Easter Rising Executions - England shoot themselves in the foot! Again!

[UnitedIreland]

Today is the anniversary of the execution of Sir Rodger Casement, an Irish Nationalist in London for his role in the Easter Rising. This article isn't here to discuss the whole history of Ireland and England.

I am highlighting the fact that throughout history that England/British Empire, where ever they invaded ended up facing rebellions and general oppostion due to their own methods of 'justice' and control. If Britian had of learned from their lessons throughtout their history, they may still have an Empire or at least held on to their empire longer. For example, the people of Ireland in 1916 were happy with the British Government and they didn't want a rebellion. When the Easter Rising did break out, the people hated the rebels. Then England shot themselves in the foot. Instead of just putting the rebels in jail, they executed them and the public turned against the British government. Britian have done this where ever they have went.

I can't help thinking that things could have been so much different if they had of went about things differently. What do yous think?

[Poach]

The British Empire ended largely peacefully, you seem to be implying that it was ripped apart by armed rebellion? The fact that the Commonwealth still exists shows the Empire ended on good terms for all.

For a nation that shot ourselves in the foot so often, I think we carved a pretty good Empire with one foot, don't you?

[Tiberios]

The British Empire ended largely peacefully, you seem to be implying that it was ripped apart by armed rebellion? The fact that the Commonwealth still exists shows the Empire ended on good terms for all.

For a nation that shot ourselves in the foot so often, I think we carved a pretty good Empire with one foot, don't you?

Agreed.

[Azog 150]

I think out methods were relatively peaceful, especially compared to a lot of Empires from similar times. Obviously the British Empire did some terrible things, but what empire hasn't?

As Poach said, look at how other empires came to an end as opposed to ours. The French Empire for example. The First Indochina War and the Algerian War of Independence were long, drawn out and very bloody. On the other hand, Britain's Colonies, for the most part, achieved independence reletively peacefully (I am talking Post-War here)

[CiviC]

I think out methods were relatively peaceful, especially compared to a lot of Empires from similar times. Obviously the British Empire did some terrible things, but what empire hasn't?

As Poach said, look at how other empires came to an end as opposed to ours. The French Empire for example. The First Indochina War and the Algerian War of Independence were long, drawn out and very bloody. On the other hand, Britain's Colonies, for the most part, achieved independence reletively peacefully (I am talking Post-War here)

Actually Algerian War was very similar with the Irish question : there about 2 million French colonists in Algeria and that made very hard a retreat from there - much like was the situation in Ireland with Protestants. Indochina War was not as much about colonialism as Communism - the French started a process of decolonisation in Indochina but opposed Communists to take control - the same happened in Malaya, the British fought Communist guerillas. As for the large majority of French colonies, they gained independence peacefully.

[UnitedIreland]

Ok I know what yous mean and maybe I need to reword my original post but what I was trying to say was that maybe they could have hung on to their empire longer if it wasn't for certain things they did. I know what Im trying to say but I can't word it right. I'm talking about specfic countries where violence did break out under British rule. I know that most colonies under the British Empire gained independence peacfullly, such as most of the African colonies but I'm referring to the US, Ireland etc where British actions led to their own downfall.

[Romanman]

I can agree with you unitedireland, in the sense of irish and american history, i've studied both. look at the laws the british pass in the american colonies stamp act, quartering act, sugar act, if they had not passed these i think the american colonies would have stayed in british control. Ben Franklin said the political climate was 1/3 antibritish 1/3 pro british and 1/3 neutral these acts pushed the neutrals anti british. However i do think the british get stereotyped as imperialist tyrants too much, if you look at most the places that the natives rebelled for "freedom" and "self rule" they are still fighting each other or are controled by dictators and are much worse off with personal freedoms and standards of living than they were with the british.

[EireEmerald]

Today is the anniversary of the execution of Sir Rodger Casement, an Irish Nationalist in London for his role in the Easter Rising. This article isn't here to discuss the whole history of Ireland and England.

I am highlighting the fact that throughout history that England/British Empire, where ever they invaded ended up facing rebellions and general oppostion due to their own methods of 'justice' and control. If Britian had of learned from their lessons throughtout their history, they may still have an Empire or at least held on to their empire longer. For example, the people of Ireland in 1916 were happy with the British Government and they didn't want a rebellion. When the Easter Rising did break out, the people hated the rebels. Then England shot themselves in the foot. Instead of just putting the rebels in jail, they executed them and the public turned against the British government. Britian have done this where ever they have went.

I can't help thinking that things could have been so much different if they had of went about things differently. What do yous think?

Roger Casement initially worked as a spy for the British Government but then changed to the Irish side and was executed. He was also a knwon homosexual . I really respect him.





Executing those prisoners was a very very bad idea and Pearse was well aware of what would happen.

At first the people in Dublin and throughout Ireland were onfused. Because of the disruption of the newspaperproduction and censorship by the British Army, very little concrete info was in circulation. As a result wild rumours of a German invasion, were in circulation. Once the Rising was over people began to realise what had happened. There were different view points and reactions to this knowledge., While some nationalists admire the rebels, many were appalled at the death and destruction. A ship called the Helga fired from half way across Dublin nearly missing the rebels every time and hitting other buildings. Constitutional nationalists looking for Home rule also condemned it. Redmond ( Irish home Rule ) warned the British Government of the possible effects of sever punishment.

