“The Easter Rising was responsible for the partition of Ireland!” Was it really ? By Ciaran Mc

Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 07.20.39

 Picture by Fritz Rambo

 

Over the past few days, I’ve heard the sentiment expressed, that the Easter Rising was responsible for the eventual partition of Ireland – was it really?

There’s no disputing the fact, that the Easter Rising was a momentous event in Irish History. The consequences of the Easter Rising were instrumental in altering public opinion and radicalising the political climate of the time. To simplify and embellish the Rising as the single cause of partition is a failure to fathom the wider historical ambience of the time. Partition should not be seen in isolation and attributed solely to one event – partition, as a potential solution to the 1912-14 crisis, was well in existence, before the Easter Rising planning, never mind the commencement of the event.

The Liberal Government under Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, introduced a 3rd Home Rule Bill for Ireland, not because they wanted too, but because they had too, largely the product of parliamentary arithmetic, to survive in power. The constitutional crisis from 1909, precipitated by the anti-Irish House of Lords, enabled John Redmond’s Irish Party to hold the balance of power, offering support to a Liberal Government and in turn an inadvertent “commitment” to Home Rule was reciprocated. Asquith was not an enthusiastic proponent of Home Rule and his attitude to the Bill throughout the 1912-14 illustrates this. Before a Home Rule Bill was even introduced, elements within the Liberal Party were already considering partition (exclusion) for Ulster, namely Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George, who feared a Unionist backlash in Ulster, the “Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right” mentality that had already publicly opposed two previous Home Rule Bills. Augustine Birrell, Irish Chief Secretary, had even stated that some form of partition would ensure that would be no Civil War. Asquith’s response “we are not going to be frightened by the menace of Civil War.” How Asquith was to eat these words!

The Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons on 11th April 1912, was Home Rule for all-Ireland. No provision for Ulster was made, although the Bill stated “if fresh evidence or facts or the pressure of British opinion dictates, this may take the form of special treatment for Ulster” . This would mean special provision for Ulster in essence, partition – even at an early stage, this became a reality for the Government. According to Professor Michael Laffan, a partitionist amendment to the Bill could have settled the Ulster question, before it came back to hunt him. Patricia Jalland believes failure to concede on Ulster was a “fatal error” and may have “prevented a dangerous growth in Ulster Unionist militancy.” By August 1912, Churchill in a letter to Lloyd George was ready for partition, when he stated “the time has come for action about Ulster to be settled.”

The Ulster Unionist campaign that emanated during this period was to force the Liberal Government into a rethink, into a compromise partitionist disposition. The embryonic Unionist objective was to destroy the Bill in its entirety – Unionists akin to Nationalists believed Ireland must be treated as an indivisible unit, Carson’s mythology was to “use Ulster as a weapon to break Home Rule.” As the crisis developed, this was to change, political pragmatism took preference. The verbal menace and often treasonous, contemptuous and inflammatory speeches of Edward Carson and Andrew Bonar Law radicalised Irish society. The intensification of the crisis took on a militant image with the formation of the Ulster Volunteers Force. By September 1913, Asquith’s “wait and see” strategy was abandoned as compromise talks proceeded, in the form of a partitionist settlement. Edward Carson’s own view had moved to a compromise, partitionist mind-set. Carson had been long threatening of establishing a Provisional Government in Ulster, that would be cut off from a Dublin Home Rule Parliament, “the morning Home Rule passes, ourselves to become responsible for the government of the Protestant province of Ulster.” In September 1913, in a letter to Bonar Law, Carson stated “the minimum would be six plantation counties.” Bonar Law had been moving towards a partitionist settlement. Asquith, now willing to move on this, even at the risk of provoking Redmond.

When the Liberal Government offered concessions to Unionist resistance, it seemed that their extreme measures had been vindicated. By 1914, Asquith had presented Redmond and Carson with partitionist proposals. Redmond accepted partition albeit in the words of Asquith, “Redmond shivered visibly and was a great deal perturbed.” Acceptance of compromise now put Redmond in a weak position, an Gandhi said “any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender.” Did Redmond have a choice? Carson rejected the proposal, wanting permanent partition as opposed to temporary, stating “we do not want a sentence of death with a stay of execution for 6 years.” Subsequent events such as the Curragh Mutiny and the landing of 25000 rifles at Larne undermined Home Rule to the extent that the Unionist ultimatum, partition, was unavoidable.

