web analytics

Sworn to be Free – the Dail at 100

By Mahons On January 22nd, 2019

We’ve become so jaded in modern times that the thought of a legislature with at least 34 members in prison warms our hearts.
In 1919 the First Dail met in Dublin. Proceedings were conducted in Gaelic, though translated itno Irish and French. It was of course outlawed by the British occupier, who also censored its news in the press. Its members had been elected to Parilment in 1918, but thry refused to take their seats in Westminster.
Invitations were made to all elected in Ireland. Unionists like Carson would not attend the Dail. Republicans like de Valera and Griffith were imprisoned.

They respresented an Ireland that sought self-determination, a lofty goal proclaimed by the US President Wilson, yet not exactly championed consistently by the allied victors. With no real administration or ability to end the occupation militarily, some thought it a mere symbolic stunt. But the power of symbolisim is powerful. Ultimately, the Irish could not inflict military defeat on Britain, but they could make the price of continued occupation too much.

The First Dail ratified the Easter Proclamation of 1916. They moved Ireland along its path to freedom and democracy. And they kept faith with the generations gone by who were defeated in arms but unconquered in spirit.

140 Responses to “Sworn to be Free – the Dail at 100”

  1. Good man mahons.

    This was a step forward in man’s march for freedom.

    Ireland’s cause was supported by very many Americans, from very early days.

  2. It’s a shame Noel didn’t accept the offer, but a very nice piece Mahons.

  3. Nice piece Mahons.

    It’s incredible to think that a people that only seventy years before had their population decimated by over a third through starvation and forced immigration could somehow organise themselves both militarily and politically to take on and ultimately gain almost full independence from the most powerful empire on the globe at that time.

  4. They respresented an Ireland that sought self-determination, a lofty goal proclaimed by the US President Wilson ..

    “Except for British self-determination. That’s dumb and ill-thought out.”

  5. Wilson didn’t comment on Brexit

  6. Mahons did. Apparently we’re dumber than mud for wanting to be a sovereign, independent and self-governing people.

  7. Mahons is seriously pissed at the one President he has..

    Imagine like us plebs, if you had seven of them.

    😏

  8. If you think you aren’t sovereign, independent and self-governing then you might be.

  9. Nicely done, Mahons. A seminal day.

  10. //They respresented an Ireland that sought self-determination, a lofty goal proclaimed by the US President Wilson,//

    The Irish delegates sent to the peace talks asked Wilson for support but he gave none. In fact, all the allies tried to thwart Irish independence. That self-determination thing seemed to apply only to the subject states under the Allies’ enemies at the time.

    Very interesting about that family connection, Seamus (on another thread). Was the man by any chance Seamus Robinson?
    If so, he did more than start the War of Independence. He also fought under James Connolly in Easter Week and was involved in a lot of the action in Tipperary over the next few years. I think he was also elected to the Dail.
    There are a lot of stories involving Robinson in Dan Breen’s book.

  11. Good post Mahons. Cheers.

  12. Noel – very true. Wilson’s rhetoric did not match his actions. He apparently thought pressing the Irish issue would undermine the alliance with Britain.

  13. It was a very complex time. These actions stopped home rule which more people at the time favored. It is questionable how democratic these actions were. It legitimized using armed force to take over a country. Fifty plus years of poverty, repression, anti-intellectualism, emigration, clerical abuse sanctioned by government, Church veto of law, corruption and a cultural inferiority complex ensued. In retrospect, the home rule path would have been better that a right-wing revolution. If home rule were pursued the nation would have organically matured and, perhaps, partition might have been avoided. It would have been a full member of the first world, rather than a self-crippled backwater. But, don’t let that upset the Green jingoism.

  14. Those favoring a hope for the carrot if Home Rule failed in the 1918 election. Armed force to eject an occupier was certainly legitimate in our own Revolutiin, and the poverty pre-existed the Irish Republic by several hundred years of British misrule. There is no reasonable basis to believe the speculation that partition might have been avoided as Unionists were (are) opposed to the Republic.

  15. New Yorker. The Home Rule path could have only worked if all sides British and Irish had consentingly agreed the pace, route and final destination. Is there any evidence that would have materialised ?

  16. //These actions stopped home rule which more people at the time favored.//

    Says who? The people had just overwhelmingly elected Republicans.

    // Fifty plus years of poverty, repression, anti-intellectualism, emigration//

    FIFTY years? It was more than A HUNDRED years of that stuff that motivated, and justified, their actions.

    // It is questionable how democratic these actions were//

    They were completely democratic. It was based on the most democratic election Ireland had ever seen. The result was also the most overwhelming the country had ever seen.
    The people finally had a chance to vote for men and women who were bent on achieving complete independence and they endorsed them totally.

    https://www.rte.ie/centuryireland//images/uploads/content/Ed142-ElectoralMap2-NLI.jpg

  17. These actions stopped home rule which more people at the time favored. It is questionable how democratic these actions were

    Despite that fact of course that those who formed the first Dail recieved 46.9% of votes on the entire island and 65% of votes in the then to come Free State two months earlier before its formation which gave it a democratic mandate and democratic legitimacy of course.

    Fifty plus years of poverty, repression, anti-intellectualism, emigration, clerical abuse sanctioned by government, Church veto of law, corruption and a cultural inferiority complex ensued

    Poverty, repression, anti – intellectualism and particularly (forced) emigration and cultural inferiority where at an absolute zenith seventy years before the formation of the first Dail:

    It’s incredible to think that a people that only seventy years before had their population decimated by over a third through starvation and forced immigration could somehow organise themselves both militarily and politically to take on and ultimately gain almost full independence from the most powerful empire on the globe at that time

    The breathtaking revisionism that we’ve come to expect fromm NYer.

  18. //Despite that fact of course that those who formed the first Dail recieved 46.9% of votes on the entire island //

    Paul, that figure is misleading. Sinn Fein won 73 seats out of a total of 105. It won 25 seats unopposed as the constiuencies were (mostly) SF strongholds and no voting took place. So the 46.9% you quote is just SF’s share of the total vote won only on the 48 seats that SF won and that were contested. If there had been a vote in all constitutencies including the SF strongholds (SF also didn’t contest certain seats in the North due to a deal with the “Hibernians”), it’s reckoned SF’s share of the total vote would be over 60 percent.

    One thing that always puzzled me about this period of Irish politics is that the nationalist constituencies in much of Ulster continued to support the IPP, whereas elsewhere SF won hands-down.
    And then later when the Dail split over the Treaty, the northern constituencies generally supported the pro-Treaty side, even though the Treaty would leave them in the UK.

