An Opinion on the Easter Rising

[RevolverNo9]

I do not claim to have any adequate understanding of Irish history around this time - especially as it is hard to find narratives that do not serve mother ideology (I cannot believe some of the things I've read that have been passed off as published historiography!). Regardless, I was interested in this proposition which I read from an account by a historian David Fitzpatrick that doesn't fit comfortably with either Imperialist narratives or idealist Republican narratives. However, until I have my opportunity to study the matter, I can criticise him little more.

I would welcome others' views. What follows is my summary.


Separatist groups during the war faced dwindling membership and irrelevance. It was this climate - one of frustration - that induced the clandestine formation of Irish Republican Brotherhood's military council in May 1915, co-opting in the process Connolly, among others. With more than a little sympathy for Pearse's belief in blood as 'a cleansing and a sanctifying thing', the members were energised to execute plans for a revolt despite falling popular support and grossly unfavourable conditions. Indeed they hoped to set themselves up as martyrs. Buildings chosen for occupation had no relation to strategic sense and showed no interest in disrupting governmental institutions. Dublin Castle was ignored and even Trinity University, despite its fortifications and current vacancy, was passed over. Positions were selected seeming arbitrarily, save a requirement to create visible violence.

Only 64 rebels were killed during the rising. 132 soldiers and policemen were killed - but this figure was far outnumbered by the 318 civilians that met death, while a further 2,217 were left wounded.

Initial popular reaction was fury and alienation of a nationalist movement confronted by mass human-wastage, as women even coerced the surrendered rebels into enlistment into the British army. However, British reprisals exceeded the wildest expectations of the rebels. Far times many more individuals were arrested than could have been ever involved in the rising and internment was arbitrary, action brutal and executions swift. A new generation of revolutionaries had been brought together by repression - often physically through the widespread processes of detention. Public opinion was now irreversible.

(To clarify, I am not fully assenting with anything he says. I'm simply interested in how people view his propositions.)

[Redmau5]

His view pretty much sums up what most historians think. The Easter Rebels had very little chance in militarily succeeding against the British army, and I think most of those who took part knew this. However, the point was not to succeed militarily, but rather to reawaken the Irish peoples' desire for an Ireland free from British control. Patrick Pearse had a somewhat fanatical idea of self-sacrifice and martyrdom, and was even quoted praising World War One. James Connolly and his Irish Citizen Army had a different view of the Rising than many of the traditionalist republicans. While still wanting to free Ireland from British occupation, he believed it would be pointless to simply replace British rulers with Irish ones, and argued for a 32-county Workers' Republic. This he said, was the only true way Ireland could free herself from British rule.

Immediately after the Rising, the Irish people were disgusted with the rebels, as they blamed them for the deaths of so many civilians as well as the destruction of property. But this feeling soon changed, as the leaders, as well as a few others, were executed by the British. The British army also began arresting people on a large-scale basis, and this caused great resentment amongst the Irish people. Support for Sinn Fein, who before the Easter Rising had been very small, soared and in the 1918 General Election Sinn Fein became Ireland's biggest party. It's fair to say that if the British government hadn't reacted so harshly after the Rising, Sinn Fein probably wouldn't have become so popular.

In 1919, Sinn Fein members set up their own government known as the Dail. They also set up courthouses as well as their own police force, in order to demonstrate to the Irish people that they could govern effectively themselves. It was also in 1919 that the Sinn Fein's armed wing, known as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), began to shoot members of the RIC (which was the police for in Ireland) as well as British soldiers. This led to a sharp decline in the number of people willing to join the RIC, and the British government had to send in reinforcements. The Black and Tans (ex-British soldiers) and the Auxiliaries (ex-British officers) were sent to Ireland to restore British rule, but in actual fact done more to weaken British rule. This was because Michael Collins, the IRA's Director of Intelligence, was successfully managing to wage a campaign of guerrilla warfare against a much superior army. He also managed to infiltrate British intelligence bureaus, which meant he knew when and when not to strike. This was now known as the Irish War of Indepedence, or the Anglo-Irish War.

With the guerrilla campaign becoming more and more effective against the British army, the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries became more ruthless when dealing with suspected IRA members and sympathisers, which only increased hatred amongst the Irish people. But as the war dragged on, the Irish became war weary and eventually a truce was called in 1921. After negotiations, a treaty was agreed that concluded 26-counties should become known as the "Free State" while the six north-eastern counties (who had a protestant majority) would stay under British rule. This decision to split the country caused great strife among IRA and Sinn Fein members in the south, and a Civil War broke out which pitted the newly-formed Free State Army against the the Anti-Treaty IRA. The Free State eventually won, but the treaty has always been a great debating point ever since.

I think it's fair to say that the British played a great part in their own downfall. Had they been more lenient on the rebels after 1916, support for Sinn Fein would not have risen so sharply, and there wouldn't have eventually been a war which removed British occupation from Ireland, for the most part at least.

[PRC-UTE]

There's some truth to that, yeah.

Yet it leaves out that the rebels had been planning with German aid, including troops, a regiment raised from Irish POWs from WWI and field artillery. They also faced their orders for mobilisation coutnermanded by the IV leader when he found out what was going on. That all fell through, so it's clear that that the insurgents did plan for a larger uprising but were also prepared to offer a 'blood sacrifice' as plan b if you like.

More important though is the political and class issues of the day - the Irish Citizen Army had become more militant from their bitter labour actions and clashes with the police. Also, the British were planning on introducing conscription which the Uprising prevented, and recognition of this gained them more support in time. I wouldn't say the insurgents were as completely divorced from the masses as is usually suggested.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:59 AM
It's fair to say that if the British government hadn't reacted so harshly after the Rising, Sinn Fein probably wouldn't have become so popular.
If so, that might be one of the few successful examples of "provoked repression." Usually it works great at producing repression, but not so well at producing revolutions.

Even in this case, didn't work out so well for the ICA's socialist goals.