure where this confidence is coming from. That is pure conjecture and always will be. It is not based on fact or evidence whatsoever.

I have never heard that the British were just about to grant full independence to a united Ireland but for the 1916 Rising. The British did everything to stop it- from their initial response to the WofI.

If the British were such a reasonable bunch of chaps then why didnt they just grant full independence in 1918 after the elections and spare the subsequent bloodshed?

The words 'eventually' and 'without bloodshed' has been used. Why did the British wait? Were they slow learners? Give their egos a little time to get used to the idea perhaps?

Holding up some hypothetical 'if only' scenario with full 32 county independence as a fait accompli only for the 1916 Rising is just not tenable and not borne out by any credible evidence from that period. Criticise the Rising all you want but suggesting a fait accompli a la Bruton is dangerous revisionism.

Like it or not, the 1916 Rising gave rise to the birth of this nation as we know it and something that demands sombre, mature and dignified reflection.

Not everyone will like it. I respect that but it's also terribly sad.

partyguinness

Manach wrote: »

My own 2c on the Easter Rising violence, whilst the meme of Ireland's opportunity during England's difficulty has a historical precedent, I would state that in a vast majority of historical cases, violence is never justified. It was certainly not in this case. Given the then parliamentary make-up of Redmondite Home Rule party, it had the legitimate and democratic support of a majority of people. So while (IMHO) there never would have been anything near independence being achieved, the rising was not justified because the Irish people had a voice in the political metreopole with its alliance with the Liberal Party.

Let's not forget that the bunch of unelected warmongers started the Rising went on to win landslide elections in 1918 once the Irish electorate decided that a voice in the politicial metropole was not enough anymore and they could force the issue another way...

If the opposition was more than happy to send thousands of it's men to certain death on an imperial jolly then taking up arms wass probably the best and only way to get their attention. They were probably right.

Regretably, violence gets results in certain situations.

irishfeen

It really is amazing how many "what ifs?" pop up during the struggle for Irish independence ... What if the leaders had not been shot? .. What if Collins rejected the treaty? .. What if the Dáil rejected the treaty? What if Collins had survived? What would Collins have done about the 6 counties? What if a more moderate Taoiseach was in place and offered the ports to the UK during WW2?... What if DeValera had listened to the "nation once again" proposal from Churchill etc. ... The amount of what ifs is ridiculous, you would wonder how we got this far at all

partyguinness

Oh just another thought on the ol' 32 county independence/no bloodshed that was apparantly a fait accompli...

Why didnt the British allow the Treaty party go back to Dublin and discuss the matter?

Or allow the Treaty to be put to a 32 county national vote?

Perhaps because that would have certainly meant 'Bye Bye' to the North and they were not going to let that happen.

So the notion that political means would have brought a 32 county independent nation (only for the Rising) does not hold water. Plus, the India's and Australia's did not have the Ulster 'problem' and also being so close was another curse. It was easy to mobilise troops into Ireland.

Manach

Which obscures the fact they did as you said were unelected and thus had no legitimate authority or justification for the 1916 rising. Those that had joined the British forces in were ones you had made a free choice and volunteered, as part of a attempt to perserve some measure of balance on the continent and the long traditional of serving in the British army. Constant repetitive cries of imperialism seems to be based of the hand-waving sock-puppet variety of historical analysis than one taking account all the historical forces in play in Europe at that time.

K-9

I can't see why people would have had faith in the Liberals delivering HR. Gladstone got criticised for taking it on in the first place, often described as his last folly, a criticism of him as a politician and an expression of what would now be seen as racism against the Irish. Its a bit like arguing people should have stuck by the Nationalist party in 1968 N.I, they got crumbs from Terence O'Neill but within months things moved swiftly!

K-9

The vote was only extended to men under 30 in 1918 so it's very debatable what affect Irish men volunteering would have had at the ballot box. HR really was obliterated in that election, the results are just too remarkable a turnaround to ignore. Also Redmond always refused conscription as an option, no matter what offer was given, probably delayed their obliteration by a few years.