Men of 1916 were "constitutional republicans" - Micheal Martin

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
The reality is that no one really knows whether 1916 was even necessary. If it had not happened would the subsequent WOI have happened? Would there have been a peaceful transfer of power wit a similar partition but without a civil war? No one knows. 1916 is certainly up for debate, like it should be in any country that takes democracy seriously.
No chance. The Ulster Covenant guaranteed violence no matter what especially after Home Rule was passed in 1914. According to old documents, Edward Carson received word from UVF commanders in Enniskillen would start committing ethnic cleansing of Fermanagh and Tyrone if they opted for Home Rule since they had Catholic majorities.
So if there was no Easter Rising then Home Rule would probably come to pass and a different type of civil war would've happened.
 


Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
No chance. The Ulster Covenant guaranteed violence no matter what especially after Home Rule was passed in 1914. According to old documents, Edward Carson received word from UVF commanders in Enniskillen would start committing ethnic cleansing of Fermanagh and Tyrone if they opted for Home Rule since they had Catholic majorities.
So if there was no Easter Rising then Home Rule would probably come to pass and a different type of civil war would've happened.
Yes - I've heard about that and I agree that everyone would have had to play a good game in order to bring this about-particularly the British who were probably incapable anyway. But Unionism was persuadable had the reality been put to them and under those circumstances the UVF might have been faced down. But you're probably right. Elements of the British elite may well have backed the UVF
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
Yes - I've heard about that and I agree that everyone would have had to play a good game in order to bring this about-particularly the British who were probably incapable anyway. But Unionism was persuadable had the reality been put to them and under those circumstances the UVF might have been faced down. But you're probably right. Elements of the British elite may well have backed the UVF
When have Unionists ever been persuadable?
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
5,492
Yes - I've heard about that and I agree that everyone would have had to play a good game in order to bring this about-particularly the British who were probably incapable anyway. But Unionism was persuadable had the reality been put to them and under those circumstances the UVF might have been faced down. But you're probably right. Elements of the British elite may well have backed the UVF
British Officer Corp in Dublin threatened to resign their commissions if ordered to move against the unionists. You can't get more establishment then that.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
When have Unionists ever been persuadable?
At the Irish Convention the Unionists, under pressure from their fellows in the south who were appalled by the idea of partition, came within a whisker of agreeing HR for the whole island with no help whatever from Britain apart from the usual exemplary Liberals in the background. Of course it would have been important that the British would have spoken honestly to Unionists and explained that in order to save the situation HR for the whole island was necessary but that their economic and constitutional position would be guaranteed if they played ball. Of course the Tories did no such thing and seemed to imagine that by currying favour with the minority who made up a fifth of the people -this was somehow enough to secure the island. A few were racists and decided that the Protestant north east was the only part worth keeping-which was at least a superficially rational approach. But anyway-the Unionists were persuadable
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
At the Irish Convention the Unionists, under pressure from their fellows in the south who were appalled by the idea of partition, came within a whisker of agreeing HR for the whole island with no help whatever from Britain apart from the usual exemplary Liberals in the background. Of course it would have been important that the British would have spoken honestly to Unionists and explained that in order to save the situation HR for the whole island was necessary but that their economic and constitutional position would be guaranteed if they played ball. Of course the Tories did no such thing and seemed to imagine that by currying favour with the minority who made up a fifth of the people -this was somehow enough to secure the island. A few were racists and decided that the Protestant north east was the only part worth keeping-which was at least a superficially rational approach. But anyway-the Unionists were persuadable
The same Unionists that half a million signatories to the Ulster Covenant? That guaranteed a war? Only Carson seemed reasonable but he engaged completely with the UC.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
British Officer Corp in Dublin threatened to resign their commissions if ordered to move against the unionists. You can't get more establishment then that.
I can't remember the details but I think the reality is not as damning as that and we must remember that I am talking about a situation where the leaders of Unionism would have given their consent to HR and the UVF would have been defying everyone- a whole other ball game. You know -in any case the southern Irish would have needed a high level of devolution in order to protect their craft level basic industries from competition from large English factories and this would have provoked problems with the north too so it's not that all of this might have been the end of it either but basically so long as the whole island stayed in the Union it should have been possible to retain unity it everyone kept their knickers on
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
The same Unionists that half a million signatories to the Ulster Covenant? That guaranteed a war? Only Carson seemed reasonable but he engaged completely with the UC.
A third of all Unionists were in the south at that stage. If they could have been offered a way forward which allowed them to keep their all-import access to the British market and not throw the southern Unionists under the bus and it must be remembered that they had none of the modern attachment to the idea that they were not Irish at that time-well it proved to be a persuasive argument to them at the Convention and it is said that only some clumsy handling of the situation by chairman Horace Plunkett prevented a Unionist majority vote in favour of Home Rule for all of Ireland. The problem was in Britain-not Ireland. Unionists were persuadable
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
A third of all Unionists were in the south at that stage. If they could have been offered a way forward which allowed them to keep their all-import access to the British market and not throw the southern Unionists under the bus and it must be remembered that they had none of the modern attachment to the idea that they were not Irish at that time-well it proved to be a persuasive argument to them at the Convention and it is said that only some clumsy handling of the situation by chairman Horace Plunkett prevented a Unionist majority vote in favour of Home Rule for all of Ireland. The problem was in Britain-not Ireland. Unionists were persuadable
The convention was after the Ulster Covenant. You're giving the unionists far too much benefit than they deserve. Where was the unionist outcry when Catholics were oppressed for 50 years under the Orange State? The most you got were Protestant republicans and they were very few. Hell even now unionists deny there was institutional discrimination against Catholics.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
The convention was after the Ulster Covenant. You're giving the unionists far too much benefit than they deserve. Where was the unionist outcry when Catholics were oppressed for 50 years under the Orange State? The most you got were Protestant republicans and they were very few. Hell even now unionists deny there was institutional discrimination against Catholics.
Most important was that the Convention was after the Rising and was an indication that some of the consequences of continued stasis were coming into view for everyone. It is at such moments that positions change and true limits are reached. In a recent broadcast an American professor in Queens , whose name escapes me, remarked that Lloyd George sought an absolute guarantee from Unionist leaders that there would be no discrimination against Catholics in the new northern state-an after thought since the main concern was for Protestants in the new independent Irish state. He got his guarantees but as the professor recounted, the Covenant had brought hardline Loyalism into alliance with the moderate Unionists and this ensured that the promises would not be kept and the rest is history as it happened. The chance to avoid all of that was missed , however I suspect that the alternative would not have provided a route to independence.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,554
//
The chance to avoid all of that was missed , however I suspect that the alternative would not have provided a route to independence.
Yes, and the more free and catholic (and gaelic) we wanted it to be, the more likely a border.

