Easter Rising

[Steven Broomfield]

They didn't refuse to obey. If they had that WOULD have been mutiny. And in peacetime that is their right, it's not desertion either. They're resigning on a point of principle. It's largely a gesture, eventually you would have found army officers who'd have been prepared to act for the Government but it showed the strength of feeling on the issue

I'm sorry - I still don't buy it. They were refusing to obey a legitimate order. The fact they could send in their papers doesn't escape the fact they were refusing to obey a legitimate order. A legal loophole makes it no less a simple fact. They were refusing to obey a legitimate order.

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

Funny that,but I would have thought there would have been some sanction against forming your own private army.(BTW British intelligence were quite aware of the arms smuggling but did nothing to intervene) The experiences of the National Volunteers in the south was quite different when the Army and police tried to intervene and stop the illegal importation of arms(the reason given for the intervention by the army) 3 civilians were shot and one other was bayoneted in the ensuing debacle.It is quite obvious that some in positions of power had a benign attitude towards the formation of the UVF and may have facilitated the establishment of same.

Nowadays yes but the same applies to the Irish volunteers. It is one of the indicators of how truly liberal Britain was that both the UVF and Irish Volunteers could be formed. The Easter Risers claimed to be fighting for freedom against a government that was so libertarian that they let an openly treasonous private army exist in wartime.

The UVF are loyal to Britain whilst the authorities knew that the IV contained some elements (IRB, ICA) that had murdered in the past (Thomas Clarke the prime example) hence the half hearted attempt to prevent the IV's gunruning. They actually seized only three guns and then had to return them as it was rightfully pointed out that they were the property of the legitimate owners.

Yes the Bachelors Walk shootings. Just look at the footage of the 2 Army corporals who strayed into the republican funeral in the 1990s and I think you'll understand the soldiers actions. Had the Army/RIC tried to move against the much larger Larne gunrunning the same could easily have happened (and indeed the RIC had fired on a Loyalist mob in Belfast a couple of decades earlier during the 1798 centennary riots killing several)

Frankly I don't think the British Government had a clue what to do about the Home Rule crisis and this is reflected in their policies both in 1912 and afterwards, they were left continually trying to square the circle.

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

I'm sorry - I still don't buy it. They were refusing to obey a legitimate order. The fact they could send in their papers doesn't escape the fact they were refusing to obey a legitimate order. A legal loophole makes it no less a simple fact. They were refusing to obey a legitimate order.

Yes but imagine if you were in a business and objected to the companies policy, wouldn't you be free to resign? If you were in a political party and objected to the mannifesto? If you were in a members club and disagreed with the decisions of the board? Also remember, they never went through with it, they just said they would resign if they received the order

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

after the Royal Proclamation of December 1913, the importing of arms, ammunition etc in Ireland for anything other than sporting activities was banned. The UVF imports after this date were illegal acts in defiance of the Government.

http://www.london-ga...8779/pages/8997

This proclamation was revoked on the outbreak of WW1.

Yes, you're right, I always thought the ban was brought in later as a result of the Larne gun-running but it preceeded it. This was actually an act of mass public disobedience

Here's a question, why was it revoked come wartime?

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

Interesting topic.

We might some day reach a point where we can agree that both 'sides' lost out as a result of 1912-23. Nationalists in the north and unionists in the south ended up as minorities who needed to keep their political persuasions under raps. I firmly believe that the very Catholic-Gaelicised outlook would not have happened if the country had been allowed to develop normally i.e. with a mix of religious and political views.Remember that the Act of Union 'only' occurred in 1801. The country had its own Government until then, albeit not well run, but somethings don't change. If Home Rule had come in, I believe that we may have ended up still in the UK, or at least in the Commonwealth like Canada or Australia. Just as southern nationalists abandoned northern nationalists, it is fair to say that northern unionists abandoned their southern counterparts to protect what they perceived as their own interests.

