No, if you read up on the history, the mainland British did not want partition, Edward Carson (ironically a Dubliner) forced our hand.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, if you read up on the history, the mainland British did not want partition, Edward Carson (ironically a Dubliner) forced our hand.
Ah yes, they did not want partition. They wanted total control... My bad.
It's an odd sort of "total control" where we allocated seats for the Irish in the House of Commons and allowed Irish lords to sit in the House of Lords (even after independence!). The British wanted "total control" of Ireland in the sense that we want "total control" of Scotland.
What we compromised on was essentially dominion status for Ireland but the Ulster lot wanted no part of it and more importantly were armed to the teeth and wanted no part of it.
Act of Union 1800
If you break a glass, it's still gonna be broken no matter how much you try to fix it afterwards.
If you break a glass, it's still gonna be broken no matter how much you try to fix it afterwards.
It's not divide and conquer, more "dear god just give those crazy ulstermen what they want and maybe they'll shut up". Obviously we underestimated how bat-shit crazy Northern Ireland is.
.png){kind=avatar}
It may surprise to learn that Ireland was never a united independent state. And the act of union didn't break it either. It would have been screwed regardless.
It does not surprise me but you seem not to understand how these things work. Act of Union was the worst thing that happened to the Irish people. It's what caused today's mess. And the inability of the British government to let go of Northern Ireland in 1922 (which again, is an aftermath of the Act of Unions)
No, I understand what went wrong and it was not the Act of Union.
A Dublin parliament ruling Ireland would have been ideal but for one tiny snag. Catholics generally didn't have the vote. So the Dublin parliament was largely unionist and not really concerned about the lives of ordinary Irish people. So it being scrapped wasn't that big a deal, it replaced misrule by the local Protestant elite with misrule from Britain.
And Northern Ireland had nothing to do with the Act of Union. It had to do with migration either through Plantations whereby the Ulster Catholics were supplemented or replaced by the more loyal Scots and Northern English or the unplanned kind of migration where people in South West Scotland found new homes in North East Ireland of their own accord.
A Dublin parliament that decided to sever the connection with mainland Britain would have also triggered the "Northern Ireland" event.
Yeah, conspicuously not "give those crazy Leinstermen, Munstermen and Connaughtmen what they want" though.
Wasn't the Act of Union something agreed with these people and the UK in an attempt to crush the call for Irish independence and the possibility of the French gaining a foothold in the British isles? As a result of a failed rebellion a couple of years earlier obviously.
In the sense that the Irish Anglicans felt the need to crush their Catholic and non-conformist neighbours more than the mainland British would have crushed them and this was considered by the mainland British to have been a contributory factor in the rebellion. The Act of Union was intended to bring about a more liberal approach to Ireland as was the suspension of Northern Ireland's autonomy and its replacement with "direct rule" in more recent times.
The alternative approach would have been to allow more Catholics to vote but that had obvious dangers. Ireland was always the British achilles heel in our wars with the French and the Spanish.
So less democracy was the way to go in a so called democratic state(union of states, whatever)? And you are surprised that this caused friction and problems many years later?
"The way to go" was universal suffrage and equal constituencies both in Ireland and in Britain but we're talking about 1800. Universal suffrage didn't exist anywhere at that time.
A second best solution was the union of the parliaments.
I'm not talking about universal suffrage. I'm talking about this religious barrier that you feel was better on than off.
Wasn't part of what contributed to the situation in Ireland immediately during and after WWI the fact that a large number of the more moderate catholic and Anglican Irish "be the republican or unionist" were conscripted and ended up dying in the trenches leaving the more radical and extremist members of each side behind ? Obviously it wasn't the only factor but if I've got my facts right surely it would have been one of the key factors along with the Easter Rising and Britain's heavy handed response ?
Also wasn't home rule "I'm assuming it's like devolution in Scotland is or something" on the cards for them anyway before tragedy on the continent started a war and everyone was drawn in ?
Also wasn't home rule "I'm assuming it's like devolution in Scotland is or something" on the cards for them anyway before tragedy on the continent started a war and everyone was drawn in ?
Universal suffrage means no religious barriers. The religious barriers had officially gone by 1916, this was how the Irish public were able to elect Sinn Fein - something that would not have happened if Catholics had not been able to vote. The thing was that property qualifications were required to vote, the poor were excluded from participation both in Ireland and Britain - now the poor were largely the Catholics and the non-conformists who had backed the United Irishmen. The constituencies were also not fair, unionist supporting Trinity College Dublin had its own MP! Women were also not allowed to vote either though this probably had little to do with any rebellions.
Last edited:
No, you have your facts wrong. A lot of nationalists actually volunteered for the British army as they thought that this demonstration of loyalty would encourage the British "to do the right thing" and restore Home Rule. Ulster Unionists also volunteered for the British army as they thought that this demonstration of loyalty would encourage the mainland British to do the right thing and not bring back Home Rule. There was no conscription.
The people behind the Easter Rising were extremists by modern standards. They had seized government buildings and killed their fellow Irishmen in doing so. The Irish public weren't behind them either - they were booed through the streets of Dublin after their capture. The thing was that Home Rule was a very popular issue and other means of restoring it had been exhausted and this left a dangerous vacuum.
Severe Repression.
Not for the Irish Catholics, for those military units that disobey orders and Irish Protestants who join them.
Not for the Irish Catholics, for those military units that disobey orders and Irish Protestants who join them.
While this would have been a good things from an Irish nationalist perspective, I can see how it would be politically difficult for the empire