The Home Rule Act reached the statue books with Royal assent in 1914, but its implementation was suspended due to the commencement of WW1. A proviso within the Act included an amendment clause for Ulster counties to remain under London administration for a time, yet to be agreed. Partition was already an inevitability before the Rising began! Redmond, the leader of Irish nationalism, fought tenaciously against partition, had accepted this concession as a compromise to pacify Ulster Unionists and avoid Civil War. Carson and Unionists, backed by a Lords recommendation, supported the governments Amending Bill in the House of Lords on 8th July 1914 to temporarily partition Ulster from the workings of a future Act. Respective leaders, Carson and Redmond had accepted Partition, though vehemently opposed the concept when the crisis began.

There’s no doubting the impact of the Easter Rising on Post rising Ireland. The sea change in public opinion after the executions, mass arrests, imposition of martial law and the impeding conscription crisis succeeded in advancing radical nationalism at the expense of constitutional nationalism. After the Rising, Home Rule, was replaced with the drive National self determination, further compounded by Sinn Fein’s electoral rise and success in 1918 General Election. It could be argued that the Rising was a precursor for events to come,that in essence killed the imposition of Home Rule. It could be argued that the Rising was the catalyst for, what was to become the Free State, gaining additional powers through dominion status. Would this power have been offered by the British, without the Rising?

In the aftermath of the Rising, the Lloyd George Negotiations recommended the proposals that had been formalised pre War, compromise, in the form of partition. Both Redmond and Carson accepted the partition, although the ambiguity of what was on offer, resulted in the Collapse of negotiations.

In a British parliamentary context, Partition was inevitable, as the Conservative Party eventually strengthened their power and influence. In 1914, the Liberal government ruled the United Kingdom; in 1915 the Conservatives became a minority in coalition; in 1916 they became preponderant when the Liberals split; and after 1918 they were the dominant party in Government. Power had shifted from the allies of Irish Nationalists to the allies of Ulster Unionism. Lloyd George, the Prime Minster, a supporter of partition since 1912, was responsible for the fourth Home Rule Bill, the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 with a heavily weighted Ulster Unionist alliance including Walter Long.

It would be irrational to attribute the Easter Rising solely to the partition of Ireland. I believe the partition of Ireland was already in motion, the political dynamics existent from 1912 created a partitionist mind-set making it a potential solution to the unsolvable Irish question. The British Government had introduced the concept of partition in 1912 and made the concept a functional reality – the partition foundations were laid, as the crisis unfolded, the building structure was added. The partitionist proposals pre-Rising, became the accepted solution post-Rising. By 1921, Unionists who opposed partition, ten years earlier, and whom the concept gradually evolved, were only more than willing to operate within an area of their choice.

41 Responses to “The Easter Rising was responsible for the partition of Ireland!” Was it really ? By Ciaran Mc

  1. jessica October 30, 2015 at 7:36 am #

    This is a wonderful site Jude, very educational.

  2. billy October 30, 2015 at 8:12 am #

    the fools,the fools,the fools,think that speech covers it.

  3. Brian Patterson October 30, 2015 at 9:07 am #

    Well argued Ciarán. SF used lament the lack of a De Klerk figure on the Unionist side in the 1990’s. How much more lamentable was the absence of a De Gaulle figure on the Britsh side (1914-21) or 1969 on.

  4. Paul Kelly October 30, 2015 at 9:27 am #

    Great piece Jude. If you ever get fed up with journalism you could always try your hand at teaching Irish history. Well done.

    • Jude Collins October 30, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

      Grma, Paul – except I didn’t write it – Ciaran did. He’ll be pleased with the compliment, I’m sure…

    • Ciaran Mc October 30, 2015 at 7:02 pm #

      Thank you for your kind words, Paul – teaching – great career advice.