It is quite clear that despite a nationalist/Gaelic revival in the early 1900s, the majority were relatively content with the status quo. It is just a pity that unionists could only see the numbers game. The hard-line nationalist rhetoric would never have taken without the British reaction to 1916, perceived lack of response to nationalist concerns after the war and the spiral of violence. It has echoes in the modern period. The overwhelming majority in the south never had much liking for the IRA but it was the concept of injustices, internment, bloody sunday(s) that gave some sympathy to these causes. Extremists have always stepped in where Governments are indecisive, and it has suited traditional views of the other side to declare 'I told you so' to further their aims.

Read any literature from the time, especially in terms of the transfer of power in 1922. The same civil servants stayed in power, the ex-British soldiers stayed in the army. There were no purges like other countries. There were cases of revenge, murder, Unionists leaving the south just as happened in the North but not on the scale that has happened in any other European country in the 20th century.

I believe Carson himself though the partition of Ireland the worst outcome and I often thought it a dreadful shame that Unionists north of the border cannot call himself Irishmen/women in the same way that the Scottish or Welsh do irrespective of their allegiance to either state.

Mark

I agree with much of what you say but I would point out that the IRB would have always have staged their rebellion irrespective of Home Rule. The Nationalist reaction to the executions of the ringleaders fufilled all the fears of Unionists, that their lives meant nothing to Irish Nationalists who would sympathise and even idolise the people who killed them and find fault with whatever was done to stop them no matter how many lives it saved. The spiral of violence was something wholly initiated by Irish Republicans with indifference from Irish Nationalists and to the fury of Unionists.

[depaor01]

The Nationalist reaction to the executions of the ringleaders fufilled all the fears of Unionists, that their lives meant nothing to Irish Nationalists who would sympathise and even idolise the people who killed them and find fault with whatever was done to stop them no matter how many lives it saved. The spiral of violence was something wholly initiated by Irish Republicans with indifference from Irish Nationalists and to the fury of Unionists.

Your gross generalisation is truly astonishing. I shall stop there.

[Steven Broomfield]

Yes but imagine if you were in a business and objected to the companies policy, wouldn't you be free to resign? If you were in a political party and objected to the mannifesto? If you were in a members club and disagreed with the decisions of the board? Also remember, they never went through with it, they just said they would resign if they received the order

This is going to be my last post on this; you can respond as you see fit.

I think you're dancing on the head of a pin here. The relationship between an officer granted his King's Commission is somewhat different, I suggest, than a member of a political party or an employee of a company.

The whole Curragh Mutiny/Incident was a shambles on behalf of the government, created by a group of pig-headed vain fools. The officers involved conspired to oppose the government's policy. Watever they may or may not have done, I still say it was a Mutiny.

Feel free to disagree, but I have to say I'm sticking to my view, which is, after all, the view of an awful lot of historians and other writers.

[corisande]

Someone sent me the blurb for a book just being published. I pass it on without comment

[depaor01]

Trinity College Dublin has just published online an interesting digitised and searchable diary describing the events in Dublin 1916. It was written by a Mary Martin of Monkstown, Dublin, whose son Captain Charles Andrew Martin, 6th Bn. Royal Dublin Fusiliers was in action in the Balkans. She describes the rebellion in Dublin for him as a daily record, unaware that her son had died, aged 20, four months previously.

Read the diary HERE

He was mentioned in despatches and was awarded the "Order of the White Eagle 5th Class (Serbia)" which prompts two questions:

- Were all MIDs announced in the London Gazette?

- How unusual was the award of the "White Eagle" to Commonwealth forces?

Dave

[Steven Broomfield]

- How unusual was the award of the "White Eagle" to Commonwealth forces?

Dave

I don't know how many were awarded, but foreign awards were, I believed, issued on a sort of Buggin's Turn basis - 10, say, would be awarded, and COs were left to allocate them. This chap probably got it because the CO felt an MID wasn't quite enough but another award (MC perhaps) wasn't applicable.

[jdoyle]

one document worth a read regarding the Easter Rising is the report of the Royal Commission. A PDF version is available to view from the Garda website :

http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Rebellion%20in%20Ireland%201916%20sm.pdf

[Murrough]

They didn't forfeit that right due to their political beliefs, civil and religious liberty remember? They forfeit that right when they took to the mass murder of innocent people, including many of their former comrades in arms whom they had served alongside in the trenches for the previous 4 years. How could they? How could they betray their neighbours, their brothers in arms?

