Unionists were right????

[Republic]

So I'm studying for exams at the minute. For all the history buffs, does anyone think that the De Valera govts proved that the unionists were right during the HR crisis?
That Irish rule would result in a catholic dominated hell-hole.

Certainly, the anti-HR stance was undemocratic in the extreme.
BUT they might have had a point.

Any thoughts?

[Jim]

Yes and no. Over half a million unionists voting for TDs would have had enough power in the dail to block a fair amount of things. And then, we come to modern times where the catholic excuse doesnt exist anymore anyway. Ulster was and is the second largest province, and nationalist leaders at that time in Ulster where a bit more liberal then in other parts of the island and would probably have voted in agreement with unionists on a fair amount of things. Things wouldnt have went uncontested if both nationalist and unionist TDs would have united some of their votes the way it did without them.

Thats not including devolution that ulster would no doubt have had under home rule while part of the british empire still.

I dont think they had a point at all, and if its along religious lines then the sooner this island becomes secular the better.

[Republic]

But Jim, the Irish state of 1922-c.1970/80 was almost oppressively-catholic, was it not?

I would find it hard to imagine that anyone could argue otherwise. One does not have to be a skilled historian to recognise the failings of the state in its early years. A look at the constitution of 1937* would prove the nature of the state. Not to mention the culture of shame that the church created down here.

Therefore did unionists not accurately anticipate the evolution of an Irish state?

*Although it had many admirable qualities, one being the named recognition of Jewish rights, a remarkable inclusion when one considers europe-wide attitudes towards Jews in 1937!!!

[earl]

I reckon that there was a moment before Dev took over and made the place go to hell in an RC hand basket that had there been a significant Protestant voice in the Free state that things would have turned out differently. There was a lot of secular ideas out originally before Dev and the boys took over.

[Republic]

Who is to say unionists would have wanted to go into govt as a minority partner?

In any case, everyone is seriously underestimating the influence of the RCC in Ireland in those days!

Imagine how much more unconciliatory the majority would have been towards unionism and protestantism if they had a united ireland. As it was, they had to show some tolerance in the hope of ending partition. Imagine if there was no partition- being nice to unionists wouldn't have mattered at all!!!!!

Have no doubts about what the RCC wanted.

my point is that irish rule became catholic rule, something which unionists had pointed out very early.

If unionists were 20% of the TDs, more than likely the other 80% would have found a way to work together to stop them having any real influence. They would be consigned to the oppposition. Hard to imagine unionists even wanting to take part in an independent Irish govt anyway, so that argument doesn't really wash. They would not ahve had any significant influence.

[Republic]

They're quite happy to support the government in Westminister on most issues so why wouldn't take the chance to actually be in government?

Are you serious? They are unionists! Theres a big difference between westminster and dublin. Of course they would support a British govt. It doesnt follow that, as a result, they would also support an irish govt!

and where did that influance come from?
The Catholic Church opposed all moves for freedom and Independence from the Land League to the IRA so they were no lover of Ireland or Irish Freedom

The only reason the Catholic Church HAD influance was because Catholics were denied education and a health service to name two on par with any where Britian because of British apthay towards the Irish Populace and the Catholic Chirch filled the vacume.

The RCC were lovers of their own power.
The RCC had power because of the willingness of the politicians and a majority of the people to let them have the power. Most Irish people were happy with the catholic clauses in the constitution of 1937. They were happy to let the RCC have its influence.

Its a bit much to be blaming the influence of the RCC on the British govt. It was Irish govts and Irish people who were primarily responsible.

the irish of the early 20th century were incredibly conservative and supportive of the RCC. Theres no way you can blame such support on the British govt.

Sure hadn't the earlier British parliaments tried to convert all the papists over here!!!!!!

In a country with Protestants at every level of government and justice, with Jewish mayors and TD's there can hardly be accusaitons of state prejedece against other religions.

In a country which had catholic clauses in its constitution which restricted the civil liberties of Protestants, it can be said that the state showed a bias towards catholicism.
I am not claiming mass state prejudice, I am claiming unofficial bias.

NOTE i am not saying this about modern Ireland.

Depends on that was proposed. The 80% who were divided as well remember, between parties as diverse as Comminists to Conservative Farmers and so on, all wanted to look after their own vested interests

And who is to say that the unionists would have been a solid bloc of 20%? They would have also had divisions.

Tribal distinctions would have won out in such an event, and unionists and nationalists would have been unlikely to enter govt with each other.

So Fine Gaels flirting with the UUP is all just to be nice is it? Both conservatives and both pro Nato anti-spending and lower middle to upper class parties. There's not much that seperates them. Those factions would have made very cosy bedfellows in the Dail and probably will in the future.

Unlikely, considering FG derived from Cumann na nGaedheal, which derived from Mick Collins side of politics.
I doubt very much that in the 1920s or 1930s that the Unionist party would have aligned itself with such a party.

So while they might make future bedfellows, it is absurd to think that they would have been partners in the early 20th century.


All of which would have left unionists out in the cold, with no prospects of govt and in a state with a catholic bias.
Which, they had correctly claimed back in 1912!!!!

[Jim]

republic said:

But Jim, the Irish state of 1922-c.1970/80 was almost oppressively-catholic, was it not?

I would find it hard to imagine that anyone could argue otherwise. One does not have to be a skilled historian to recognise the failings of the state in its early years. A look at the constitution of 1937* would prove the nature of the state. Not to mention the culture of shame that the church created down here.

Therefore did unionists not accurately anticipate the evolution of an Irish state?

*Although it had many admirable qualities, one being the named recognition of Jewish rights, a remarkable inclusion when one considers europe-wide attitudes towards Jews in 1937!!!

My post was more a "What IF unionists accepted home rule".

When partition happened a lot of protestants moved into Northern Ireland, or converted to Catholisim to marry a catholic. IF partition never happened and thus unionists had a hefty representation there would not have been the same problems. Think about it. The population numbers havent changed much (about 4-5 million total). 1 million people in Ulster, 2 million (?) in Leinster, and 1 million between Connacht and Munster. As we know, the Dail elections are held under single transferable vote, I'd estimate about 30-40% of seats would have been unionist or liberal nationalist.

Can you seriously see Dev and his boys getting in that sort of legislation through the dail with that "minority" of unionists? I dont. I'm not under-estimating the catholic church in those days, I know the whollop they had, but with that many protestants in the country, many protestants wouldnt have went north and even more wouldnt have converted to marry either and there would be a much higher population of protestants. Maybe only 60-70% of the population would be roman catholic considering there are still more of them and probably always will be.

Although I do have to agree with you that the catholic church did provide the expertese on things like education, only because there wasnt enough teachers in the country.

Perhaps if the leaders of the 1916 rising wherent executed things would have been very different. Can you picture Connolly in government?

I dont buy the arguement of irish rule = catholic rule because we arent unique. All over europe at the time it was religious rule in one form or another. England had its Lords being part of a church and Spain had Franco coming in, and as you know most other countries in Europe are heavily catholic and there was many problems in Italy over it. The only country that was actually secular in practise was the soviet union. Northern Ireland certainly wasnt secular.

[Republic]

My post was more a "What IF unionists accepted home rule".

My original post was about the idea that they were right to oppose it because of the subsequent development of the irish state, which proved them right.

When partition happened a lot of protestants moved into Northern Ireland, or converted to Catholisim to marry a catholic. IF partition never happened and thus unionists had a hefty representation there would not have been the same problems. Think about it. The population numbers havent changed much (about 4-5 million total). 1 million people in Ulster, 2 million (?) in Leinster, and 1 million between Connacht and Munster. As we know, the Dail elections are held under single transferable vote, I'd estimate about 30-40% of seats would have been unionist or liberal nationalist.

only point i would add to that is unionists would not have been a single bloc. There would have been a hardcore who wouldnt do any deal and it is possible they would have been a majority among unonists.

Can you seriously see Dev and his boys getting in that sort of legislation through the dail with that "minority" of unionists? I dont. I'm not under-estimating the catholic church in those days, I know the whollop they had, but with that many protestants in the country, many protestants wouldnt have went north and even more wouldnt have converted to marry either and there would be a much higher population of protestants. Maybe only 60-70% of the population would be roman catholic considering there are still more of them and probably always will be.

It would certainly be harder to get such legislation through, but I can still see it happening as there would still have been a sizable catholic majority. And as we know from NI, there only has to be a small majority to make something happen.

Your last point 'Maybe only 60-70% of the population would be roman catholic considering there are still more of them and probably always will be' would serve to prove their point. They would always be overwhelmed by catholics, in a state which, undeniably, had a catholic bias.

Although I do have to agree with you that the catholic church did provide the expertese on things like education, only because there wasnt enough teachers in the country.

Tbh i would blame the govt (the irish govt setanta!!!) for letting that happen. They should have provided state schools. Although perhaps the people would still have used catholic schools which would prove my point even further.

Perhaps if the leaders of the 1916 rising wherent executed things would have been very different. Can you picture Connolly in government?

If they hadnt been executed, I imagine we would still all be British! But thats another thread! It would actually be a great thread if someone wants to start it!

I dont buy the arguement of irish rule = catholic rule because we arent unique. All over europe at the time it was religious rule in one form or another. England had its Lords being part of a church and Spain had Franco coming in, and as you know most other countries in Europe are heavily catholic and there was many problems in Italy over it. The only country that was actually secular in practise was the soviet union. Northern Ireland certainly wasnt secular.

''All over europe at the time it was religious rule in one form or another''

Which would make the unionists correct that Irish rule would be catholic rule.

i never claimed they, or anyone else, were secular.

If everywhere in europe was a form of religious rule, surely catholic ireland would have been no different?

[Jim]

My original post was about the idea that they were right to oppose it because of the subsequent development of the irish state, which proved them right.

How does it prove them right though? The two arguements link in the same ways. They couldnt be right if what I said had of been true, thus they arent right in my opinion to throw HR out the window and stay part of Britain. Ireland wouldnt have been a shithole.

only point i would add to that is unionists would not have been a single bloc. There would have been a hardcore who wouldnt do any deal and it is possible they would have been a majority among unonists.

Indeed there would be, but there was anyway even in NI. Remember that at the time the UUP was the unionist party. It was the leader. Smaller parties didnt get a say or a vote and it would have been the same in a united Ireland at that time. The UUP in the Dail and chances are maybe even Fianna Fail or Fine Gael wouldnt even exist.

Your last point 'Maybe only 60-70% of the population would be roman catholic considering there are still more of them and probably always will be' would serve to prove their point. They would always be overwhelmed by catholics, in a state which, undeniably, had a catholic bias.

Most countries have a religious bias though, what it does with it makes it a good or a bad thing. 60% catholic majority would have been unavoidable regardless of what happened with the borders because there is generally more irish catholics then irish protestants. If you want to start an arguement of "protestants shouldnt be part of Ireland because they arent the majority" then that turns into a secterian or even a racial arguement and it does nothing to further the arguement of unionism.

''All over europe at the time it was religious rule in one form or another''

Which would make the unionists correct that Irish rule would be catholic rule.

i never claimed they, or anyone else, were secular.

If everywhere in europe was a form of religious rule, surely catholic ireland would have been no different?

They were correct in the fact that they decided to have nothing to do with it and THEN it turned into catholic rule. But like I've said before protestants made up a very big chunk for being a minority and half the bollox the catholic church tried to do wouldnt have been acceptable.

The fact is unionists left the place to rot and went up north where it was dominated by protestants, what do you expect to happen, that everyone turns athiest in the south? Leave no big minority in a population and it really does become majority-rules, because they are the only set of people. If unionists had of accepted HR, the catholic church would not have had its position, thats it.

[Republic]

Thats nothing more than speculation. The catholics were still the majority.Its more likely that it would still have been dominant, maybe not as much.

Unionists in a UI would have been similar to nationalists in NI, ie refusing to take part in govt, as they are were entitled to do.

Whether unionists stayed or not, it was still going to be a catholic bias state, due to
1) Majority catholics
2) Possible lack of unionists in govt- partly due to divisions within unionism, and partly due to any nationalist hostility to unionism.

Any politician in the 1930s advocating a more liberal, secular or protestant-oriented state would have been outcast by the people.
Other politicians would have had a field day, as would the priests and bishops denouncing the unGodly politicians working with Protestants.

There is no real situation where unionists would have wanted to work with nationalists within a UI, or where nationalists, even if some desired it, would have been allowed to work with unionists.


'The fact is unionists left the place to rot and went up north where it was dominated by protestants, what do you expect to happen, that everyone turns athiest in the south?'

That argument has been used by unionists against nationalists in NI as well. Neither particulary strong IMO.

''If you want to start an arguement of "protestants shouldnt be part of Ireland because they arent the majority" then that turns into a secterian or even a racial arguement and it does nothing to further the arguement of unionism''

Im not saying that it was legitimate for them to opt out on that basis. Fact is they did opt out, and the fact is that their prediction came true. The irish state was biased towards catholics.
I am not trying to establish the legitimacy of their opting out, nor am i trying to argue in favour of unionism.
What i am trying to do is show that unionists were right in their assessment that irish rule=rome rule.

I have no political goal to advance here. My interest is history, and history only.

I defend Ireland from unfair criticism where necessary, but i wont idealise the place either.

Any historian objectively evaluating Ireland of the 30s 40s 50s etc will recognise the state bias towards catholicism.
When someone shows me that the state was not biased towards catholicism, i will change my views about the unionists assessment of irish rule.

[Jim]

Well thats specalation for you Specalation is all we can do right now because one path was taken and the other ignored. I dont see what the problem is.

Thats been my point all along man, catholics where and would have been a majority yet they would not have been AS dominant. I didn't say they wouldn't be.

But you see, unionists in a UI probably wouldnt have been standing in gerrymandered constituency borders

Any politician in the 1930s advocating a more liberal, secular or protestant-oriented state would have been outcast by the people.
Other politicians would have had a field day, as would the priests and bishops denouncing the unGodly politicians working with Protestants.

Not really, there were quite a few in the North that where liberal and got the vote but obviously couldnt take part in government because they wherent members of the UUP. When it did happen in the south it was because there WHERENT any real protestant communities compared to up north, most went up north infact so thats speculation on your part. Things would have been very different in my mind if they didnt and at least the mainstream unionists had accepted home rule. Lets remember that between 1920 and 1969 minorities within minorities got no say, it was only the mainstream representation that got a say on matters, meaning the UUP would have been the main represenation. Also the nature of voting to the Dail would have brought in more protestant or unionist TDs than you think. The reason it didnt in reality is because they went north and didnt stand, leaving the population 98% catholic, so what do you expect?

i dont see how that arguement is not strong, it looks pretty logical to me.

You keep coming back to the bias towords catholics, we know there was bias and like I said that bias would not have been as strong with a protestant population of that size in the same borders.

Perhaps unionists of the day should have taken a look at it other then in religious views of home rule being rome rule. It certainly did have a bias to catholics, but what do you expect when the majority of the population is catholic? Opt out on secterian basis? Or do you work with them and make sure the catholic church doesnt have the political clout it could have? If I was a protestant at those times I would have done everything I could have to seperate church and state.

[Republic]

The reason it didnt in reality is because they went north and didnt stand, leaving the population 98% catholic, so what do you expect?

well thats just the same as nationalists refusing to take part in NI, thereby creating a failure. Both sides have played that game.

You keep coming back to the bias towords catholics, we know there was bias and like I said that bias would not have been as strong with a protestant population of that size in the same borders.

if there was bias, unionist opinion was vindicated. That was the whole point of this thread ;D

Perhaps unionists of the day should have taken a look at it other then in religious views of home rule being rome rule. It certainly did have a bias to catholics, but what do you expect when the majority of the population is catholic? Opt out on secterian basis? Or do you work with them and make sure the catholic church doesnt have the political clout it could have? If I was a protestant at those times I would have done everything I could have to seperate church and state.

Im not saying they were right to opt out. You're missing my point. the nature of the irish state proved that they were right. If the state had the courage to become secular from the beginning we'd be talking about how sectarian unionists were.

Or do you work with them and make sure the catholic church doesnt have the political clout it could have?

Protestants! In newly independent Ireland, working to reduce catholic influence!!! Thats crazy.
No one would work with them, and no one would vote for anyone who did help reduce the catholic influence!
Do you really think otherwise?

Unfortunately Irish people of the time were not that progressive.
Its not a reflection on us, its just the way it was back then.

At least we can agree on state bias ;D we will have to differ whether or not that justified the unionist stance. IMO the irish govt gave credibility to the unionist position.

And if we call a halt to the speculation- and look at the facts- Unionists opposed HR because of Rome Rule- later Irish govts created a catholic biased state- all facts.
Which IMO proved that unionists had been right.

[Jim]

Indeed nationalists did do the same, to a certain extent. Remember that we voted under heavily gerrymandered borders in the north untill Stormont was abolished because it was an embarrassment to the British government. Whether or not it would be the same if HR had of happened I dont know to be honest. It might have and it might not have.

if there was bias, unionist opinion was vindicated. That was the whole point of this thread

So why run away from the bias, instead, confront it and solve the problem. Where they right to take for granted even if they stayed Ireland would be the same? I dont think they where.

Indeed the nature of the Irish state without a considerable minority was enough to prove to them they where right but it makes you think, what if they stayed, what then. I dont think Dev would have been able to push half the shite he did into the constitution and etc.

Protestants! In newly independent Ireland, working to reduce catholic influence!!! Thats crazy.
No one would work with them, and no one would vote for anyone who did help reduce the catholic influence!
Do you really think otherwise?

Unfortunately Irish people of the time were not that progressive.
Its not a reflection on us, its just the way it was back then.

They vote for themselves. I said it a few times, the nature of elections to the dail is better for representation and there would be more second and third ticket TDs then you would think, who all have equal votes to first choice TDs. There would have been a substantial number of protestants as TDs. This isnt Westminster we're talking about where a party can hope to sway a vote, this is the Dail, where parties usually form coalitions and any party has a chance to be in Government. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael probably wouldnt have existed as they do now if partition didnt happen.

The way the irish government got on back in the day is an embarrassment to me as an irish person, I think thats proof enough to me that partition didnt work.

[An Fear Dubh]

Some very good and interesting points from both Jim and Republic.

[Republic]

But aren't we working under the assumption that Unionists accepted Home Rule?

No we are talking about whether their prediction came true. Home Rule= Rome Rule.

Grugingly or not we have to assume they did in this scenario.

Happy? Can you see Happy mentioned anywhere in any plays, books or writings of the time?
The accepted it alright just as almost every other nation in Europe accepted some form of Christian ethos or bias in it's government, mainly because just as in almost every other European Nation people were still only learning about seperation of Church and State.

So you admit that Ireland had a catholic bias? Like the unionists had predicted?

It's a reality though.
Were there any where near adequate state schools or hospitals under British Rule? Who were the only ones with the money to set up schools and hospitals?

I am not too good on the history of education but if you look at most schools around the country, they were set up in the 19th century. Almost all schools in my area were. A rural catholic area i might add.

I can see why the Catholic Church held such influance at the foundation of the Free State but I will agree that Irish Governments have been neglegant in their duty to control al state institutions. We're almost there though and under a left wing government I beleive it'd finally happen.

OK, what were the Protestant Civil Liberties that were restricted? I can remember an accusation of prejudence because there was no divorce. But if you look back to the Divorce Referendum, religion wasn't mentioned by the anti-divorce lobby. Property issues was what put the rural areas against divorce and us landless urbanites weren't influanced by that argument. The Catholic Church played no part in it.

Divorce and contraception.
It doesn't matter that property was the motive, it still had the same effect on non-catholics. Just because religion wasn't mentioned by the anti-divorce lobby, doesnt mean it didnt restrict freedom of non-catholics.

OK, but look at what happened to all opponents of the Official Unionists at the time. If yuo weren't in their club you were aginst their club and up until the DUP no opposition ever lasted long.

Not in a UI. if the official unionists were going into the dail, there would be a more extreme party which would not fall away. Remember the Covenant, over 250,000 men from ulster pledged to defeat Home Rule. Are you telling me the official party would have the power to simply make them go away.
Both of us are speculating about the likelihood of unionists entering the dail if full HR had been implemented. But the Curragh mutiny, the Covenant and the UVF make it far more likely that hell would have frozen over before unionists would have entered the dail.

I'm sure tribal distinctions would have played a part when it came to leaving the commonwealth or becoming a Republic but why would TRIBAL, as opposed to idological differences, seperated Nationalist and Unionist on issues like farming, industry, health and so on?

the same reason why tribal politics have fucked up NI for so long. I didnt see SF working with any unionists on such issues on a govt scale.
In Ireland, tribal bullshit always wins out. ideological my arse. Its all about power, always has been and always will be IMO.

You only have to listen to John Bruton, former leader of FG and Charles Windsor Fan Number 1, to be reminded of the FG link with the old IPP. There were plenty in the IPP were very similar in political outlook to the Official Unionists, with HR seperating them.

Yes but the IPP wanted the complete opposite of what unionists wanted!!!! The Irish Parliamentary Party were the Home Rule Party!!!! Unionists were willing to go to war over HR. So while to republicans, the IPP might seem like ''Brit-lovers'', to unionists they were not fellow loyal citizens, they were traitors seeking to implement rome rule.
So while you think FG and the unionists are friendly now, I have already explained why there is no way in hell that unionists would have linked with FG.
1) The Mick Collins link (not exactly a unionist hero)
2) The links with HR (the justification for the UVF, the first armed paramilitary group of the 20th century)

Again, as you already pointed out, this is speculation adn we can't for certain say what would have happened.

exactly, but i think i have provided far more sound historical evidence as to why the unionists wouldnt have entered govt, imo.

But I can speculate that it would have better all round for everyone in Ireland if the Unionist Bloc were in the Dail, supporting those opposed to Dev's vision for Ireland.

i agree. With the caveat that had unionists entered the dail, nationalists would have ganged up on the proddie upstarts and implemented the same catholic bias as a reactionary measure against the prod threat.