  19. I suppose that there’s an argument that only seats that were contested were ‘won’ Noel but am happy to stand corrected that SF got almost 70% of the vote.

    That puts NYers questionable democracy claim into an even starker perspective.

  20. “Very interesting about that family connection, Seamus (on another thread). Was the man by any chance Seamus Robinson?
    If so, he did more than start the War of Independence. He also fought under James Connolly in Easter Week and was involved in a lot of the action in Tipperary over the next few years. I think he was also elected to the Dail.
    There are a lot of stories involving Robinson in Dan Breen’s book.”

    It wasn’t Seamus Robinson, though he was a very interesting figure.

    You invoked his book. It was Dan Breen. My great grandfather was from Comber. He fought at the Somme. He was wounded and sent back home to Ireland – where he was sent to a nursing colony in Tipperary. Where he met my great grandmother, who was a nurse who nursed him a tad too well.

    A UVF family on one side (not that they actually went to the wedding), a Irish volunteer family on the other.

    “Paul, that figure is misleading. Sinn Fein won 73 seats out of a total of 105. It won 25 seats unopposed as the constiuencies were (mostly) SF strongholds and no voting took place. So the 46.9% you quote is just SF’s share of the total vote won only on the 48 seats that SF won and that were contested.”

    Exactly. In the contested seats where they won there was a turnout of 68%. Sinn Féin got 66.9% of the vote in those constituencies. If you assume that the same occurs for the contested seats (Sinn Féin would get 66.9% of the vote on 68% turnout) then you would add at least 215,000 votes for Sinn Féin, against about 105,000 for other parties. That ups the Sinn Féin total to 51.7%. Considering that the seats Sinn Féin won unopposed were strongholds then it is likely the Sinn Féin vote would have been higher than in other places. In 9 constituencies Sinn Féin got over 80% of the vote. If they got that in the uncontested seats then it likely pushes their vote up to 55%.

    “One thing that always puzzled me about this period of Irish politics is that the nationalist constituencies in much of Ulster continued to support the IPP, whereas elsewhere SF won hands-down.”

    Largely as you said because of the deal negotiated by Cardinal Logue, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland. In seats were there was a chance that splitting the nationalist vote would result in a Unionist MP the two parties had an agreed candidate. The IPP gave Sinn Féin Tyrone North-West, Fermanagh South and Derry City, while Sinn Féin gave the IPP Armagh South (despite no Unionist candidate), Down South, Tyrone North-East and Donegal East. The pact broke down in Down East where a Unionist won by splitting the difference.

    The only seats that the IPP won outside of the pact were William Redmond (son of the late IPP leader John) in Waterford, and Wee Joe Devlin in Belfast (and technically Tay Pay O’Connor in Liverpool). Likely in the absence of the pact they wouldn’t have won any other constituencies. In most constituencies in the North in 1921 Sinn Féin outpolled the new Nationalist Party comfortably in most seats. Likely those seats would have been either won by Sinn Féin or won by the Unionist Party due to the nationalist vote being split.

    “And then later when the Dail split over the Treaty, the northern constituencies generally supported the pro-Treaty side, even though the Treaty would leave them in the UK.”

    The Sinn Féin TDs in the North who decided the treaty were largely elected to multiple constituencies. So the TDs elected to the Second Dáil from the North were Michael Collins (Armagh and Cork), Éamon de Valera (Down and Clare), Arthur Griffith (Fermanagh and Tyrone, and Cavan), Seán Milroy (Fermanagh and Tyrone, and Cavan), Eoin MacNeill (National University of Ireland and Derry). The only one not elected to multiple constituencies was Seán O’Mahony (from Fermanagh and Tyrone). So the majority were pro-Treaty (and declined to continue representing their Northern constituencies after the end of the war). Interestingly the only deputy who was solely from a northern constituency was Seán O’Mahony who not only took the anti-Treaty side in the split but also took the Sinn Féin side of the split in 1926.

  21. There was no democratic mandate for the Easter Rising. If there had not been an Easter Rising there would not have been a sitting of the Dail 1n 1918. All attempts to retroactively legitimize the Easter Rising by citing the 1918 election are dishonest.

  22. I take it you find the Boston Tea Party was nothing more than a criminal act then New Yorker?

  23. Seamus, thank yyou for sharing the story of your great-grandfather, Dan Breen. I always love family stories that have been pasted down. It shows a continuity of history and family that our “ten second” soundbite culture often misses.

  24. Great great uncle. His sister was my great grandmother.

  25. “It shows a continuity of history and family that our “ten second” soundbite culture often misses.”

    Exactly. Most Irish people would have a connection to someone involved in the war of independence. My family are particular proud of our connections to it (I’m also far more distantly related to Roger Casement – one of the leaders of the Rising).

  26. Seamus

    Yes. The so-called Boston Tea Party was a criminal act.

  27. At least you are consistent.

    I take it you oppose the American Revolutionary War – and believe that America should have stayed under British rule then?

  28. There was no democratic mandate for the Easter Rising

    Where does that put the democratic credentials of the northern state?

    If there had not been an Easter Rising there would not have been a sitting of the Dail 1n 1918.

    But you do accept that the democratically mandated General Election of 1918 gave democratic legitimacy to independence?

    Exactly. Most Irish people would have a connection to someone involved in the war of independence.

    This picture was in my paternal grandmother’s house for years. My 22 year old paternal grandfather is in the second row.

    https://goo.gl/images/AEDXwq

  29. Seamus

    Your great uncle was the bloodthirsty murderer Breen and you do lobbying, that’s interesting.

  30. “Your great uncle was the bloodthirsty murderer Breen and you do lobbying, that’s interesting.”

    Go fuck yourself New Yorker. Dan Breen was a patriot who served his country with distinction.

    “This picture was in my paternal grandmother’s house for years. My 22 year old paternal grandfather is in the second row.”

    The Rossa division? A lot of the 3rd Northern were Rossa men.

  31. Paul, great picture!

  32. Seamus

    I support the American Declaration of Independence. If you read the document carefully, you may understand the legitimate reasons for the American Revolution.

  33. “I support the American Declaration of Independence. If you read the document carefully, you may understand the legitimate reasons for the American Revolution.”

    But surely it “legitimized using armed force to take over a country”?