No need for the hyperbole and exaggeration Lt ,I could ask the same question (how could members of the crown forces/unionists deny the right of men to seek their own political path?why did members of the same groups abuse and shoot their former comrades,neighbours,and civilians? You have now made it quite clear to me that intransigence/obstinacy on your part still prevents you from recognising the position of nationalists/republicans who had a legitimate right to seek a method of self determination of their choosing, home rule for the majority was no longer enough, they wanted more and while they did not get a republic,they got a Free State which was a vast improvement on Home rule.

[Murrough]

Nowadays yes but the same applies to the Irish volunteers. It is one of the indicators of how truly liberal Britain was that both the UVF and Irish Volunteers could be formed. The Easter Risers claimed to be fighting for freedom against a government that was so libertarian that they let an openly treasonous private army exist in wartime.

The UVF are loyal to Britain whilst the authorities knew that the IV contained some elements (IRB, ICA) that had murdered in the past (Thomas Clarke the prime example) hence the half hearted attempt to prevent the IV's gunruning. They actually seized only three guns and then had to return them as it was rightfully pointed out that they were the property of the legitimate owners.

Yes the Bachelors Walk shootings. Just look at the footage of the 2 Army corporals who strayed into the republican funeral in the 1990s and I think you'll understand the soldiers actions. Had the Army/RIC tried to move against the much larger Larne gunrunning the same could easily have happened (and indeed the RIC had fired on a Loyalist mob in Belfast a couple of decades earlier during the 1798 centennary riots killing several)

Frankly I don't think the British Government had a clue what to do about the Home Rule crisis and this is reflected in their policies both in 1912 and afterwards, they were left continually trying to square the circle.

LOL,Lt,You have more positions than the Kama sutra.The LOYAL UVF threatened a civil war with the British goverment because they wanted to disregard the will of the majority of Irish people,all your twisting will not change that fact. I am now detecting what I call an "Ulsterisation" with regards to the view held in unionist circles in recent years about the Irish War of Independence,especially since the GF agreement. There is a tendency now to try to equate actions in 1920/22 with the actions of PIRA in the 70's/90's,.This is not done out of a sense of historical accuracy,its some type of mischief making to irritate present day nationalists in NI. The comparison they try to push is invalid due to the political,demographic and socio/economic conditions prevailing in both periods.To push one particular agenda while totally ignoring and failing to recognise or acknowledge other valid perspectives does a disservice to historical truth but then people in entrenced positions are not usually conciliatory and tend to be myopic.

[Murrough]

Trinity College Dublin has just published online an interesting digitised and searchable diary describing the events in Dublin 1916. It was written by a Mary Martin of Monkstown, Dublin, whose son Captain Charles Andrew Martin, 6th Bn. Royal Dublin Fusiliers was in action in the Balkans. She describes the rebellion in Dublin for him as a daily record, unaware that her son had died, aged 20, four months previously.

Read the diary HERE

He was mentioned in despatches and was awarded the "Order of the White Eagle 5th Class (Serbia)" which prompts two questions:

- Were all MIDs announced in the London Gazette?

- How unusual was the award of the "White Eagle" to Commonwealth forces?

Dave

Another Dub here Dave but an enlisted man this time http://www.dnw.co.uk/medals/auctionarchive/searchcataloguearchive/itemdetail.lasso?itemid=67065

[corisande]

Order of White Eagle

 

[depaor01]

Thanks Corisande.

Very interesting, and even some shots of the medal.

I usually search the forum before posting questions!

Dave

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

This is going to be my last post on this; you can respond as you see fit.

I think you're dancing on the head of a pin here. The relationship between an officer granted his King's Commission is somewhat different, I suggest, than a member of a political party or an employee of a company.

