- This topic has 88 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
moehat.
- AuthorPosts
- January 18, 2010 at 19:39 #270697
Good post Imperial call, but do you think that the Protestants (and even on this thread there is seeming reference to them still being "settlers"…which does epitmoise the problem) would have accepted a united state at any time?
Under a nasty bigoted piece of work such as de Valera?
Civil war would have been a certain outcome unless the leadership was particularly inspired….
Home Rule for Ireland had received the Royal Assent and was placed on the statute books in 1914 but was temporarily suspended when the Great War broke out (remember the assumption at the time was that the war would be a quick affair). Had the Easter Rising of 1916 never taken place, Ireland would have had its own parliament in 1918 in Dublin representing all 32 counties.
Undoubtedly there would have been Civil War between Nationalist and Unionist had this occurred. The Ulster Volunteer Force’s Larne gun-running of April 1914 and the subsequent Howth gun-running of the Irish Volunteers in July of the same year signalled both sides intent. The Unionists would have resisted Home Rule fiercely had it ever came into being. The Solemn League and Covenant showed the depth of Unionist opposition to the prospect of Home Rule and the UVF sacrificed themselves in their thousands at the Somme to display their loyalty to the crown. The vast majority of the Irish Volunteers went to France too with only a small percentage staying at home.
Had the 1916 Rising not occurred, Civil War on some scale would have taken place in 1918. However, how much support the Unionists would have received is open for debate. Lloyd George clearly had much bigger fish to fry with the Paris Peace Conference and the Irish Question was simply an irritation to the British cabinet. I think eventually Unionists would have accepted the Home Rule parliament. The likes of De Valera would have never came to prominence without 1916 and I’m sure men like Redmond and Dillon of the Irish Parliamentary Party (which was wiped out by Sinn Féin post-1916) would have been far more palatable for Unionists.
Its often forgotten that Sinn Féin were far from a radical movement when they were formed by Arthur Griffith. Griffith advocated the formation of a dual-monarchy between Britain and Ireland in his "Resurrection of Hungary". Essentially under this proposal, Ireland and Britain would have seperate governments under a shared monarch. It was only after the Easter Rising that Sinn Féin became the Republican party. The British had wrongly labelled the Rising as the "Sinn Féin Rebellion" even though they had no involvement in it whatsoever. When the surviving leaders of the Rising were released from their internment in early 1917 they all joined Sinn Féin and would use it as the vehicle for the advancement of a Republic.
January 18, 2010 at 20:22 #270709Very good stuff IC. Thanks
January 18, 2010 at 21:02 #270717Does anyone else think both the IRA and Unionist terror organisations might just have been hiding behind a cause? They were and still are fronts for organised crime. They were always businesses with loads of money pouring in from the US other international sources and organised crime. Lots of people did very well and are doing very well from the troubles.

It was not till the US money and support dried up that there was any possibility of a political solution.

Don’t think that is unique to Republican and Unionist terrorists, more a truism applicable to the majority of terror organisations down the years
In addition to ‘bona fide’ members fighting for a cause they are a refuge for psychopaths without a cause and a front for organised crime
I’d suggest the excellent and often overlooked Senator George Mitchell may have had something to do with halting the US connection
Blair, McGuinness, Paisley et al may enjoy bathing in a warm sea of public plaudits but without the skilled, patient negotiation of this dignified quiet American, I rather doubt that the Good Friday Agreement – which catalysed the peace process – would have been reached
Excellent and most interesting posts Imperial Call, thanks
January 23, 2010 at 13:31 #271601The S.O. was telling me about George Mitchell the other day [he couldn’t remember his name]; said how overlooked his input was at the the time..says hes working for Obama now.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.