  5. neill October 30, 2015 at 10:27 am #

    Educational well only if you sign up to the Republican viewpoint I would suggest this site is more a propaganda tool no more or less

    • Jude Collins October 30, 2015 at 4:48 pm #

      Now neill – I don’t mind you disagreeing – but make a point, don’t just slag off…

    • Ciaran Mc October 30, 2015 at 7:04 pm #

      Neill, be interesting to hear your views on the article … Discussion beats defamation …

    • Am Ghobsmacht October 31, 2015 at 4:41 pm #

      Neill

      Surely the best thing to do is to punch holes in the fabric of the argument and unpick the logic rather than gurn about nationalists having a nationalist opinion?

  6. fiosrach October 30, 2015 at 10:46 am #

    At the heels of the hunt it was only to be expected that the British would come down on the side of their colonists. Violence,treason and threats ushered in this pathetic little outpost and along with active discrimination kept it going. You can understand the mindset that believes only superior force will get rid of it. A very good quotable article. Its a pity we won’t get a coherent unionist rebuttal.

    • Am Ghobsmacht October 31, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

      “At the heels of the hunt it was only to be expected that the British would come down on the side of their colonists.”

      Then why did Churchill dispatch a warship to Belfast Lough to ruffle unionist feathers?

      Britain was always going to come down on the side of that which provided Britain with the best deal.

      Had it been a trustworthy united Ireland with certain ‘advantages’ then that would have been the case.

      It’s hardly unfair to speculate that the rising might have convinced the top brass that there was to be no such thing as a trustworthy Ireland so it would be better to have a compliant part of the island for when things got a bit hairy.

      The rising might have shot the cause of a UI in the foot.

      Remember, Britain does (and always has done) what is best for Britain, not her colonials.

      • jessica October 31, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

        “It’s hardly unfair to speculate that the rising might have convinced the top brass that there was to be no such thing as a trustworthy Ireland so it would be better to have a compliant part of the island for when things got a bit hairy.
        The rising might have shot the cause of a UI in the foot.”

        I am starting to understand where you are coming from Am Ghobsmacht. We are looking at things from completely different perspectives.
        From a british (outsider) perspective that may well have been the case.
        But it was not the rising that achieved anything, but the blood sacrifice from the treatment the leaders new would befall them that followed.

        They said it would happen and when it did, as they also expected, the people were inspired to stand up to british rule and it is their deaths that will guarantee ireland will be free from british rule and united before there is peace in this land.
        That is as true today as it was then.

        It was the war of independence and michael collins that freed 26 counties and led to partition but there will be no independence day until all 32 are united and free.

        “Remember, Britain does (and always has done) what is best for Britain, not her colonials.”

        I agree. With reunification, ulster would be the wealthiest part of this island once again.
        Lets hope the next generation will be free to do whats best for Ireland without the ball and chain of unionism.

      • Ciaran Mc October 31, 2015 at 8:07 pm #

        AG – this point, “The rising might have shot the cause of a UI in the foot.” I’m interested as to what you mean, could you perhaps elaborate? A united Ireland as in geographical ? A United Ireland as based on the belief of an Indepedent Republic?

  7. Gearoid October 30, 2015 at 11:08 am #

    Jude – really enjoying these historical perceptives from this contributor – excellent work, with great detail and educational. Go raibh maith agat!

    • Jude Collins October 30, 2015 at 4:47 pm #

      All credit to Ciaran the Man – but I’m happy to bask in the reflected compliment…

  8. Iolar October 30, 2015 at 12:12 pm #

    It is time to draw a line on the past and move on, so we are told. Let’s not forget that during the period 1916 – 1922, British forces were also busy at work in Mesopotamia (Iraq). Thousands of Iraqis and Kurds were killed, yet there was no public outcry. Racial attitudes helped support the notion that it was not possible to obtain independent verification of the facts. The media had little to say about violent British counter-insurgency campaigns at the time.

    The Middle East remains a blood bath and the British Government remains reluctant to acknowledge its bloody role in Ireland with the help of some section of the media. We should recall the scepticism contained in ‘The Liverpool Post’ concerning news from Ireland in 1921.

    “News does not become any more convincing because it is official.”

  9. BYC October 30, 2015 at 12:22 pm #

    It’s not just a question of causation though Ciaran. It’s also a matter of proportionality. Unionists in 2015 can easily accept that the republican violence is triggered by unionist self-assertion. That’s hardly an unfamiliar phenomenon.

    So hundreds of thousands of unionists signed their names on a piece of paper declaring their commitment to the union and the defence of the civil, religious and economic freedoms they believed the union secured for all Irish people. Some became Volunteers, did some marching about on private land at Clandeboye and made a show of their readiness to defend their position in Ulster. In 1916 those Volunteers were serving in France.

    At what stage do those people become responsible for an unelected vanguard of ultra-nationalist Gaelic revivalists killing people at the GPO and across Dublin? Could nationalists not organise a petition?

    • Ciaran Mc October 30, 2015 at 5:31 pm #

      BYC – thank you for your comment. You reference the UVF and state about “their readiness to defend their position in Ulster.” It was this exact point, the militancy, the extra parliamentary tactic used by Carson et al that created an atmosphere of revolution – That brought the IRB in from the dark, it created the opportunity for a rebellion, as such, to occur. Long before the Rising, Carson was threatening to set up a provisional, unelected government – ready to do so, and defend at all costs, including the use of force. Militancy, as used by the IRB in 1916, even the threat of had been rewarded by the government – demands of unionists in Ulster were listened too very carefully – Carson, given a place on the war time coaltion – did this perhaps illustrate that violence, or threat off, brought results ?

      Also, in 1916, Nationalists were in France fighting – many fighting to defend the Home Rule position – in an all-Ireland context, do you believe the minority, should dictate to the majority, in relation to Home Rule? Is this democratic?

      By no means is this period of time all one sided – it most certainly is not – I propose through these articles to get people to think and initiate a debate on this basis …

      • BYC October 30, 2015 at 8:09 pm #

        No Ciaran – I don’t think Unionists had any right to try to resist Irish Home Rule other than by argument and persuasion and once they’d lost that argument the question of whether they had a right to seek self-determination in the six counties comes down (for me) to a utilitarian debate about causing the least harm to the most disadvantaged.

        So I’ve tried to find evidence that unionist resistance in 1912 was paranoia and that Home Rulers and Republicans before 1912 were taking steps to ensure that the new Ireland would be open, secular and inclusive of all peoples.

        Where was Ireland’s founding fathers’ constitutional convention? O’Connell hadn’t even wanted Protestants and Catholics to attend University together; although with recent hysterics from nationalists about proposals to merge St Mary’s and Stranmillis’ teacher training departments that sounds familiar too.

        If Carson’s the villain what’s the reply to his, “I say this to my Nationalist fellow-countrymen, and indeed, also to the government: you have never tried to win over Ulster. You have never tried to understand her position. You have never alleged, and can never allege, that this Bill gives her one atom of advantage”. Was Carson wrong?

        • BYC October 30, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

          And the point I was making about the UVF being in France in 1916 wasn’t a pious one. I was just pointing out that that was an odd place from which to be a catalyst for the rising. I’d say that if anything the UVF didn’t make the rising necessary so much as it made it possible by allowing militants on the nationalist side to claim that if nationalism wasn’t at least as virile as unionism then Ireland had no right to call herself a nation. A p**sing contest really.

        • Ciaran Mc October 30, 2015 at 11:49 pm #

          BYC – I’ve sort of alluded to some of your points in a post below. Carson had a genuine point here – I fully accept that and have often criticised why Nationalists and the government didn’t sell the advantages, and safeguard minority interests, as part of the Home Rule package. Then again, how committed were the Liberal government to ensuring the successful implementation of Home Rule?

          But, even before a Home Rule bill was introduced into the House of Commons, Unionist resistance was in motion. As far back as 1911, at the Craigavon House demonstration, Carson had been threatening the establishment of a provisional government to take control of Ulster. At Balmoral, 1912, Carson’s increasing militant rhetoric was clear when he stated “you have treated us with fraud, if necessary we will treat you with force.” With this mindset, was it ever going to be possible “to win over Ulster?” Carson never exactly made it easy for negotiations to take place and thrash out some kind of compromise. Did Carson really want Ulster won over? Did he really want Ulsters position understood? Evidence suggests from 1911, his firm commitment was “to defeat the most nefarious conspiracy ever hatched against a free people.” In some quarters, Unionist resistance was deemed “bluff” – did the government take seriously the concerns and threat posed of Unionism? Even Redmond?

          In the same context, with the implementation of partition in 1921, Ulster (Northern) Unionists never applied the same rationale, articulated by Carson, to the Nationalist minority. As Carson relinquished leadership of the Ulster Unionists in February 1921, he stated “from the outset, let us see the Catholic minority have nothing to fear from the Protestant majority.” In theory this was progressive, but in a practical sense, both you and me know, this was not to be the case, the “Protestant state for a Protestant people” quickly replaced any conciliatory undertones.

          Two wrongs don’t make a right and in this instance we can see, both sides, were equally at fault for the problems that were to eventually arise.

        • ben madigan October 31, 2015 at 1:34 am #

          BYC – why should Ulster/Carson have expected “one atom of advantage” for Ulster?

          As early as 1886, Ulster was threatening violence and gun-running if Westminster passed an Irish Home Rule Act.

          So was the expected “atom of advantage” linked to Ulster’s “conditional loyalty”?
          of the series – Give me what I demand or else?

  10. John Jude October 30, 2015 at 12:46 pm #

    Discovered your site quite by accident and must say that I thoroughly enjoy the thought provoking content and the Irish history lessons. My parents were Irish although I was born,brought up and educated in Glasgow where understanding and discussion of Irish affairs is sadly limited.

    • Jude Collins October 30, 2015 at 4:46 pm #

      Welcome, John Jude. You have the advantage of at least one splendid name…

  11. Oriel27 October 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm #

    good article again, facilitated by you Jude.

    Bu what were the real reasons for Unionists being against homerule? – i think it was economics. Partition was going to happen because of economics.

    At the time Belfast was much more of an economic powerhouse than Dublin. Belfast had prosperity – shipbuilding, linen etc, major industries very much depending on being in the UK.
    Southern Ireland was seen as poor and still suffering from the affects of the famine.

    But today, those industries are gone. Northern Ireland really has nothing going for it, instead of being a main contributor to the UK economy, its a drain of its resources.

    So why would unionists now want to continue with partition? surely their interests would be better severed in a UI.

    • Ciaran Mc October 30, 2015 at 5:39 pm #

      Oriel27 – thank you for your comment. Interesting question at the end. I think until a UI blueprint is published, the case for remaining within the Union will always be based on finance, security, NHS etc – the keep things the way they are, as opposed to what Alex Kane, often calls the “unknown” give some people that comfort zone.

      The economic argument was a major part of the Unionist defence to home rule – perhaps, today, that same argument is used in relation to the subvention NI receives from the treasury. Coupled with the economic argument were religious and political fears of being ruled by a Catholic / Nationalist government in Dublin – the Ulster Covenant, sums up very well the fears – but then again, how much of these fears were based on propaganda? Perhaps today, the politics of fear is used by politicians, as it was back in 1912-14.

      • BYC October 30, 2015 at 8:25 pm #

        It’s the same but different this time Ciaran. In 1914 Carson said that nationalism didn’t want Ulster’s affections – it wanted her taxes. Now some unionists are claiming we don’t even really pay taxes.

        • Ciaran Mc October 30, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

          Interesting point BYC.

          Quite contradictory from Carson, when Ulster unionism didn’t want a Dublin governments affections, but I do genuinely believe that Redmond and the Irish Party, did little to entice and make comfortable unionist sentiments / fears – Resmond, I believe, took all for granted.

          I have a genuine interest in Carson and his political career. The same man whose who believed maintaince of the union was the “guiding star of his political career”, yet according to ATQ Stewart, “contemplated a rebellion against the crown.” In reference to taxes, taxation would not have been controlled by a Dublin parliament, under Home Rule – power would have lay at Westminster.

          For all his rhetoric, Carson was a changed man, early into the 1920’s – he was a broken man – the years of fighting has caught up with him and as a Southern Unionist he facilitated the abandonment of the people he belonged too – famously stating in his HOL, maiden speech “at that time I did not know, as I know now, that I was a mere puppet in a political game … What a fool I was … I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster.” A man who at the height of the Home Rule crisis was a saviour to his people, yet according to ATQ Stewart, “he became to some degree, their prisoner.” Did circumstances go beyond what Carson ever thought they would?

