Originally posted by no1marauderBut you've not proved that! You've proved there was massive support for Irish independence in 1918, but not at all that that 'was always the majority sentiment in Ireland.' Well?
YOU: "there was no fundamental change in overall Irish feeling toward the desirability of separation from the Empire; that was always majority sentiment in Ireland." - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you can show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGerald's?
Well? Are you not denying my statement that separation from Britain was the majority sentiment in Ireland?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe magnitude of Sinn Fein's victory perhaps was but that Sinn Fein was going to win big was clear even before conscription. A number of by elections in the meantime had elected Sinn Fein candidates over Home Rule ones. De Valera's smashing victory in East Clare in July 1917 was a prime example (maybe you'll find it in wiki).
Not to harp on about double standards, but for somebody who so frequently complains of people never 'actually reading' his posts, you seem to have done a remarkably poor job of reading his.
The election of 1918 seems to have been greatly influenced by something called the Conscription Crisis of 1918.
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFYou're seriously asserting otherwise? In other words, your claim is that the Irish were quite happy being ruled by Britain?
But you've not proved that! You've proved there was massive support for Irish independence in 1918, but not at all that that 'was always the majority sentiment in Ireland.' Well?
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFThat is your assertion? That the Irish desired to be ruled by the British right up until 1916 when they suddenly and amazingly had a complete change of heart?
Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, that proves that the desire for Irish independence 'was always the majority sentiment in Ireland.'
You Brits are really something else.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat the desire for Independence was on the wane, and did not represent majority opinion in 1914-1916:
Then what are you saying?
"up to 1914 there was little public support for Irish independence: as I have just said it was despair at the absence of such a spirit that provoked the Rising. It is a failure of imagination on our part, together with a mythic view of history, that make us think otherwise. The truth is that without 1916 our people might well have settled down for a time at least within a Home Rule system."
Originally posted by no1marauderThere were two by-elections in 1917, both won by Sinn Fein.
The magnitude of Sinn Fein's victory perhaps was but that Sinn Fein was going to win big was clear even before conscription. A number of by elections in the meantime had elected Sinn Fein candidates over Home Rule ones. De Valera's smashing victory in East Clare in July 1917 was a prime example (maybe you'll find it in wiki).
Many factors account for the swing towards Sinn Fein. Apart from resentment at British reaction to the Easter Rebellion, the conscription issue already mentioned (which Sinn Fein successfully claimed credit for stemming) and the natural sympathy young voters felt towards the Young Turks that Sinn Fein appeared to be, there was also the changed make-up of the electorate itself. An election had not been held since 1910, so many of the elder generation had died (not a few of them in the trenches, including the MP for East Clare that De Valera succeeded). A lot of young people were voting for the first time. Then the Representation of the People Act 1918 increased the size of the electorate from 700 000 to two million. And people were bitter at thousands of their men dying in an English war. And there was rapid inflation. And Sinn Fein had a better manifesto. Etc. (wikipedia) So I think it was a number of factors coming to a head, really. All credit to Sinn Fein for taking full advantage of them.
Originally posted by DrKFI've already shown by the words of the men who led the Rising that the first sentence is plain wrong - they weren't "despairing" of anything and thought the tide was running their way. Even Sir Matthew Nathan, the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle wrote in March 1915: I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Nationalists [Redmond's Home Rulers] are losing ground to the Sinn Feiners". And that was before the massive turnout at O'Donovan Rossa's funeral. The "lack of spirit" existed only in Fitzgerald's mind 70 years after the events.
That the desire for Independence was on the wane, and did not represent majority opinion in 1914-1916:
"up to 1914 there was little public support for Irish independence: as I have just said it was despair at the absence of such a spirit that provoked the Rising. It is a failure of imagination on our part, together with a mythic view of history, that make us ...[text shortened]... t 1916 our people might well have settled down for a time at least within a Home Rule system."
But even he concedes that any acquiescence to a Home Rule arrangement would have been temporary: "our people might well have settled down for a time at least within a Home Rule system". What does that tell you about the people of Ireland's wish for ultimate freedom from British rule?
Originally posted by no1marauderSo when the Home Rulers were losing ground to the separatists, were they losing the majority position?
I've already shown by the words of the men who led the Rising that the first sentence is plain wrong - they weren't "despairing" of anything and thought the tide was running their way. Even Sir Matthew Nathan, the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle wrote in March 1915: I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Nationalists [Redmond's Home Rulers] are losing ...[text shortened]... ell you about the people of Ireland's wish for ultimate freedom from British rule?