  34. One can’t be intellectually honest and be FOR American independence and be against the Irish version.

  35. Paul McMahon

    “Where does that put the democratic credentials of the northern state?” The northern state in 1916 was part of the democratic UK.

    “But you do accept that the democratically mandated General Election of 1918 gave democratic legitimacy to independence?” No. The results would have been quite different if there had not been an Easter Rising. The Free State and RoI are bastard states.

  36. The Rossa division? A lot of the 3rd Northern were Rossa men

    He died before I was born Seamus so I don’t know. I come from a long line of Johnnies men, (not one myself I hasten to add), which wasn’t founded until 1929.

  37. NY

    Entirely unhelpful.

  38. Seamus

    “But surely it “legitimized using armed force to take over a country”? I asked you to read the document carefully and apparently you did not do so based on this question.

  39. “I come from a long line of Johnnies men”

    No one’s perfect. Lámh Dhearg man myself.

    “No. The results would have been quite different if there had not been an Easter Rising.”

    And? The results are the results. Every vote in history is caused by what historically preceded it.

  40. The northern state in 1916 was part of the democratic UK.

    The northern state didn’t exist in 1916. Stop pretending you don’t know what I refer to.

    No. The results would have been quite different if there had not been an Easter Rising.

    And apart from your inherent British unionism what’s your basis for this claim?

    One can’t be intellectually honest and be FOR American independence and be against the Irish version.

    Honest as ever.

  41. Phanton

    Alternative views are always helpful. They can give thoughtful people insights they would not otherwise have had.

  42. ” I asked you to read the document carefully and apparently you did not do so based on this question.”

    Read the Proclamation of the Republic from 1916. What is in the Declaration of Independence in the United States that is not present in the Proclamation of the Republic?
    Again how does the American War of Independence not legitimise violence but the Irish War of Independence does?

  43. No one’s perfect. Lámh Dhearg man myself

    You up the road are ye?

  44. I’m actually from down the road. I was born in Clonard. But my granda was from Hannahstown.

  45. Seamus

    “Go fuck yourself New Yorker. Dan Breen was a patriot who served his country with distinction.” Calm down. Was Breen involved with the murder the two RIC men or not? In addition to a murder he was a pathetic self-promoter, as I’m sure you know.

  46. Seamus

    “What is in the Declaration of Independence in the United States that is not present in the Proclamation of the Republic?” I am not going to do your homework for you. Typical!

  47. Dan Breen didn’t murder anyone. He, amongst others, killed two agents of a foreign power engaged in the occupation of his country.

    If that is murder then Washington, Adams, Jefferson etc are all murderers as well.

    I’d also disagree with your assertion that he was a self promoter – other than the necessary promotion one must do to be an elected politician.

  48. I have read both documents New Yorker. Have you? They are, probably by design, quite similar.

  49. Stop pretending you don’t know what I refer to.

    I’ll take you absence of a counterpoint as an admission of the undemocratic nature of the northern state then

  50. * the absence

  51. Also how is the UK in 1916 (when most people in Ireland couldn’t vote) democratic, whilst Ireland in 1918 (when most people could vote) is not?

  52. Seamus

    “He, amongst others, killed two agents of a foreign power engaged in the occupation of his country.” Were the two RIC men not Irishmen in their own country? It was common murder, don’t try to dress it up.

    “other than the necessary promotion one must do to be an elected politician.” What about flogging his book, was not shameless self-promotion involved?

  53. Paul McMahon

    “the undemocratic nature of the northern state then.” I said it was part of a larger democratic entity. See my 2:48 above.

  54. Yes, perhaps my first sentence in my 2.52 is too difficut to understand?

  55. “Were the two RIC men not Irishmen in their own country? It was common murder, don’t try to dress it up.”

    So if the American Revolutionaries had killed, for example, Benedict Arnold, an colonial in his own country, would it have been common murder? Don’t try and dress it up.

    And they were agents of a foreign power. Don’t try and dress that up either.

    “What about flogging his book, was not shameless self-promotion involved?”

    Many people involved in the struggle wrote their own accounts of what happened. Also have you ever read Dan’s book?

  56. Were the two RIC men not Irishmen in their own country?

    Yes, they were also ‘agents of a foreign power engaged in the occupation of his country’ as Seamus rightly asserts too?

  57. How was the UK democratic in 1916 – when most people couldn’t vote?

  58. Seamus

    “I have read both documents New Yorker. Have you? They are, probably by design, quite similar.” They are not similar. This is some of what is in the American Declaration

    “Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    “He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

    “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    “For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    “For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

    “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    “He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    “He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

    There is nothing similar in the Irish Proclamation. The Irish Proclamation is a thin document that does not fully make a case as the American Declaration does. The American Declaration is stating, if read carefully, that the British Government has devolved into despotism which is contrary to its foundation principles and therefore the link between America and Britain must be dissolved.

  59. “We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.”

  60. Seamus

    “And they were agents of a foreign power. Don’t try and dress that up either.” What foreign power would that be? Could it be the UK of Great Britain and Ireland? How is that foreign other than in your propaganda?

    “How was the UK democratic in 1916 – when most people couldn’t vote?” Was 5th century BC Athens democratic?

  61. Seamus

    In regard to your 3:56, the two documents are vastly different. Are you capable of textual comparison and evaluation?

  62. ” Was 5th century BC Athens democratic?”

    By modern standards no it wasn’t. By the standards of the day it was.

    Was the UK by the standards of 1916 (when most modern, western nations had at very least universal male suffrage)?

    You still haven’t explained how Ireland was not democratic in 1918, despite having superior democratic credentials in 1918 than the UK did in 1916.

  63. “What foreign power would that be? Could it be the UK of Great Britain and Ireland? How is that foreign other than in your propaganda?”

    Ireland did not willingly join the UK. And had voted to leave the UK, in one form or another, at every election since 1874. Thus the UK, imposed on the people of Ireland, was a foreign power.

  64. “In regard to your 3:56, the two documents are vastly different”

    I disagree. Both lay out the case for independence. Pearse could have listed all of the grievances Ireland suffered at the hand of the British. He didn’t but could have. The proclamation states the major grievance – ie that Ireland should be free and Britain has up until then usurped that right. He could have gone much further.

  65. Seamus

    “You still haven’t explained how Ireland was not democratic in 1918, despite having superior democratic credentials in 1918 than the UK did in 1916.” I didn’t say it was not democratic, I said the results would have been quite different if there had not been the Easter Rising.

    “Ireland did not willingly join the UK.” Ireland invited Britain to its country in the 12th century.

    “And had voted to leave the UK, in one form or another, at every election since 1874.” That is not what the election results show. The IPP did not campaign on leaving the UK. In fact, the Irish constitutional position going as far back as O’Connell thought it a good thing to be part of a larger political entity.

  66. “Ireland invited Britain to its country in the 12th century.”

    No it didn’t. One Irishman did.

    ” In fact, the Irish constitutional position going as far back as O’Connell thought it a good thing to be part of a larger political entity.”

    O’Connell certainly believed in leaving the UK. His entire organisation was called the Repeal Association. What do you think they wanted to repeal? The Act of Union.

    “I said the results would have been quite different if there had not been the Easter Rising.”

    And?

  67. “That is not what the election results show. The IPP did not campaign on leaving the UK. In fact, the Irish constitutional position going as far back as O’Connell thought it a good thing to be part of a larger political entity.”

    The IPP campaigned for Home Rule. And the Brits said no. Repeatedly. They ignored the democratic will of the people of Ireland.

  68. Seamus

    “Pearse could have listed all of the grievances Ireland suffered at the hand of the British. He didn’t but could have.” You admit he didn’t. That omission is only one major difference. He had a copy of the American Declaration, you would expect he would have done a better job.

    The American document does not contain grievances, rather it has reasons for the actions it proposes to take.

  69. “The American document does not contain grievances, rather it has reasons for the actions it proposes to take.”

    As does the Irish Proclamation. Ireland has been unfree for too long. We are going to change that. Pretty simple reasoning.

  70. Seamus

    “No it didn’t. One Irishman did.” Dermot McMurrow was King of Lenister and democracy was not in vogue in the 12th century.

    “O’Connell certainly believed in leaving the UK.” No he did not. If you read what he wrote he believed Ireland had a “slavish mentality” and therefore would be best as part of a larger political entity. Without doubt O’Connell and the IPP were for home rule. Home rule finally passed in 1914 but due to the war…

  71. Seamus

    Your 4:35 neglects to address the first paragraph of my 4:33.

  72. “Dermot McMurrow was King of Lenister and democracy was not in vogue in the 12th century.”

    Firstly Diarmaid Mac Murchadha had been deposed as King of Leinster. Secondly he was, previously, King of Leinster, not King of Ireland. So Ireland didn’t invite the English in. The former head of a small kingdom in Ireland did. Remember that at that the majority of what is today Leinster was not in Leinster. Leinster at the time encompassed Wexford, Wicklow, Dublin and Kildare.

    “Without doubt O’Connell and the IPP were for home rule.”

    O’Connell wasn’t in the IPP. Learn some history before you make a fool of yourself. O’Connell was in the Repeal Association, who’s principle aim was the repeal of the Act of Union.

  73. “Your 4:35 neglects to address the first paragraph of my 4:33.”

    No it doesn’t. The US Declaration of Independence lists the American greivances against the British, and the steps they wanted to take to fix them. The Proclamation does the same.

  74. ‘O’Connell certainly believed in leaving the UK.’ No he did not

    More revisionism?

    Let every man who feels with me proclaim, that if the alternative were offered him of Union, or the re-enactment of the Penal Code in all its pristine horrors, that he would prefer without hesitation the latter, as the lesser and more sufferable evil,” he proclaimed to the Catholic meeting, “that he would rather confide in the justice of his brethren the Protestants of Ireland, who have already liberated him, than lay his country at the feet of foreigners

    Perspectives on Irish Nationalism pp. 106/7

    Thomas E. Hachey, Lawrence John McCaffrey, University Press of Kentucky, 1989

  75. Its refreshing to see a long and lively thread that is about something different
    (Ireland’s history) and not our usual bugbears, Trump, Brexit and ‘Culture wars’ 🙂

  76. Colm, Trump is half Scottish. We could work him in there somewhere! 🙂

    You’re right though, good discussion on Irish history. I’m learning things.

  77. //Without doubt O’Connell and the IPP were for home rule.//

    They were for Ireland leaving the Union. That was their central message after 1830.
    You are talking nonsense.

    Opinions on Dan Breen differ even in Ireland, but his courage is beyond dispute. And any consideration of his contribution will show him to be a great soldier for his country. He showed great initiative and inspired many young men in his home place and in Dublin to take up arms. He knew when to fight and knew when to make peace. He tried to prevent the Civil War.
    It was people like him who ultimately ran the British out of most of Ireland, and some people like NewYorker haven’t stopped running since.

    NewYorker,

    All the points made, as far I bothered reading your list from the American DoI, could have been made by Irish people before 1916 (especially if you read British Government for “Monarch”, as the latter’s powers had greatly diminished through the 19th C.), and usually with much more justification:

    “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Yes.

    “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

    Yes, he not only “repeatedly” dissolved Ireland’s Representative House, but abolished it completely until Irish people had to fight to get it back.

    “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Yep.

    “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures

    .

    Yes, that too.

    “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    Why, that’s 19th C Ireland all over!

    “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    Yep, we got it.

    “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Of course we got that too. Sure we were only Paddies.

    “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    That’s well known.

    After Ireland was forced to join and kept in the UK against the repeated wishes of its people, and after its population had been halved through British misrule, the British also imposed around 100 coercion laws in the century before the fight got going, including bans on assembly and on free association, suspension of habeas corpus, internment without trial – including of elected leaders and other repressive laws.
    The situation throughout most of the 19th C was much worse than in the Ameridcan Colonies in the 18th.

    Even if Britain was democratic up to 1916 (which it wasn’t), democracy was repetedly denied Ireland. Its people were denied the most funamental principles of democracy.
    When the government of a country is unlawful and undemocratic, and rules without popular support, then every person able to carry a gun has a right to fight it, and doesn’t first have to go looking for a popular support that his enemies don’t have either.

  78. Seamus

    “O’Connell wasn’t in the IPP.” I did not say O’Connell was in the IPP, I said “O’Connell and the IPP” You need to be a more careful reader.

    O’Connell wanted a repeal of the union so that Ireland could have its own parliament, but it would remain under the British monarchy. Therefore, he did not want to leave the UK.

  79. Noel

    Did Breen murder two Irishmen in their own country?

    Neither you or Seamus seem to realize that “could have” means nothing if it does not appear in the document. I explained the American document and maintain it is vastly different than the poorly written hand-me-down of Pearse.

    See above 5:29 for why you are wrong about O’Connell.

