Men of 1916 were "constitutional republicans" - Micheal Martin

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
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.
But that's what happened. Pure sectarianism.

And I'm one who thinks the Provos had every right to fight but we can't run away from the fact of what happened.
 


Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
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
Well I do not think at all that it was our own fault so if that's what you think I'm saying then maybe I'm not expressing myself very well but if I was assigning blame the lions share would go to the Tory party in Britain rather than the Unionists who just needed a push in the right direction to do the right thing. Instead they were encouraged along their very dangerous path. The subsequent attempt to deny Catholics a share in the new northern state and a political say in how it was run is entirely on the Unionists.

However if it is your position that partition was the primary cause of what happened to the Nationalist minority in the north then I am contending that independence would have had to have been foregone in order to retain unity because the Unionists -nor anyone else-could not be expected to destroy the industrial economy of the NE by losing access to the critical British market so that I do not blame them at all for not wanting this to happen and for seeing HR as a potential threat for this.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
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
I think the Rising put paid to any notions of that nonsense. The Rising meant that if everyone behaved then HR for the whole island could be agreed or if not southern secession was inevitable. The Nationalists and Unionists would have had to deal with each other in the new HR parliament in Dublin instead of running off to London to solve their problems.
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
I think the Rising put paid to any notions of that nonsense. The Rising meant that if everyone behaved then HR for the whole island could be agreed or if not southern secession was inevitable. The Nationalists and Unionists would have had to deal with each other in the new HR parliament in Dublin instead of running off to London to solve their problems.
Not when they're divided and Ireland would still be part of the empire and the UK so yes London would still be the destination. I don't get your reasoning at all. It's completely ahistorical.
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
11,611
Well I do not think at all that it was our own fault so if that's what you think I'm saying then maybe I'm not expressing myself very well but if I was assigning blame the lions share would go to the Tory party in Britain rather than the Unionists who just needed a push in the right direction to do the right thing. Instead they were encouraged along their very dangerous path. The subsequent attempt to deny Catholics a share in the new northern state and a political say in how it was run is entirely on the Unionists.

However if it is your position that partition was the primary cause of what happened to the Nationalist minority in the north then I am contending that independence would have had to have been foregone in order to retain unity because the Unionists -nor anyone else-could not be expected to destroy the industrial economy of the NE by losing access to the critical British market so that I do not blame them at all for not wanting this to happen and for seeing HR as a potential threat for this.
re the bold bit .. you must be having a Giraffe :confused:

ffs even now, well recently, they've been desperately trying to fuk their nationalist neighbours by reneging on & breaking the GFA and putting a wedge between North & South via as hard a Brexit as they could get their hands on....
That was them going back on our "agreed shared future" ... what a despicable thing to do ... That is spectacularly backfired on them is a thing of beauty as far as Im concerned but thats not the point .. the point is they tried.

Do the right thing indeed :rolleyes: ... some chance

Its pure & utter fallacy that the British &/or Unionists would have just handed the place over (or any part of it .. in any way) had there not been the Easter Rising & war of independence etc......... If recent events re Brexit have done nothing else of benefit at least they've clearly shown us that.
 

Angler

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,702
re the bold bit .. you must be having a Giraffe :confused:

ffs even now, well recently, they've been desperately trying to fuk their nationalist neighbours by reneging on & breaking the GFA and putting a wedge between North & South via as hard a Brexit as they could get their hands on....
That was them going back on our "agreed shared future" ... what a despicable thing to do ... That is spectacularly backfired on them is a thing of beauty as far as Im concerned but thats not the point .. the point is they tried.

Do the right thing indeed :rolleyes: ... some chance

Its pure & utter fallacy that the British &/or Unionists would have just handed the place over (or any part of it .. in any way) had there not been the Easter Rising & war of independence etc......... If recent events re Brexit have done nothing else of benefit at least they've clearly shown us that.
It's been their MO forever , consolidate gains, renege on agreements , resume aggression.
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
11,611
It's been their MO forever , consolidate gains, renege on agreements , resume aggression.
Yep it sure has and only for the fact that the EU, and to a lesser extent but still important, the US, have our back they’d be busily running over the top of said agreements & indeed us again ...

Yet some folk who really should have more sense still like to claim all would have been rosy if the bad old nationalists had just rolled over and not fought back ..

It’s a nonsense
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
re the bold bit .. you must be having a Giraffe :confused:

ffs even now, well recently, they've been desperately trying to fuk their nationalist neighbours by reneging on & breaking the GFA and putting a wedge between North & South via as hard a Brexit as they could get their hands on....
That was them going back on our "agreed shared future" ... what a despicable thing to do ... That is spectacularly backfired on them is a thing of beauty as far as Im concerned but thats not the point .. the point is they tried.

Do the right thing indeed :rolleyes: ... some chance

Its pure & utter fallacy that the British &/or Unionists would have just handed the place over (or any part of it .. in any way) had there not been the Easter Rising & war of independence etc......... If recent events re Brexit have done nothing else of benefit at least they've clearly shown us that.
They would not be doing the right thing because it was the right thing. They would be doing it because it was in their interest to do so and the British would be persuading them. That the British failed in their part of the equation does not change the fact that they had an opportunity to do so had they put more thought into it.