John Dillon rushed to London while the executions were taking place and praised the bravery of the rebels in the H of C and called on Asquith to stop the executions, warning " you are washing our whole life work in a sea of blood " By this Dillon meant that peaceful nationalism would be replaced by physical force republican organisations. Many think that Ireland would have been united much sooner had it not been for 1916 rising and Home Rule had not been replaced by physical force nationalsim. Asquith soon decided to stop the executions and the rest were put on life inprisonment. As a result of the executions public opinion began to swing in the favour of the rebels. As Pearse had prophesied, the executed rebels were seen as martyrs and were held as an example to be followed by futured generations.

[UnitedIreland]

Many think that Ireland would have been united much sooner had it not been for 1916 rising and Home Rule had not been replaced by physical force nationalsim.

Well we have to remember that Ireland wasn't divided whenever the Easter Rising occured. It wasn't until 1921, after the Anglo-Irish Treaty, where we first seen a divided Ireland. It is fair to say that if it had;t of happened then maybe Ireland would be a 100% free country but then again the exact opposite could have happened.

[Dodge]

It is fair to say that if it had;t of happened then maybe Ireland would be a 100% free country but then again the exact opposite could have happened.

Are you trying to say that the Republic of Ireland isn't a 100% free country?

[UnitedIreland]

Are you trying to say that the Republic of Ireland isn't a 100% free country?

No I'm saying that Ireland as a whole isn't free as the Northern part of the country isn't free.

[6th Vigil]

No I'm saying that Ireland as a whole isn't free as the Northern part of the country isn't free.

Free from what?

[EireEmerald]

Well we have to remember that Ireland wasn't divided whenever the Easter Rising occured. It wasn't until 1921, after the Anglo-Irish Treaty, where we first seen a divided Ireland. It is fair to say that if it had;t of happened then maybe Ireland would be a 100% free country but then again the exact opposite could have happened.

Home Rule, if it had been granted like promised, Ireland would now be one. Although, deValera would never have gotten his chance to shine to you'd never really know.

[Poach]

In a 2007 poll, 66% of the Northern Irish stated their preference was to stay with the United Kingdom, 23% to join Ireland and 11% had no strong opinion. As you can see, the population of Northern Ireland is in no way subjugated or the victims of unwanted foreign rule.

Voting for the Assembly is also in favour (54% over 42%) of pro-Union parties.

[UnitedIreland]

In a 2007 poll, 66% of the Northern Irish stated their preference was to stay with the United Kingdom, 24% to join Ireland and 40% had no strong opinion. As you can see, the population of Northern Ireland is in no way subjugated or the victims of unwanted foreign rule.

That may be the case but I'm not speaking for the majority, I'm just giving my own opinion.

[EireEmerald]

In a 2007 poll, 66% of the Northern Irish stated their preference was to stay with the United Kingdom, 23% to join Ireland and 11% had no strong opinion. As you can see, the population of Northern Ireland is in no way subjugated or the victims of unwanted foreign rule.

Voting for the Assembly is also in favour (54% over 42%) of pro-Union parties.

Religions 1961 1991 2001
Roman Catholic 34.9% 38.4% 40.3%
Presbyterian (Protestant) 29.0% 21.4% 20.7%
Church of Ireland (Protestant) 24.2% 17.7% 15.3%
Other Religions (including other Protestant) 9.3% 11.5% 9.9%
Not Stated 2.0% 7.3% 9.0% None 0.0% 3.8% 5.0%


Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2006 Religion Affiliation 2003 Protestant Unionist 69% Nationalist 0% Neither 30% Don't know 0%
Catholic Unionist 3% Nationalist 54% Neither 42% Don't know 2% Total Unionist 36% Nationalist 23% Neither 40% Don't know 1%

Catholic majority is rising. However, this does not mean republicanism is rising. many do not want to see violence again. However, many Protestants are now also open to the idea of a United Ireland through peace as Catholics and Protestants are being brought further and further together as Norn Iron peoples. With this, a United Ireland is much much more likely than one from a violent struggle at this stage. in the 70s, Catholics needed Civil rights, they now have most of what they need to be treated equally.


UNIONIST - 36%
NATIONALIST - 23%
NEITHER - 40%
DO NOT KNOW - 1%

[EireEmerald]

Percentage of Catholics in each Electoral Ward and DED in Ulster based on census figures from 2001 and 2006 for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland respectfully.
(Key: 0-10% Dark orange; 10-30% mid orange; 30-50% light orange; 50-70% light green; 70-90% mid green; 90-100% dark green.)


One reason protestant majority won over Catholic for so long in the past was because of Gerrymandering.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)

[6th Vigil]

This is all based on the assumption that Catholic=Republican and Protestant=Loyalist?

[UnitedIreland]

This is all based on the assumption that Catholic=Republican and Protestant=Loyalist?

Yeah, this assumption is used way too much. It means that I can't openly express my nationality without being accused of being a Republican and a member/supporter of the IRA!!

[EireEmerald]

This is all based on the assumption that Catholic=Republican and Protestant=Loyalist?

If you had read my post you would see that that naieve and simplistic assumption is not present in what I believe.

whats your point? im surprised this isn't another pointless thread by Eire_Emerald

Of course, of course, anything exploring anything in Irish history that questions certain actions on Britain's part in it should immedietly be considered " pointless ".

Wouldn't you say that was a pointless post Otherside?

I think the two most famous countries that separated from the UK violently, the USA and Ireland, are special cases rather than the norm. Ireland's separation due to a long and turbulent history that was bound to lead to an independence movement and the USA due to their greed over money.

Exactly. I mean the 1798 rebellion was directly driven by Irish people who were inspired by the American and french Revolution as well as Catholics being allowed to have guns again in 1793 although most irish rebels in 1798 only had pikes.