        • jessica October 31, 2015 at 9:59 am #

          “It’s the same but different this time Ciaran. In 1914 Carson said that nationalism didn’t want Ulster’s affections – it wanted her taxes. Now some unionists are claiming we don’t even really pay taxes”

          Is the common denominator BYC, that ulster unionists have a superiority complex over their irish neighbours whether north or south, bear in mind they do not speak for all of ulster?

          As you say, in 1914 ulster was wealthier with unionists seeing themselves perhaps in a better class, but now it is totally reliant on vast sums of english taxpayers money to be sustainable, yet there is still the opinion we are better off with partition even though the english are making it clear this funding is coming to an end.

          Working class loyalists know they are in reality no better off and possibly worse off, but still feel more important due to their national heritage.

          Now the thought of a UI, instils a fear that it would take away just about everything from them. Should unionists not be talking about how we can ensure that a UI would not do this rather than ignoring it in the hope there is never a nationalist majority?

          Had we pooled resources then, how much better would the whole country be today as a united people? Bear in mind the Irish economy is barely 100 years old and started with nothing.

          Surely the whole unionist ideology has to be based on more than a simple superiority complex and basic selfishness in keeping its taxes?

          • Am Ghobsmacht October 31, 2015 at 4:33 pm #

            “Now the thought of a UI, instils a fear that it would take away just about everything from them. Should unionists not be talking about how we can ensure that a UI would not do this rather than ignoring it in the hope there is never a nationalist majority?

            Had we pooled resources then, how much better would the whole country be today as a united people? Bear in mind the Irish economy is barely 100 years old and started with nothing.

            Surely the whole unionist ideology has to be based on more than a simple superiority complex and basic selfishness in keeping its taxes?

            Jessica

            I agree 100%. *faints*

          • jessica October 31, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

            “Had we pooled resources then, how much better would the whole country be today as a united people? Bear in mind the Irish economy is barely 100 years old and started with nothing.
            Surely the whole unionist ideology has to be based on more than a simple superiority complex and basic selfishness in keeping its taxes?

            Jessica
            I agree 100%. *faints*

            lol

            Just to clarify, do you mean unionism is no more than “a simple superiority complex and basic selfishness in keeping its taxes?”

            or do you mean that it is more than that?

            Sorry, I am trying to understand better what people are actually saying before I comment.

            I feel there is a communication barrier where we do not always fully understand what the other is saying which seems to stem from differing reference points in each others points of view.

  12. ben madigan October 31, 2015 at 11:38 am #

    Here’s some more info about Carson, including a video of his State funeral. Carson was judged as having made “no outstanding contribution to British politics”.

    Here Carson is compared and contrasted with a very famous and popular contemporary of his, whose life was destroyed as it crossed Carson’s path.

    https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/edward-carson-1854-1935/

  13. Am Ghobsmacht October 31, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

    Erm, to me this paragraph trips up the whole post:

    “The Home Rule Act reached the statue books with Royal assent in 1914, but its implementation was suspended due to the commencement of WW1.
    A proviso within the Act included an amendment clause for Ulster counties to remain under London administration for a time, yet to be agreed. Partition was already an inevitability before the Rising began!

    Redmond, the leader of Irish nationalism, fought tenaciously against partition, had accepted this concession as a compromise to pacify Ulster Unionists and avoid Civil War.
    Carson and Unionists, backed by a Lords recommendation, supported the governments Amending Bill in the House of Lords on 8th July 1914 to temporarily partition Ulster from the workings of a future Act.
    Respective leaders, Carson and Redmond had accepted Partition, though vehemently opposed the concept when the crisis began”

    This paragraph emphasises the theoretical temporary nature of this proposal.

    To bake this liquid proposal into a hardened cement like proposal would call for a game changer of huge proportions; the Easter Rising fulfilled that role nicely.

    Furthermore, Churchill and his ilk were happy to sell ‘Ulster’ down the river if it was to Britain’s advantage (hence his rough reception when he was in Belfast and not to mention his dispatching of a ruddy war ship to Belfast Lough to knock a few unionist heads together).