The less free and more united the island, the scene changes to common ground and compromise. This is what the EU's Irish province will look like some day.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
Yes, and the more free and catholic (and gaelic) we wanted it to be, the more likely a border.

The less free and more united the island, the scene changes to common ground and compromise. This is what the EU's Irish province will look like some day.
Yes -you would have had dividing forces but also uniting ones. In particular the net contribution to the crown which Ireland was making would have had to stop and the industrial north east would have provided a support for the whole island instead-something which might have made the south more understanding of the need to keep access to the British market in order to keep it going. HR would have forced Unionists and Nationalists to deal with each other and would have promoted a greater understanding of each others positions. In any case there was only another perhaps two or three decades left for the northern economy to continue but by then the welfare state in the UK would have seen Ireland become a substantial net beneficiary which would have made any moves towards independence very unlikely. So yes -independence is very much associated with partition and unity is inextricably linked to Home Rule. A tough choice.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
27,087
Now that Martin is firmly under Leo's wing, he is becoming more of a Blueshirt than ever.

The people of 1916 would applaud the IRA of 69-98 and would have sent the Asgard back to Germany for more AKs (or whatever..to mix a few metaphors :D ).
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
11,611
Most important was that the Convention was after the Rising and was an indication that some of the consequences of continued stasis were coming into view for everyone. It is at such moments that positions change and true limits are reached. In a recent broadcast an American professor in Queens , whose name escapes me, remarked that Lloyd George sought an absolute guarantee from Unionist leaders that there would be no discrimination against Catholics in the new northern state-an after thought since the main concern was for Protestants in the new independent Irish state. He got his guarantees but as the professor recounted, the Covenant had brought hardline Loyalism into alliance with the moderate Unionists and this ensured that the promises would not be kept and the rest is history as it happened. The chance to avoid all of that was missed , however I suspect that the alternative would not have provided a route to independence.
What "actually happened" during the subsequent Stormont years dont play into your thinking .. at all.

Your "it was all our own fault" mantra is just as ridiculous as a rapist saying "but she was wearing a short skirt m'lud" ....

and yes, it really is that simple
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
Yes -you would have had dividing forces but also uniting ones. In particular the net contribution to the crown which Ireland was making would have had to stop and the industrial north east would have provided a support for the whole island instead-something which might have made the south more understanding of the need to keep access to the British market in order to keep it going. HR would have forced Unionists and Nationalists to deal with each other and would have promoted a greater understanding of each others positions. In any case there was only another perhaps two or three decades left for the northern economy to continue but by then the welfare state in the UK would have seen Ireland become a substantial net beneficiary which would have made any moves towards independence very unlikely. So yes -independence is very much associated with partition and unity is inextricably linked to Home Rule. A tough choice.
I still don't think you're understanding. The Northern counties opting out of Home Rule was to become permanent as John Redmond wasn't able to keep them in the negotiations. How are the Nationalists and Unionists supposed to deal with each other? Unity was never on the cards
 

Glenshane4

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2012
Messages
10,331
Sinn Féin 'not stealing our republican clothes...They're a mafia group', says Martin | BreakingNews.ie

The re-writing of history is reaching epic proportions now and will probably intensify as the centenary celebrations draw closer.

Martin's attempts to paint the men of 1916 as constitutional democrats is as farcical as last week's Sindo editorial which claimed it was outrageous to compare the 'unmandated' violence of the 1970s with the ermm.... unmandated violence of 1916. :lol:
Mr. Martin probably means that violence might be all right - provided it takes place at a safe distance - in time or in place. In that respect, most people in the world probably agree with him.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
46,239
The leath-taoiseach Mehole is more a neo-Unionist than a Republican. The fact that FF was once a Republican party obviously upsets him.
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
Now that Martin is firmly under Leo's wing, he is becoming more of a Blueshirt than ever.

The people of 1916 would applaud the IRA of 69-98 and would have sent the Asgard back to Germany for more AKs (or whatever..to mix a few metaphors :D ).
What? Connolly said there shouldn't be an uprising in the North because it would be sectarian and you're saying he'd applaud that. Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa, bombs, kidnapping, drugs. Enough with revisionism bollocks.
 

RasherHash

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
27,087
What? Connolly said there shouldn't be an uprising in the North because it would be sectarian and you're saying he'd applaud that. Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa, bombs, kidnapping, drugs. Enough with revisionism bollocks.
He was right, there shouldn't have been an 'Easter Rising in 1916 in Belfast', I agree.

He never said the Catholics shouldn't defend themselves from an armed and aggressive unionist state intent on mass murder and eviction.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom