What if the 1916 Rising had not happened?

KingBrian2

LordSutch wrote: »

I only ask because always in the context of 1916-1922 you will invaribly hear of the heroic Rebels and their fight against the British Empire :cool:

I still don't understand that business of fighting against the Empire. Fighting against Irish and British soldiers, yes of course, but that's not exactly the British Empire, is it.

The Republican element of the Rising leaders disowned the very notion of a King while for the rest it reaffirmed the stance that political independence was a prerequisite of solving the Irish Question. To put it mildly it showed we were serious about social revolution it was not an empty gesture. The threat succeeded in being carried out and Britain did not want to go through all that again. The home rule movement lasted for decades and little had come out of it.

Only now reassessing history do we see how futile that was Churchill himself was opposed to breaking up the British Empire so reaching a deal with weak home rulers would never have worked. He knew they were willing to support the crown when Kaiser or the Bolsheviks showed up. Only the rebels where there to fight for the Nationalist cause and a good few of them were not even Nationalists.

LordSutch

Yes indeed KingBrian that's very interesting, but what about my specific question in post 91.

josephryan1989

LordSutch wrote: »

I only ask because always in the context of 1916-1922 you will invaribly hear of the heroic Rebels and their fight against the British Empire :cool:

I still don't understand that business of fighting against the Empire. Fighting against Irish and British soldiers, yes of course, but that's not exactly the British Empire, is it.

The Irish Volunteers and later the IRA fought to have a sovereign independent republic because they had been denied self-government and home rule and had enough of British misrule treachery and deceit.

LordSutch

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The Irish Volunteers and later the IRA fought to have a sovereign independent republic because they had been denied self-government and home rule and had enough of British misrule treachery and deceit.

That doesn't address the question either

KingBrian2

LordSutch wrote: »

That doesn't address the question either

Fighting against the Empire required destroying British administration in Ireland. We were run like an Imperial hotspot so go after Imperial soldiers. Short of burning down the city by torching all the Imperial controlled buildings would have devastated Dublin. The Unionists were committed to maintaining the Empire so confronting them across the city and the country was the best way for the revolutionaries to attack Imperial rule.

LordSutch

Not sure if I should dwell on this Empire point, as I don't want to stall this thread. But I'll have one more go before I move on.

When you say fighting against the Empire do you mean fighting against being in the Empire, as opposed to fighting against the might of the Empire and all its countries?

You also say that the Unionists were committed to maintaining the Empire! This again puzzles me. Maybe you mean committed to maintaining the United Kingdom of GB & Ireland? which is not the same as maintaining an Empire!

Every time there is a discussion about the 1916 Rising the Empire is brought into the discussion. Is there some confusion about the Empire vis a vis Ireland place within the United Kingdom?

First and foremost Ireland was in the UK, then after that Ireland was also part of the Empire (which she helped to create). So I would say that those who wanted to break the Union fought against the forces of the United Kingdom, (which is not the same as fighting against an Empire).

Maybe the term 'Empire' being is used instead of UK?

Anyway, I'll move on now, irrespective if whether I get an answer or not.

KingBrian2

LordSutch wrote: »

Not sure if I should dwell on this Empire point, as I don't want to stall this thread. But I'll have one more go before I move on.

When you say fighting against the Empire do you mean fighting against being in the Empire, as opposed to fighting against the might of the Empire and all its countries?

You also say that the Unionists were committed to maintaining the Empire! This again puzzles me. Maybe you mean committed to maintaining the United Kingdom of GB & Ireland? which is not the same as maintaining an Empire!

Every time there is a discussion about the 1916 Rising the Empire is brought into the discussion. Is there some confusion about the Empire vis a vis Ireland place within the United Kingdom?

First and foremost Ireland was in the UK, then after that Ireland was also part of the Empire (which she helped to create). So I would say that those who wanted to break the Union fought against the forces of the United Kingdom, (which is not the same as fighting against an Empire).

Maybe the term 'Empire' being is used instead of UK?

Anyway, I'll move on now, irrespective if whether I get an answer or not.

The Unionists did not just support Ireland within the UK they also supported the larger Empire. We firmly stood shoulder to shoulder with the English when they fought against the combined forces of Germany, Austria and the Turks. The key is the first world war was an imperial war not a war to grant us political freedom. We lost both ways continuing to support the war effort.

The slogan used by the Volunteers was English difficulty is Irish opportunity. This was certainly true of the first world war. The English actually cared about keeping order in India and making sure the Arabs, Jews and Boers were under their tutelage. The rebels on the other hand saw the abusive nature of being part of an Empire, did what they could to spread their beliefs.

recedite

In reality, the term "British Empire" and "the might of" is usually employed just to evoke the unequal size of the protagonists, as in a David V Goliath fight. Tiny Ireland V The Mighty Empire.
It ignores the fact that much larger numbers of Irishmen were fighting for Britain than against, and no colonial troops fought in/against Ireland.
A loser can still be seen as a hero if he fights against insurmountable odds.

josephryan1989

recedite wrote: »

In reality, the term "British Empire" and "the might of" is usually employed just to evoke the unequal size of the protagonists, as in a David V Goliath fight. Tiny Ireland V The Mighty Empire.
It ignores the fact that much larger numbers of Irishmen were fighting for Britain than against, and no colonial troops fought in/against Ireland.
A loser can still be seen as a hero if he fights against insurmountable odds.

Who is ignoring the fact that more Irishmen were fighting for Britain at the time and that many Irish people were still behind the war? Nobody disputed this and if you read first hand accounts by rebels themselves they had no illusions of this reality which was why they fought. Many speak of the blood sacrifice as necessary to save the soul of Ireland.

At the time of the split in the Irish Volunteers in 1914 it was clear a majority were with Redmond. At halls and clubs where Volunteers met to decide their course of action the minority who dissented risked being beaten up on their way out.

A key event that restored the morale of the minority who continued to drill openly in defiance of the Crown was the funeral of O'Donovon Rossa which have them an opportunity to make a show of force. By 1915 and 1916 the public was war weary and thousands of men were dead. Support had ebbed away from Redmond's party. If the rebels did not make a demonstration in arms before the war ended they would never get a chance to.

If no rebellion had occurred the whole movement would have become discredited and after the war there would cenotaphs to the dead of the Great War across Southern Ireland instead of memorials to Irish rebels because no Republic would come into existence.

In many respects the Rising itself and the War of Independence were civil wars and the Irish Civil War was a continuation by rebels fighting as they saw it Irishmen in British uniform. The Free Staters were called Green and Tans by Republicans who had fought the Black and Tans.

irishfeen

We probably could have had a federal UK which included N.Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, Wales & England... the vast majority of the population would have accepted home rule at the time.

Like Scotland we could have just became comfortable inside the UK.

Victor

LordSutch wrote: »

So here we are 100 years later and the State is celebrating

Comemorating?

something which was comitted by 'a minority within a minority', and which was not not supported or sanctioned by the population at large :cool:

Hey, we still celebrate the invention of the smallpox vaccine in 1798, which was developed by one person. It is not how many people are for or against an idea*, but the merits of the idea.

* That would be Fianna Fáil-style populism.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't see how the economy would be doing a lot better. For instance we know that Northern Ireland has been under British rule for a while and their economy is absolutely woeful. We're certainly doing better than the part of Ireland under British rule.

How many shopping centres did the IRA bomb in Dublin or Cork? A large part of the problem in the North has been the IRA policy of targeting British and other external investment.

Victor

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Through his research into the child casualties of the Rising he has made an important contribution to understanding what actually happened in 1916. I've no objection to him promoting his views and his book. More power to him. It's a free country.

... where people subsidise Joe Duffy with a TV licence.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The British Empire was the superpower that controlled most of the world's territory in the 19th century and for the early 20th century.

Your concept of 'most' is novel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#/media/File:British_Empire_Anachronous_7.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

At its height, the British Empire covered a quarter of the Earth's land area and comprised one fifth of its population.

LordSutch wrote: »

First and foremost Ireland was in the UK, then after that Ireland was also part of the Empire (which she helped to create). So I would say that those who wanted to break the Union fought against the forces of the United Kingdom, (which is not the same as fighting against an Empire).

It seems there were a handful of Australian soldiers convalescing in TCD, who sided with the Empire.:)

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Unionists did not just support Ireland within the UK they also supported the larger Empire.

Aren't you putting words in people's mouths? I have never heard of unionism being specifically associated with imperialism. It's like saying "The IRA supported paedophiles."

josephryan1989 wrote: »

At halls and clubs where Volunteers met to decide their course of action the minority who dissented risked being beaten up on their way out.

Do you have anything to back this up? Your use of the phrase "risked being beaten up" is peculiar. As I sit here, I risk being hit by a meteorite.

If the rebels did not make a demonstration in arms before the war ended they would never get a chance to.

So, they had to strike when not only the British had their backs turned, but Ireland also had it's back turned?

josephryan1989

Victor wrote: »

... where people subsidise Joe Duffy with a TV licence.

The state also pays the wages of professors in our NUIs who produce more scholarly work and archivists and librarians who protect and maintain collections. He is not a professional historian but nonetheless Duffy's book is a fine piece of research and has popularized a sadly neglected facet of the Rising - the deaths of civilians and in particular children.

Do you have anything to back this up? Your use of the phrase "risked being beaten up" is peculiar. As I sit here, I risk being hit by a meteorite.

Have a read of Fergal Mcgarry's outstanding book Rebels:Voices From The 1916 RIsing. He quoted numerous veterans of the 1916 Rising who describe how tempers frayed during the 1914 split in the Irish Volunteers.
Mcgarry quotes directly from the Bureau of Military History who interviewed thousands of veterans.
The personal accounts of veterans are available for all to see in which they give vivid pictures of the twists and turns in the decade between the founding of the Volunteers and the end of the Civil War.

josephryan1989

So, they had to strike when not only the British had their backs turned, but Ireland also had it's back turned?

Yes indeed.

When they surrendered the leaders and rank and file rebels were abused by many British soldiers and Irishmen in Irish Regiments and wives and widows and children of British soldiers in Dublin.

After the executions, the emergence of news of atrocities committed by British troops during the Rising and the attempt to introduce conscription the national mood changed and by 1918 veterans of the Rising had been elected to seats once held by the IPP.

Had the Rising not occurred a swing toward Republicanism was much less likely after the end of WWI.

Victor

josephryan1989 wrote: »

When they surrendered the leaders and rank and file rebels were abused by many British soldiers and Irishmen in Irish Regiments and wives and widows and children of British soldiers in Dublin.

The general understanding was that much of the population condemned the uprising.

After the executions, the emergence of news of atrocities committed by British troops during the Rising and the attempt to introduce conscription the national mood changed and by 1918 veterans of the Rising had been elected to seats once held by the IPP.

You seem to be conflating the events of 1916 and 1918.

josephryan1989

Victor wrote: »

The general understanding was that much of the population condemned the uprising.

The most vocal are not to be confused with wider opinion.

You seem to be conflating the events of 1916 and 1918.

The veterans of 1916 were elected in 1918. They ran for election on an openly Republican platform and openly calling for armed rebellion against British rule. Read their pamphlets speeches and articles from the time.
Anyone who voted for Sinn Fein knew exactly what they were doing.
It is clear they had turned against the Crown.
The difference between the majority who voted 8 years before for the Home Rule IPP and the majority who voted for SF is self explanatory.

Without the Rising this dramatic upheaval probably would not have occurred.

LordSutch

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Yes indeed.

When they surrendered the leaders and rank and file rebels were abused by many British soldiers and Irishmen in Irish Regiments and wives and widows and children of British soldiers in Dublin...

Well thats a new emphasis on the original story which stated that it was Dubliners who abused the rebels as they were led away (after all ther destruction they caused). Yes I'm sure some of those who spat and jeered at the rebels were the wives of Irish/British soldiers, who were protecting Dublin against the rebels... either way, the rebels were not too popular immediately after the event, as Dublin lay smouldering

recedite

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Who is ignoring the fact that more Irishmen were fighting for Britain at the time and that many Irish people were still behind the war? Nobody disputed this and if you read first hand accounts by rebels themselves..

Those who portray it as "The Irish" V "The British Empire". Not you, as you obviously have a better grasp of the complexities.

KlausFlouride

josephryan1989 wrote: »

It is only through blind luck that the Arch Duke's car stalled outside the cafe in Sarajevo giving Princip the change to kill him and his wife setting in motion the events that led to the Great War which led to the suspension of Home Rule which led to a split in the Irish Volunteers which led to the Rising.

Read an interesting blog post about people who would have survived assassination had they access to modern medical techniques. The Arch Duke (and RFK) would have survived, JFK & Lincoln stood no chance.

On the basis that NI is still part of the UK, would the odds not favour the whole island still being part of the UK?

josephryan1989

The period between the executions of the 1916 Rising leaders and the Sinn Féin victory in 1918 is often glossed over without mentioning the tantalizing possibility that Ulster Unionists could have accepted a 32 County Home Rule Ireland at the Irish Convention which first sat in 1917 and concluded in 1918.
The Unionist Lord Londonderry advanced the idea of a Swiss style canton where Ulster Protestants would have constitutional safeguards.
The Catholic bishops and nationalist leaders such as John Dillon and Joseph Devlin opposed the proposal as they feared for Catholics in a Protestant dominated Ulster while they opposed the compromise Redmond made with Lord Midleton, the leader of southern unionists over fiscal matters.
40% of seats in the proposed Irish Parliament were to be occupied by Unionists.
Carson was sympathetic to this federalist deal when Horace Plunkett, the chairman of the Convention diverted the discussion away from a time table for a vote on the issue toward the issue of land purchase.
After Redmond died in March 1918 the hardline Unionists won out over moderate Unionist opinion and meanwhile Sinn Féin had boycotted it from the start because Home Rule in any form would not meet their demands for a Republic.
For most people it was a desperate attempt by the IPP to cling on with the help first of Asquith and his successor Lloyd George whose similarly ailing Liberal Party were both under pressure from hardline Tories and Unionists who opposed Home Rule in any form whatsoever.
Had Redmond concluded a deal that rescued Home Rule he might have saved himself - his political decline paralleled his own physical decline - his moribund IPP party and stole a march on SF who might not have eclipsed the IPP in the 1918 election.
However the decision of Lloyd George to attempt to introduce conscription in Ireland won Sinn Féin huge support and they swept the board ultimately leading to the War of Independence.
However the Convention idea itself was prompted by the sea change that came about after the Easter Rising.

Arguably without the Rising the IPP although weakened by the declining popularity of the World War would probably have won a majority of Irish seats and SF would have remained a fringe movement.

KingBrian2

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The period between the executions of the 1916 Rising leaders and the Sinn Féin victory in 1918 is often glossed over without mentioning the tantalizing possibility that Ulster Unionists could have accepted a 32 County Home Rule Ireland at the Irish Convention which first sat in 1917 and concluded in 1918.
The Unionist Lord Londonderry advanced the idea of a Swiss style canton where Ulster Protestants would have constitutional safeguards.
The Catholic bishops and nationalist leaders such as John Dillon and Joseph Devlin opposed the proposal as they feared for Catholics in a Protestant dominated Ulster while they opposed the compromise Redmond made with Lord Midleton, the leader of southern unionists over fiscal matters.
40% of seats in the proposed Irish Parliament were to be occupied by Unionists.
Carson was sympathetic to this federalist deal when Horace Plunkett, the chairman of the Convention diverted the discussion away from a time table for a vote on the issue toward the issue of land purchase.
After Redmond died in March 1918 the hardline Unionists won out over moderate Unionist opinion and meanwhile Sinn Féin had boycotted it from the start because Home Rule in any form would not meet their demands for a Republic.
For most people it was a desperate attempt by the IPP to cling on with the help first of Asquith and his successor Lloyd George whose similarly ailing Liberal Party were both under pressure from hardline Tories and Unionists who opposed Home Rule in any form whatsoever.
Had Redmond concluded a deal that rescued Home Rule he might have saved himself - his political decline paralleled his own physical decline - his moribund IPP party and stole a march on SF who might not have eclipsed the IPP in the 1918 election.
However the decision of Lloyd George to attempt to introduce conscription in Ireland won Sinn Féin huge support and they swept the board ultimately leading to the War of Independence.
However the Convention idea itself was prompted by the sea change that came about after the Easter Rising.

Arguably without the Rising the IPP although weakened by the declining popularity of the World War would probably have won a majority of Irish seats and SF would have remained a fringe movement.

The sea change of political beliefs by the British also played a part. Churchill the hero of WW2 was originally a liberal before moving to the conservative side and it was under that gvt he was in that they negotiated with the IRB/Sinn Fein.

recedite

josephryan1989 wrote: »

40% of seats in the proposed Irish Parliament were to be occupied by Unionists.
Carson was sympathetic to this federalist deal when Horace Plunkett, the chairman of the Convention diverted the discussion away from a time table for a vote on the issue toward the issue of land purchase.

The 40% is interesting as it would have given unionists a greater representation than their numbers warranted. It was only supposed to last for a limited interim period, and was mainly to ensure that southern unionists would retain their excessive level of power, at least for a changeover period.
It was opposed by both the Labour delegates and the northern unionists on the basis that it was undemocratic. So this harks back to the 1798 rebellion when the northern presbyterians came out in force behind Wolfe Tone and his principles for a more egalitarian society. IMO its a pity that this aspect to the northern unionists was not recognised or exploited more.
It was the domineering influence of the RC Bishop of Raphoe on the nationalist side in the negotiations that really worried them. The Labour delegation and the northern unionists probably could have found a lot more to agree on if the RCC hierarchy had not been there.

Horace Plunkett and the southern unionists were strongly in favour of a 32 county solution. This because they were afraid if the 6 counties broke away, they would be left vulnerable and isolated as a small minority. As it happened, Plunkett's house was later burned down, in the 1920's, by the IRA.

The northern unionists wanted all taxation matters handled by London, as they were afraid of a trade war developing. They cited the example of the early Australian states which started off having individual fiscal powers, but later found that trade disputes were doing too much damage and opted for a centralised federal system. When the Anglo-Irish trade war did kick off in the 1930's, the 6 counties escaped the damage.

The Bishop of Raphoe was adamant that not only income tax but also customs and excise would be controlled by an Irish Parliament. The bishop's amendment to this effect was defeated by southern unionists and moderate nationalists combined, who agreed that local fiscal matters should be controlled locally, but a free trade area should be established between the 32 county area and the rump UK.

Its ironic that when the convention failed, the northern unionists ended up with their own Home Rule despite opposing the concept originally.

The full report of this Convention is available online. Essentially they were trying to devise a new Irish constitution, but they never really found a consensus.

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

Irish/British soldiers, who were protecting Dublin against the rebels...

By killing a rake of them? Some protecting

Joe prim

KingBrian2 wrote: »

http://www.easter1916.ie/index.php/places/a-z/gpo/

On Monday afternoon the garrison repulsed a cavalry attack while with the breakdown of law and order, many of the stores in Sackville Street were looted. From Wednesday, the GPO and other buildings in Sackville Street came under artillery fire, mostly from the Helga gunboat at anchor in the Liffey. Connolly had believed the British would not use artillery in city areas. By Friday night the GPO was on fire, at which point it was evacuated.

The Helga didn't shell Sackville Street, and there was no cavalry charge on the GPO.

Jesus.

Joe prim wrote: »

There was no cavalry charge on the GPO.

Lancers?

KingBrian2

Joe prim wrote: »

The Helga didn't shell Sackville Street, and there was no cavalry charge on the GPO.

They rained bullets on city centre.

josephryan1989

Joe prim wrote: »

The Helga didn't shell Sackville Street, and there was no cavalry charge on the GPO.

Artillery guns positioned at different points shelled the city centre but there WAS a cavalry charge on the GPO.

A troop of lancers made a charge and several were shot out of their saddles and several dead horses lay in the street for the entire week until the surrender.

A street urchin ran into the street picked up the rifle of a dead man and ran to the GPO where he handed it in to the rebels.

During the shooting there were some friendly casualties as rebels were firing on the horses from both sides of the street.

jonniebgood1

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Artillery guns positioned at different points shelled the city centre but there WAS a cavalry charge on the GPO.

A troop of lancers made a charge and several were shot out of their saddles and several dead horses lay in the street for the entire week until the surrender.

A street urchin ran into the street picked up the rifle of a dead man and ran to the GPO where he handed it in to the rebels.

During the shooting there were some friendly casualties as rebels were firing on the horses from both sides of the street.

What is your source?

Jesus.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is your source?

How come you didn't ask that of Recedite or Joe Prim or anyone else for that matter?

Joe prim

Jesus. wrote: »

Lancers?

There were Lancers (and at least one horse ) shot on O'Connell St. by snipers attached to the GPO garrison, but they did not charge (and even the most incompetent cavalry commander would hardly have led a charge against a fortified building)