The whole Curragh Mutiny/Incident was a shambles on behalf of the government, created by a group of pig-headed vain fools. The officers involved conspired to oppose the government's policy. Watever they may or may not have done, I still say it was a Mutiny.

Feel free to disagree, but I have to say I'm sticking to my view, which is, after all, the view of an awful lot of historians and other writers.

I sympathise with the officers in question, the British Army has always been reluctant to be used against its' own people and after the Peterloo massacre and the establishment of the regular police force the government has been commendably loathe to use them. I feel sympathy for the government too who were faced with an impossible situation, it may have been a shambles as you say but its' hard to see any solution that would have pleased all sides?

I would draw the analogy of a doctor who is strongly opposed to abortion. Now it is perfectly in their right to refuse to perfom them but it is also within their employers right to not employ them if they refuse to having been employed for that purpose. In many ways the Curragh mutiny was a sympbolic act but it illustrated to the pro-Home Rulers the depth of the very real fears that Irish Unionist understandably had and the extent to which the general public agreed with them

Someone sent me the blurb for a book just being published. I pass it on without comment

Interesting, must get a copy (e-book or paper?). With all the centenarys coming up it's a great time to be interested in Irish History

Trinity College Dublin has just published online an interesting digitised and searchable diary describing the events in Dublin 1916. It was written by a Mary Martin of Monkstown, Dublin, whose son Captain Charles Andrew Martin, 6th Bn. Royal Dublin Fusiliers was in action in the Balkans. She describes the rebellion in Dublin for him as a daily record, unaware that her son had died, aged 20, four months previously.

Read the diary HERE

He was mentioned in despatches and was awarded the "Order of the White Eagle 5th Class (Serbia)" which prompts two questions:

- Were all MIDs announced in the London Gazette?

- How unusual was the award of the "White Eagle" to Commonwealth forces?

Dave

God, how tragic! What was the delay in her learning of his death?

[depaor01]

I'm out of this thread. My attempt to contribute positively evidently doesn't suit Mr. Smyth. You're welcome to it.

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

No need for the hyperbole and exaggeration Lt ,I could ask the same question (how could members of the crown forces/unionists deny the right of men to seek their own political path?why did members of the same groups abuse and shoot their former comrades,neighbours,and civilians? You have now made it quite clear to me that intransigence/obstinacy on your part still prevents you from recognising the position of nationalists/republicans who had a legitimate right to seek a method of self determination of their choosing, home rule for the majority was no longer enough, they wanted more and while they did not get a republic,they got a Free State which was a vast improvement on Home rule.

No hyperbole and no exaggeration, veterans of the Great War who survived the hell of the trenches returned home to be murdered in their own country by the same people who'd betrayed them to the Germans and then been released (sometimes repeatedly!). Even worse were Great War veterans who joined the IRA murdering their old comrades in cold blood, murdered men who they may have served alongside, whose lives they may have once saved (and vice versa). They are beneath contempt. You know what they say about the 9th circle of hell?

Unionists and the security forces don't deny the right of people to seek their own peaceful political path, that's what they fought to preserve. They seek to stop Irish Nationalists murdering anyone who disagreed with them.

You cannot label me intransigent/obstinate simply for disagreeing with you, maybe you're instransigent/obstinite for disagreeing with me? Irish Nationalists have every right to seek a peaceful method of self-determination of their own choosing, they just don't have the right to kill anyone who disagrees with them and exterminate a cultural/political/religious minority which doesn't feature in their utopian nightmare of an extremist homogeneous society (or was the Turks campaign against the Armenians justified?) Your point seems to be that it was justified because they really, really wanted it? Well, Irish Unionists really, really wanted to stay as part of Britain.

The Irish Free State is a slightly enhanced version of Home Rule at the cost of the permanent partitition of Northern Ireland. Had Redmond agreed to it in 1914 he could probably have got the same as Tim Healy states in his memoirs. Ultimately all the horrific violence between 1916-1923 changed nothing, it was a senseless, obscene waste of human life and misery

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

I'm out of this thread. My attempt to contribute positively evidently doesn't suit Mr. Smyth. You're welcome to it.