  80. //Therefore, he did not want to leave the UK.//

    NY, I don’t know if your seriously uninformed or if you’re just desperate for an argument, but the UK of Ireland and Great Britain was formed in 1801 when the two parliaments merged. The two states had already been under the one monarch before that.
    Any attempt to end that Union was an attempt to leave the UK, the monarch had nothing to do with it.
    Or do you think Canada and Australia are still in the UK?

    As for your remark that the RoI is a bastard state, well, I can only stand with Shakespeare’s bastard Edmund, when he said:

    “Why “bastard”? Wherefore “base”?
    When my dimensions are as well compact,
    My mind as generous, and my shape as true
    As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us
    With “base,” with “baseness,” “bastardy”
    Who in the lusty stealth of nature take
    More composition and fierce quality
    Than doth within a dull, stale, tired bed
    Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops
    Got ’tween a sleep and wake? …

    As to the legitimate. — Fine word, “legitimate”!—
    Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed
    And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
    Shall top the legitimate. I grow, I prosper.
    Now, gods, stand up for bastards!”

    Yes, let us be of the nation with that fierce quality taken from the lusty stealth of nature and leave to you the “whole tribe of fops” begat in that dull, stale, tired bed.

  81. “Did Breen murder two Irishmen in their own country?”

    No he didn’t. He killed two agents of a foreign power.


    O’Connell wanted a repeal of the union so that Ireland could have its own parliament, but it would remain under the British monarchy. Therefore, he did not want to leave the UK.”

    As Noel states that would mean Canada, Australia and 14 other commonwealth realms are all still in the UK. It would mean that the Free State, pretty much up until 1937 or 1949 depending on your reading of the situation, was still in the UK. That is demonstrably bollocks.

    And the IPP, while supporting Home Rule, were not opposed to Independence. Parnell, when asked if he would oppose independence, stated: “No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. No man has the right to say to his country “Thus far shalt thou go and no further”.”

  82. Noel

    The monarch makes it the United Kingdom. O’Connell wanted an Ireland with its own parliament subservient to the monarch, Victoria. Is that clear enough?

    Canada and Australia are slightly different at present. Elizabeth II is Head of State and they are members of the Commonwealth. Both had, and may still have, Governors General representing the monarchy. If Ireland pursued home rule it would likely also have been in the Commonwealth

    Considering the time period of O’Connell, what he wrote and proximity to Great Britain, I conclude he wanted Ireland to remain in the UK. O’Connell believed constitutional monarchy was the best form of government.

    I used “bastard” to indicate illegitimacy and maintain that is a correct usage.

  83. Seamus

    “No he didn’t. He killed two agents of a foreign power.” In this case killing was murder. In some cases killing is justified but Breen had nothing but his own bogus justification and puffed-up high opinion of himself. Of course, you will not agree because your mind is infected with propaganda. But clear-minded and civilized people know that when you set out to steal something and bring a gun, you are a murderer. We part company on that, but I am on the civilized side and you are not.

  84. // But clear-minded and civilized people know that when you set out to steal something and bring a gun, you are a murderer. We part company on that, but I am on the civilized side and you are not.//

    Yes, the Nazi armies all over Europe would have agreed with you wholeheartedly – invade the country, rule it directly or through a quisling, impose laws without the consent of the people … and then note that any resistance is breaking those laws and any attack on your forces is thus murder.

    Quite simple really, once you have the armies to do it.

  85. Oh dear, NYer. Stop digging!

    In my view, as partition was as likely under home rule, the Catholic nature of “Southern Ireland” as the Govt of Ireland Act calls it wouldnt have changed.

  86. Noel

    What are you saying above? I’m sure there is some meaning to it, but it just sounds disconnected to me.

  87. MourneReg

    That may be your view but others think differently. Much would have depended on ow much pressure the UK applied both south and north. I think Churchill at the time might have favored pushing the unionists. I believe at the time the UK wanted to get out but be assured no danger would come to them from the island of Ireland.

    In addition, if home rule were pursued down south, I doubt the Church would have as much influence as they did in the Free State/RoI.

  88. “The monarch makes it the United Kingdom”

    Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu are all now, interestingly, in the United Kingdom. All because New Yorker can’t realise he’s making a dick of himself.

    Because they are separate countries with the same Head of State.

    Again I ask was the Irish Free State in the United Kingdom?

    “In this case killing was murder. In some cases killing is justified but Breen had nothing but his own bogus justification and puffed-up high opinion of himself. Of course, you will not agree because your mind is infected with propaganda. But clear-minded and civilized people know that when you set out to steal something and bring a gun, you are a murderer. We part company on that, but I am on the civilized side and you are not.”

    Was John Parker a murderer?

    “In addition, if home rule were pursued down south, I doubt the Church would have as much influence as they did in the Free State/RoI.”

    Yeah because you know the way in the North when Home Rule was put into force the main religious group, like the Orange Order, had no say whatsoever in the running of the state.

    “Considering the time period of O’Connell, what he wrote and proximity to Great Britain, I conclude he wanted Ireland to remain in the UK. O’Connell believed constitutional monarchy was the best form of government.”

    And that show’s how much of a fucking moron of the highest order you are. O’Connell had two principle aims. The first was Catholic emancipation. The second was the repeal of the Act of Union. His entire political philosophy was about leaving the UK.

  89. Good thread..

    Has anyone been called a racist yet?

    Its only a matter of time…

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

  90. Well, this party doesn’t seem to have abated since I left earlier.

    I conclude he wanted Ireland to remain in the UK. O’Connell believed constitutional monarchy was the best form of government.

    The monarch makes it the United Kingdom

    Classic New Yorker. Oh deary deary me.

  91. Indeed, Paul. By that logic, Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Fein, was actually a unionist as he originally favoured a dual-monarchy solution.

    Except…He wasn’t.

    Even poor old Allan has better powers of logical deduction than that.

  92. Indeed Reg, this was the constitutional monarch’s opinion on the Union:

    Let every man who feels with me proclaim, that if the alternative were offered him of Union, or the re-enactment of the Penal Code in all its pristine horrors, that he would prefer without hesitation the latter, as the lesser and more sufferable evil,” he proclaimed to the Catholic meeting, “that he would rather confide in the justice of his brethren the Protestants of Ireland, who have already liberated him, than lay his country at the feet of foreigners

    As to the Monarch making it the UK, I wonder what the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar would make of that assertion?

    Seriously like.

  93. Copying from an exchange on Facebook between two people from RoI.

    X
    “I knew a son of the late James McDonnell murdered by psycho Dan Breen, McDonnell was a widower with 7 kids and was known to Breen. I saw a video of Breen recently saying he was only sorry he did not kill more and made no apology for it,and he said that late in life ,no remorse only glorification.”

    Y
    ” Dan Breen compared the two RIC Officer’s to cattle. He said to Paddy Hart ( in Hart’s autobiography ), that their faces were cow like in expression – this is how insane Breen was.”

    Me
    “RIP James Mc Donnell”

  94. Seamus

    Do you know the difference between the Commonwealth and the Kingdom.

    Despite your insistence, O’Connell wanted to remain in the UK with Ireland’s own parliament. You make the mistake of thinking O’Connell was some type of proto republican, he was anything but. He was totally anti-violence.

    “Again I ask was the Irish Free State in the United Kingdom?” Yes. Ireland had a Governor General representing the UK until 1936. It was not totally out of the UK until 1949.

    Here is something for you to opine on. The Proclamation states:
    “he Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.”

    How well has the Free State/RoI lived up to those guarantees? Please remove your propaganda hat and replace it with a reality hat, then give your honest opinion on each guarantee.

  95. Seamus

    Do you know the difference between the Commonwealth and the Kingdom.

    Personally, I don’t think Seamus knows the difference between his arse and his elbow.

    😏

  96. Nyorker – the goals of the Proclamation like the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are not automatically achieved by simple publication. Whatever bee you have in your bonnet about Irish Independence is certainly not shared by the vast majority of Irish people

  97. Personally, I don’t think Seamus knows the difference between his arse and his elbow.

    😏

    Actually, I’m incorrect there.

    He would, only he would have to look it up on Wiki.

    😏

  98. Ah NYer, just admit you’re wrong for God sake.

    You look silly now.

  99. MourneReg

    Griffith favored a dual monarchy in which the one monarch would preside over two parliaments, one in London and one in Dublin. At his time it would have been Victoria as the one monarch. Whether you consider him a unionist or not is up to you. It is similar to SF serving in Stormont – two governments with one monarch. I would consider Northern SF de facto unionists, although they would not admit it for PR reasons, nevertheless they are happy to take the monarch’s lucre.

  100. Mahons

    The Irish Proclamation states they are guarantees not goals. Can you cite such guarantees in the US Declaration or Constitution.

    On what basis do you make the pronouncement on Irish independence and the Irish people? It is not a numbers game but what is the correct historical interpretation.

  101. I love that hoary old ‘Queen’s money’ rubbish 😄

    Unthinking, emotive cac.

  102. New Yorker – when someone decides to dig themselves a hole I try to encourage them not to until they pass the point of seriousness, as you have done here. However you may of course advocate for the return of New York to colonial status should you so choose.

  103. Despite your insistence, O’Connell wanted to remain in the UK with Ireland’s own parliament.

    Yep he did. That’s why he said he’d prefer the renactment of the Penal Laws over the Union.

  104. “Do you know the difference between the Commonwealth and the Kingdom.”

    I do. Do you? Because you seem to think having two separate countries with the same head of state is the same as just having one country.

    “Despite your insistence, O’Connell wanted to remain in the UK with Ireland’s own parliament. You make the mistake of thinking O’Connell was some type of proto republican, he was anything but. He was totally anti-violence.”

    I have made no mistake. You on the other hand have made countless. The simple fact is the creation of the United Kingdom was by the Act of Union. Daniel O’Connell sought the repeal of the Act of Union, in effect dividing the United Kingdom into two separate states – Ireland and Britain. He didn’t seek devolution within the UK structure. Thus he wanted Ireland to leave the UK.

    “Yes. Ireland had a Governor General representing the UK until 1936. It was not totally out of the UK until 1949.”

    Nonsense. The Irish Free State left the United Kingdom in 1922. Which is why the pre-existing state – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – was renamed in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Governor-General of the Irish Free State also did not represent the UK. He represented the King. There is a distinction. He was also appointed by the King on the advice of his Irish ministers ie not appointed by the UK Government but appointed by the Irish Government.

    There is also to date still a Governor-General of Australia. Why was the Irish Free State in the UK (due to the Governor-General) but Australia is not?

    “Griffith favored a dual monarchy in which the one monarch would preside over two parliaments, one in London and one in Dublin.”

    As did O’Connell.

  105. Mahons

    “New Yorker – when someone decides to dig themselves a hole I try to encourage them not to until they pass the point of seriousness, as you have done here.” Thanks, Pop. This is most serious.

    Now, there are a few questions for you above.

  106. Paul McMahon

    “I love that hoary old ‘Queen’s money’ rubbish.” Are you denying they take salary and expenses?

  107. Seamus

    “Because you seem to think having two separate countries with the same head of state is the same as just having one country.” Why can’t two different states have the same head of state. It has happened several times in history.

    “He didn’t seek devolution within the UK structure.” What do you think home rule is?

    Donal Buckley was Governor General of Ireland 1932-1936.

    “There is also to date still a Governor-General of Australia. Why was the Irish Free State in the UK (due to the Governor-General) but Australia is not?”. Geography.

  108. Seamus

    One more – “He was also appointed by the King on the advice of his Irish ministers ie not appointed by the UK Government but appointed by the Irish Government.” Which is it in regard to appointment? I believe it was the King.

  109. “Why can’t two different states have the same head of state. It has happened several times in history.”

    I agree. You seem to be the one who has a problem with the concept. That if Ireland retained the British monarch that somehow Ireland would still be part of the UK.

    ” What do you think home rule is?”

    Devolution with in the UK structure. Which is not what Daniel O’Connell wanted. This isn’t complicated.

    “Geography.”

    Ok. You Canadian now?

  110. “Which is it in regard to appointment? I believe it was the King.”

    In the same way that the Governor-General of Australia is appointed by the Monarch of Australia, the Governor-General of the Irish Free State was appointed by the Monarch of the Irish Free State.

    And also in the same way that the Governor-General of Australia was appointed upon the advice of the Australian government the Governor-General of the Irish Free State was appointed upon the advice of the Irish government.

  111. Are you denying they take salary and expenses?

    No, what I’m stating is that the people of the state of NI pay taxes to the British exchequer and the representatives that they elect are as entitled to be paid for it as any other elected representative.

    It’s not ‘the Queen’s money’.

  112. Seamus

    “That if Ireland retained the British monarch that somehow Ireland would still be part of the UK.” What would Ireland’s relationship be with the UK if it had a British monarch?

    “Devolution with in the UK structure. Which is not what Daniel O’Connell wanted. This isn’t complicated.” That is exactly what he did not want.

    “the Governor-General of the Irish Free State was appointed by the Monarch of the Irish Free State.” Who was the monarch of the Free State?

    BTW, you like to opine, but have not on my 10:13.

  113. Paul McMahon

    “No, what I’m stating is that the people of the state of NI pay taxes to the British exchequer and the representatives that they elect are as entitled to be paid for it as any other elected representative.” OK, they are paid by the British exchequer for services to the British government which makes them de facto unionists. Why else are they taking salary and expenses unless they are working for the British government administrating British law, etc. and as employees they are unionists whether they admit it or not. Only by not taking monies could they possibly be non-unionists.

  114. So anyone who works in the public sector in the UK are unionists NYer?

    My neice, who’s an NHS nurse and a member of Sinn Féin, will be surprised to hear that she’s autonatically changed her political ideaology because the great NYer has thus decreed it.

    It’s very simple, while the Republican / Nationalist community are obliged to pay taxes to the British exchequer then they are also entitled to avail of the public services that those taxes pay for, including political representation. Unless of course your arguing that they should still pay taxes and be politically disenfranchised? how very dictatorially authoritarian of you. I’m sure you’re aware of the phrase no taxation without representation? If you wish to suggest another alternative to Irish Republicans / Nationalists paying taxes to the British exchequer I’m sure they’d be all ears.

    And while on the subject of money, did you ever provide any evidence that James Connolly was a theif?

  115. I think New Yorker is engaging in an academic exercise, testing the theory of “ Ireland is as British as Finchley” . His theory is of course being demolished on this thread but give him credit he’s sticking doggedly to his Unionist bone 😉

  116. //Why can’t two different states have the same head of state. It has happened several times in history.//

    NY, after a whole thread of contradicting the facts, you’re now contradicting youself.

    You were saying all along that having the same head of state meant they were the one state.

  117. Noel

    Perhaps NY’s head is in 2 different states 🙂

  118. Paul McMahon

    Your niece who works for the NHS is a unionist (not Unionist). She is employed by and is part of a government that is officially unionist. Of course, she can have whatever political party affiliations she wants. Your niece probably lives in the UK and is employed and paid by the UK. Do you deny the UK is officially unionist? If not, your niece is de facto unionist. Perhaps you have a problem with what de facto means.

  119. Noel

    “You were saying all along that having the same head of state meant they were the one state.” Wrong. If you check above I use the phrase ‘larger political entity’. There can be more than one state in a larger political entity such as a constitutional monarchy. The difference is not merely semantic, but real.

  120. NYer, I’ve a perfect understanding of the meaning ‘de facto’, it’s similar to the adverb ‘technically’ in the sense that it’s one of those phrases employed by people who want to make a tenuous connection between two things but don’t have a strong enough basis to justify it.

    So anyone working in the UK public sector is a ‘de facto’ unionist?, (so sayeth the sage NYer), much like your ‘monarch makes the UK’ and ‘Queen’s money’ this made up rubbish is comedy gold.

    I suppose that it means that the Nige Farage is ‘de facto’ pro EU, that anyone who was ever born or treated in Belfast’s main hospital is in fact a ‘de facto’ unionist and monarchist, much like anyone who’s ever studied at QUB? (Bernie McAlliskey & Eamonn McCann exposed HA!!).

    Keep em coming NYer, they really are great.

    Any luck on that evidence of Connolly being a theif?

  121. Paul McMahon

    You appear not to have a perfect understanding of de facto. Instead, you reveal one cause of your faulty thinking.

    Farage is de facto pro EU because he is paid by the EU. To use one of your favorite words, he is a fraud.

    You can find the evidence of Connally’s thievery yourself. I will not contribute to your lassitude.

  122. Not only do I have a perfect understanding of ‘de facto’ but I’ve explained it perfectly in the context of your use it.

    Farage is de facto pro EU because he is paid by the EU

    I’m sure that will be a surprise to Farage and the other anti EU MEPs. However, the enlightened one has thus decreed it.

    You can find the evidence of Connally’s thievery yourself

    I’ll take that as a negative then.

  123. “What would Ireland’s relationship be with the UK if it had a British monarch?”

    The same as Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

    Who are all in the United Kingdom by your fucked up definition of it.

    “That is exactly what he did not want.”

    You are making a fool of yourself. Daniel O’Connell wanted to repeal the Act of Union. He wanted an independent Ireland, linked to Britain but not ruled by Britain. He didn’t want a subservient devolution settlement, where the Irish parliament in Dublin was subservient to the British parliament in Westminster.

    “Who was the monarch of the Free State?”

    There were three, though the latter two were brief. They were George V von Saxe Coburg und Gotha, Edward VIII von Saxe Coburg und Gotha and George VI von Saxe Coburg. And your point is?

    ” There can be more than one state in a larger political entity such as a constitutional monarchy. The difference is not merely semantic, but real.”

    What you are describing is a federal structure, where you have multiple entities held together by a larger entity (like US States, held together by the United States). That is not what the Irish Free State was, that was not what Daniel O’Connell was campaigning for.

  124. //If you check above I use the phrase ‘larger political entity’.//

    You said that anyone wanting to retain the British monarch as head of state also by definition wanted to retain the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, and that a country with the British monarch as head of state was necessarily in the UK. (???)

    You were shown (many times and by many people) to be completely wrong. Now you’re coming out with this ‘larger political entity’ bullshit, which means nothing here. The EU, the British Commonwealth, the UN even – all ‘larger political entities’.

    You must think we’re all dumb here, even as you stagger from one error to the next.
    (accepting money from something makes you a ‘de facto’ supporter. So Patrick Pearse was a ‘de facto’ Unionist and von Stauffenberg was a ‘de facto’ Hitler supporter even while he tried to kill him. You’re all over the place.).

  125. “The Home Government Association was a pressure group launched by Isaac Butt in support of home rule for Ireland at a meeting in Bilton’s Hotel, Dublin, on 19 May 1870. The Home Rule League grew out of the Home Government Association. The Home Rule League (1873–1882), sometimes called the Home Rule Party or the Home Rule Confederation, was a political party which campaigned for home rule for Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, until it was replaced by the Irish Parliamentary Party.” (Wikipedia)

    “The term “Home Rule”, first used in the 1860s, meant an Irish legislature with responsibility for domestic affairs. It was variously interpreted, from the 1870s was seen to be part of a federal system for the United Kingdom: a domestic Parliament for Ireland while the Imperial Parliament at Westminster would continue to have responsibility for Imperial affairs.” (Wikipedia)

    “In September 1832 O’Connell informed Fitzpatrick that his political life was henceforth to be devoted to repeal or the obtaining of ‘a local and domestic legislature’, and not long afterwards he explained:
    My plan is to restore the Irish Parliament with the full assent of Protestants and Presbyterians as well as Catholics. I desire no social revolution, no social change … In short, salutary restoration without revolution; an Irish Parliament, British connection; one king, two legislatures.” (O’Connell correspondence)

    On College Green in Dublin there is an impressive building in which the Irish Parliament sat until 1800. Home Rule wanted to bring back that Irish Parliament with some alteration. As with the previous Parliament it would be subservient to the London Parliament in which some members would be Irish. The Irish Parliament would be responsible for Irish domestic affairs and the London Parliament would be responsible for Imperial affairs. O’Connell’s Repeal Association wanted to repeal the Acts of Union 1800 and thus return to a pre-1800 Irish Parliament. Both Home Rule and the Parliament after repeal were envisioned within a larger political entity consistent with the political theory of constitutional monarchy.

    Those who commented above are clearly confused about or ignorant of Irish history in the 19th century. But, as so often happens, it takes a Yank to help out his deficient Irish cousins.

  126. NewYorker, you’re a nice lad, and none of us likes to see to making a fool of yourself.

  127. ..even though we are forced to see it 🙂

  128. Next he’ll be telling us St. Patrick wanted Ireland to be Anglican.

  129. I’m afraid former DUP councillor Ruth Patterson already has claim to that one Mahons:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js44TPL4FA4

  130. I should have guessed.

  131. “As with the previous Parliament it would be subservient to the London Parliament in which some members would be Irish. “

    There were no Irish MPs in the London Parliament pre Act of Union.

    “O’Connell’s Repeal Association wanted to repeal the Acts of Union 1800 and thus return to a pre-1800 Irish Parliament. Both Home Rule and the Parliament after repeal were envisioned within a larger political entity consistent with the political theory of constitutional monarchy.”

    Except they weren’t. Repeal wanted to end the United Kingdom. Repeal was effectively independence. Home Rule was effectively devolution.

    But its ok. The UK is now a much larger entity than it was last week. Because apparently having the same monarch means you are in the UK. So Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu are now in the United Kingdom.

    Just because New Yorker is a fool who said something incorrect and couldn’t accept that.

  132. Interesting. I wonder if the people of Papua New Guinea generally voted to Leave or Remain in the EU and if they are now negotiating a backstop with Indonesia.

  133. Nice catch, Paul. Reality better than satire again.

  134. Were doomed…doomed I tells ya.

    https://goo.gl/images/3v55gP

    😂

  135. Having differing opinions is all very well, but not being able to accept and acknowledge when you are factually wrong is a pretty poor personality trait.

  136. Noel

    “NewYorker, you’re a nice lad, and none of us likes to see to making a fool of yourself.” DO you have the ability to disprove what I wrote at 6:46 or are you limited to making stupid comments?

    Of course, you are not alone in stupidity. Those who ignore the context of 19th century history and project their present propaganda view to back over a century are company for you. Provo jingoism is a humorous mental illness of poor unfortunates.

  137. Seamus

    “There were no Irish MPs in the London Parliament pre Act of Union.” My statement: “Home Rule wanted to bring back that Irish Parliament with some alteration. As with the previous Parliament it would be subservient to the London Parliament in which some members would be Irish.”

    I wrote of what home rulers “wanted” in the future, you write of “were” referring to the past. As such, your statement is useless as well as dishonest.

    And, “Repeal wanted to end the United Kingdom. Repeal was effectively independence.” O’Connell said ” In short, salutary restoration without revolution; an Irish Parliament, British connection; one king, two legislatures.” If you doubt O’Connell wrote that consult his letter to Hugh Fitzpatrick in O’Connell’s correspondence published by Professor Maurice O’Connell.

    Frankly, if the erroneous dreck above is all you have in way of rebuttal, give it a long rest and take time to learn Irish history, not the Provo version.

  138. “I wrote of what home rulers “wanted” in the future, you write of “were” referring to the past. As such, your statement is useless as well as dishonest.”

    Bollocks. You said “previous Parliament”. The previous Parliament was the Irish parliament, in which all members were Irish and Ireland sent no members to London.

    “In short, salutary restoration without revolution; an Irish Parliament, British connection; one king, two legislatures.”

    Yes connection. Not subservience. Connection. Ireland would have a connection to Britain but would not be part of the United Kingdom.

    “Frankly, if the erroneous dreck above is all you have in way of rebuttal, give it a long rest and take time to learn Irish history, not the Provo version.”

    You’ve made a fool of yourself repeatedly on this thread. Your responses on the thread are some of the saddest, most ill-informed group of responses ever seen on this site – and that is quite an achievement.

  139. Seamus

    “The previous Parliament was the Irish parliament, in which all members were Irish and Ireland sent no members to London.” What relevance does “Ireland sent no members to London” have with what the home rulers wanted at the time? Nothing. That is why your statement is useless and dishonest.

    Do you really think O’Connell, founder of the Repeal Association, wanted a break with the UK? Remember “One King, two legislators”.

    If you think I’m making a fool of myself, I take that as a compliment considering the source.

  140. “What relevance does “Ireland sent no members to London” have with what the home rulers wanted at the time? Nothing. That is why your statement is useless and dishonest.”

    Again go fuck yourself. The “Ireland sent no members to London” has nothing to do with what home rulers wanted. It has everything to do with your statement “As with the previous Parliament it would be subservient to the London Parliament in which some members would be Irish.”

    You said the previous Parliament was subservient to the London Parliament (it wasn’t). And that some members of the London Parliament would be Irish (which wasn’t the case in the previous Parliament).

    It has nothing to do with what home rulers wanted. It has everything to do with your repeated factually incorrect assertions.

    “Do you really think O’Connell, founder of the Repeal Association, wanted a break with the UK? Remember “One King, two legislators”.”

    Yes. The United Kingdom was created by the Act of Union. The Repeal Association wanted to repeal the Act of Union – ie get rid of the United Kingdom. The UK did not exist in 1800. O’Connell wanted to return to the pre-1801 system.

    “If you think I’m making a fool of myself, I take that as a compliment considering the source.”

    Again go fuck yourself.