The Rising radicalised the whole situation. There was going to be no more Home Rule plus partition or no more delaying of the implementation. The British had one last chance to keep Ireland in the union-immediate Home Rule for the whole island. They should have used their political resources to aim for this and the Convention implied that they knew what the stakes were but they failed miserably. Had they done as one might have expected they would do it would have been something of a decision for us. What would you have done?
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
Not when they're divided and Ireland would still be part of the empire and the UK so yes London would still be the destination. I don't get your reasoning at all. It's completely ahistorical.
In an Irish parliament with at least some control over industrial policy the industrial NE would have become an asset for the whole island and it would have been in the interests of all Irish people that it would continue to thrive and expand if possible. This would have involved planning and decision making in which both sides would have been heavily involved. This is just one example. Unionist TDs would have been turning up in parliament and horse trading like they all do. It is , of course , ahistorical since it did not happen . We are merely discussing the possibilities.
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
5,492
The leath-taoiseach Mehole is more a neo-Unionist than a Republican. The fact that FF was once a Republican party obviously upsets him.
Linky please.
Do you have any photos of him clicking his heels and offering his hand to her Majesty.
 

AhNowStop

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
11,611
They would not be doing the right thing because it was the right thing. They would be doing it because it was in their interest to do so and the British would be persuading them. That the British failed in their part of the equation does not change the fact that they had an opportunity to do so had they put more thought into it.

The Rising radicalised the whole situation. There was going to be no more Home Rule plus partition or no more delaying of the implementation. The British had one last chance to keep Ireland in the union-immediate Home Rule for the whole island. They should have used their political resources to aim for this and the Convention implied that they knew what the stakes were but they failed miserably. Had they done as one might have expected they would do it would have been something of a decision for us. What would you have done?
Jaysus .. You must be living in a different Ireland to the one Ive been living on .. There is simply "no way" that unionism would have been, in any shape or form, "persuadable" .. They were NEVER going to be persuaded into a UI and its naive insanity to even post taht they would ... fer feck sake look at what they've just tried to do re Brexit and the hard border .. and I'd say they've mellowed somewhat :confused:
..

Also, the Brits always go back on their word .. they did it many times and did it re the home rule bill and would have just kept on doing it had it not been for 1916 and the subsequent war of independence...

History, past & recent proves you wrong.

btw if anyone radicalised the situation it was the unionists/UVF and the British... They both decided that democracy was just too good for the Irish .. Its ok for them but not the Irish :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
Jaysus .. You must be living in a different Ireland to the one Ive been living on .. There is simply "no way" that unionism would have been, in any shape or form, "persuadable" .. They were NEVER going to be persuaded into a UI and its naive insanity to even post taht they would ... fer feck sake look at what they've just tried to do re Brexit and the hard border .. and I'd say they've mellowed somewhat :confused:
..

Also, the Brits always go back on their word .. they did it many times and did it re the home rule bill and would have just kept on doing it had it not been for 1916 and the subsequent war of independence...

History, past & recent proves you wrong.

btw if anyone radicalised the situation it was the unionists/UVF and the British... They both decided that democracy was just too good for the Irish .. Its ok for them but not the Irish :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
See below.
 
Last edited:

Fullforward

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
9,559
Linky please.
Do you have any photos of him clicking his heels and offering his hand to her Majesty.
How many times has Martin attended the Bloody Sunday commemoration in the last 4 decades?
 

Fullforward

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
9,559
But that's what happened. Pure sectarianism.

And I'm one who thinks the Provos had every right to fight but we can't run away from the fact of what happened.
When an IRA volunteer fired an RPG7 at an RUC or British army landrover, she/He didn't give two fúcks if the occupants were Christians, Islamic, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhis, Taoist, Confucians, Shinto, Jainists, or Zoroastrists.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,866
Yes -well if by united Ireland you mean the modern version of that, which is a united Ireland outside the UK then you are of course , quite correct. A united Ireland with Home Rule was however only narrowly defeated at the Convention and this without any persuasive actions by the British who had the wherewithal to cajole/threaten Unionism into accepting this with bells on.. What would the Unionists have done if the British side had shown any seriousness whatever about getting them to agree to Home Rule-if there was even a whisper that the British would not support partition in any circumstances unless Unionists did their bit to compromise? Of course they would have been forced to go along with it and many wanted this for other reasons as well.

The question is -why did the British fail to act in their own interests and I'm afraid that this has something of an echo in modern times with the current antics in London. Firstly they failed to identify what their interests were. Secondly they failed to correctly identify the threat to those interests. Thirdly they failed to overcome their prejudices and fourthly they likely lacked the 'bandwidth' to run an empire, fight a world war and hold on to a large part of the mother country at the same time. It has to be said also that there were many roadblocks to overcome after HR was successfully installed any one of which might have scuppered the whole exercise as well but had they managed to negotiate the first hurdle it might have suggested that they had the tools to keep going.
 

JamesCoughlin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
148
When an IRA volunteer fired an RPG7 at an RUC or British army landrover, she/He didn't give two fúcks if the occupants were Christians, Islamic, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhis, Taoist, Confucians, Shinto, Jainists, or Zoroastrists.
They cared if they were Brits.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom