Originally posted by DrKFIf the end game for Home Rule was not eventual separation then it certainly is the case that it would mean "acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain".
It's not at all settled, I just thought, since I don't think you have or will engage with the points above, I'd let it go.
With regards to the point above, I have been entirely consistent throughout.
I think that in 1914 or thereabouts, there was not a great deal of support for separatists. There was, however, a lot of support for Home Rule. Amongst othe ...[text shortened]... nion was "acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain", when that is simply not the case.
One thing you haven't addressed is the rather elementary question of: WHY? As in, if hardly any Irishmen supported separation before the Rising, why would they do so afterward?
I've explained my position; you've yet to explain yours.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI was under the impression we'd both decided to let the Home Rule/separatist thing lie. To my mind, you're now trying to make a semantic point that is inconsistent with earlier postings. Unless and until you address that, I'm not prepared to participate in speculation as to the mental states of Home Rule supporters.
If the end game for Home Rule was not eventual separation then it certainly is the case that it would mean "acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain".
One thing you haven't addressed is the rather elementary question of: WHY? As in, if hardly any Irishmen supported separation before the Rising, why would they do so afterward?
I've explained my position; you've yet to explain yours.
The question of any change in attitudes (from broad support for Home Rule to broad support for independence) has been addressed by me and by others a couple of times, above. You took part in the discussion, and indeed seemed to accept there was a shift from support for Home Rule to support for independence. Do you now resile from that position?
Originally posted by DrKFWhat "semantic point"?
I was under the impression we'd both decided to let the Home Rule/separatist thing lie. To my mind, you're now trying to make a semantic point that is inconsistent with earlier postings. Unless and until you address that, I'm not prepared to participate in speculation as to the mental states of Home Rule supporters.
The question of any change in attitudes (f ...[text shortened]... from support for Home Rule to support for independence. Do you now resile from that position?
I thought BDN made a good summary of my thesis: Yes, the difference between Home Rule and Republicanism being the length of time it would take to achieve independence.
I accepted that there was a shift from support for immediate Home Rule to immediate independence. You seem unable to grasp what I mean by the use of that adjective.
And you still haven't given any explanation for the "WHY".
Originally posted by no1marauderWho knows, then, maybe it's the same 'why' as for you; we're saying almost exactly the same thing, after all.
What "semantic point"?
I thought BDN made a good summary of my thesis: Yes, the difference between Home Rule and Republicanism being the length of time it would take to achieve independence.
I accepted that there was a shift from support for [b]immediate Home Rule to immediate independence. You seem unable to ...[text shortened]... hat adjective.
And you still haven't given any explanation for the "WHY".[/b]