We all welcome your contribution, in fact it's refreshing how civilized this discussion has remained which is why I suspect the mods have thankfully allowed it to continue.

But you ducked my question?

[Steven Broomfield]

I'm out of this thread.

Mind if I join you?

[depaor01]

Not at all Mr. Broomfield, but if I reply to you then I'm not out of.... Dammit!

[Murrough]

No hyperbole and no exaggeration, veterans of the Great War who survived the hell of the trenches returned home to be murdered in their own country by the same people who'd betrayed them to the Germans and then been released (sometimes repeatedly!). Even worse were Great War veterans who joined the IRA murdering their old comrades in cold blood, murdered men who they may have served alongside, whose lives they may have once saved (and vice versa). They are beneath contempt. You know what they say about the 9th circle of hell?

Unionists and the security forces don't deny the right of people to seek their own peaceful political path, that's what they fought to preserve. They seek to stop Irish Nationalists murdering anyone who disagreed with them.

You cannot label me intransigent/obstinate simply for disagreeing with you, maybe you're instransigent/obstinite for disagreeing with me? Irish Nationalists have every right to seek a peaceful method of self-determination of their own choosing, they just don't have the right to kill anyone who disagrees with them and exterminate a cultural/political/religious minority which doesn't feature in their utopian nightmare of an extremist homogeneous society (or was the Turks campaign against the Armenians justified?) Your point seems to be that it was justified because they really, really wanted it? Well, Irish Unionists really, really wanted to stay as part of Britain.

Yes you did,and you introduced the gun to make sure you got your way, its a pity the british did not offer nationalists a republic and then there would have been no conflict.Once again the rhetoric from you,what cultural minority was exterminated? this is just another absurd statement from you.Are you just one person/group or are you just having a troll, i can't take you seriously anymore.

The Irish Free State is a slightly enhanced version of Home Rule at the cost of the permanent partitition of Northern Ireland. Had Redmond agreed to it in 1914 he could probably have got the same as Tim Healy states in his memoirs. Ultimately all the horrific violence between 1916-1923 changed nothing, it was a senseless, obscene waste of human life and misery

Thats where we disagree, I have the utmost regard for men who had the courage to oppose even their former masters(most war veterans who fought for the IRA were enlisted men while mostAuxies/tans had Unionist sympathies, the officer class especially) when they saw injustices visited upon their community.Once again you exaggerate the effect of the WOI on great war veterans in Ireland(Facts and figures not BS please) You stated earlier that only republicans had to fear the security forces, republicans were the majority of the people, they did fear the security forces,everybody not a unionist was labelled a shinner and treated as such.Sectarianism was rife within some sections of the security forces and the people had a genuine fear.Yes,Unionists wanted self determination,and you introduced the gun to make sure you got your way, its a pity the british did not offer nationalists a republic and then there would have been no conflict.Please no more rhetoric ,what cultural minority was exterminated? this is just another absurd statement from you.Are you just one person/group or are you just having a troll, i can't take you seriously anymore .Wrong again about the FS ,The free state gave us far more than home rule( our own armed forces,flag,Tax raising,foreign policy, symbols,self determination) The only difference between the FS and a republic was the oath of allegiance.BTW Unionists insistence partitioned the island.

[KGB]

Duncannon - Wexford, top of the Hook Peninsula, not far from the Ballyhack crossing to Passage East. Nice spot - if my lottery numbers ever come up I have my eye on a house.

Sorry - off topic, no more from me.

My paternal Grandad was from Wexford but my Mums lot are northerners. Never could understand why anyone would want to live in Dungannon, Co Tyrone, best thing there is the road leading out of it!

[keithmroberts]

I have removed a number of posts. Some were light hearted irrelevancies, but off topic, a small number introduced, or quoted, references to affairs long outside our period and heading into more recent times.

Members are reminded that posts should avoid emotive language in the interests of civilised debate. I have left much that is emotive, but to edit or remove it would be time consuming and would emasculate some civilised and informative discussion. I really don't want to do that. Please don't make it necessary for me to close the thread.

Keith Roberts