    So, we go from a situation of a temporary proposal that required an event of epic proportions to undo it AND one of where the arch imperialists want nowt to do with a ‘Northern ireland’ to a situation where the Easter Rising comes along, polarises attitudes and starts a train of events that leads to the civil was and the cementing of Northern Ireland as a reality.

    People tell me that Ireland would still be under British rule if it weren’t for the Rising.
    To those people I say the following: Uganda, Canada, Australia, NZ, Malaysia, India, Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Kenya, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Fiji, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Belize, Jamaica…. (you get the idea).

    • Ciaran Mc October 31, 2015 at 6:16 pm #

      AG, thank you for your post. In your post, you seemingly underestimate the events that happened prior to the Rising, that contributed to the eventual partition of Ireland – I would argue, this “liquid proposal” was already “hardening” pre Rising – Rising or not, would you accept, some form of partition was going to happen, anyhow?

      Cite Carson’s refusal to support the compromise Bill, in March 1914. His reaction ” we do not want a sentence of death, with a stay of execution for 6 years.” Were Ulster Unionists going to accept anything else, other than permanent partition?

      You state the Easter Rising was a “Game changer of huge portions” – so Ulster Unionist opposition – the mass movement they created, the setting up of a private army, the militancy of their campaign, support by the opposition party at Westminster, the propaganda success of their campaign in Britain, a potential mutiny from the army, the importation of 25,000 rifles and 2 million rounds of ammunition – was not a game changer of huge portions? Obviously it was … this brought the government and Redmond to the brink of compromise, a compromise Ulster Unionists were not going to endorse unless permanent – Ulster Unionists by 1914 had got their way – at the point of a gun, they had brought the British Government to considering their case – The Home Rule Act – the fact a compromise proposal was undefined by the government, in my opinion, opens up the view, they weren’t denying permanent partition was not going to happen.

    • jessica October 31, 2015 at 7:01 pm #

      “People tell me that Ireland would still be under British rule if it weren’t for the Rising.
      To those people I say the following: Uganda, Canada, Australia, NZ, Malaysia, India, Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Kenya, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Fiji, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Belize, Jamaica…. (you get the idea).”

      In the short term it would have been as the catholic church had so much mollified control of the irish people.
      In the longer term, things could have been worse had the attention not been as much focussed on the british but an all island internal civil war post home rule even while within the UK. Or may have got the whole thing sorted in one violent struggle depending on your point of view, who knows.

      What is for absolute certain, unionists then and now will always put what is best for the country, north, south or all second to their status within the union.

      I respect your knowledge of history is better than mine Am Ghobsmacht.

      What is your opinion on unionisms part in the causes of conflict here?

      Unionists always say the IRA started things, yet timescales posted here show unionists moving arms pre republican uprising. I know in the 60s the OIRA were about to give up when paisley stirred up the UVF who committed murders along with the RUC years before the provos existed.

      Conflicting versions of history is not good.

  14. neill November 2, 2015 at 10:38 am #

    The bottom line in all of this is quite simple if Unionists were not willing to have a united Ireland under Home Rule they certainly were not going to accept a united Ireland lead by SF quite rightfully so as well.

    So the point is that the Easter Rising didn’t cause partition in it itself but was one of the factors that caused Ireland to be portioned.

    • jessica November 2, 2015 at 1:24 pm #

      Ireland was united then neill, home rule was pre partition and a desire to rule ourselves which hasn’t gone away.

      Unionists problem was they were a minority that had it better than the majority through abuse of british occupation.

      Partition was initially to be all of ulster but was further reduced to create a more sustainable artificial majority over a smaller territory to remain under british occupation so it could be more easily managed.

      I do agree that unionism hasn’t changed much in 100 years.

    • Ciaran Mc November 2, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

      Neill, thank you for your comment – a “united Ireland led (as opposed to lead) by SF.” – I’m lost – how did SF enter the argument? What makes you think SF would led a UI? A UI would only come about through the will and consent of the people – can you explain the relevance to SF in relation to same ?

  15. Ciaran Mc November 2, 2015 at 3:22 pm #

    * lead (you have me doing it Neill)