John Bruton, home rule and 1916

Sir, – John Bruton is right to question whether the rebellion of 1916 was the best course to an independent Ireland. The Easter Rising led to the creation of a state that for more than four decades presided over a failed economy, mass emigration, the systemic abuse of vulnerable citizens by religious institutions and did almost nothing to contribute to the downfall of totalitarian regimes in Europe. The campaign of violence that began with 1916 ended in the permanent division of this island, while the celebration and mythologising of a brutal War of Independence contributed to 30 years of sectarian slaughter in Northern Ireland at the end of the 20th century. Was it really worth it? – Yours, etc,

EDWARD BURKE,

Ardenlee Avenue,

Belfast.

READ MORE

Sir, – The application by John Bruton of the classic formula of the just rebellion theory to Ireland in 1916 is simply not relevant. The theory applies to a sovereign state; not to a country that is governed by another country and is occupied by the military forces of that country.

Moreover, the military character of that rule became more evident, in August 1914, when a Defence of the Realm Act placed Ireland under a form of martial law.

The Irish Party, itself, in April 1918 acknowledged that the well-intentioned attempts of John Redmond to solve Ireland’s political aspirations by trusting in English promises had failed. John Dillon and Joseph Devlin of the Irish Party joined Eamon de Valera and Arthur Griffith of Sinn Féin to issue a statement from the Mansion House which read, “the passing of the Conscription Bill by the British House of Commons must be regarded as a declaration of war on the Irish nation . . . we call upon all Irishmen to resist by the most effective means possible”.

A far cry from Redmond’s call to enlist in the British army in September 1914 and a sure indication that his advice had been misguided. – Yours, etc,

Dr BRIAN P MURPHY, OSB

Glenstal Abbey,

Murroe,

Co Limerick.

Sir, – Speculation about the level of self-rule this country might have achieved if the 1916 Rising had not happened is inevitable, if not very productive. The fundamental question posed by the Rising for us today is not whether it was “necessary” for the achievement of independence, but the consequence of celebrating as the founding act of our republic an armed insurrection by a group that, however idealistic or brave, had no mandate of any kind.

So long as we celebrate their right to achieve their political ends by violence are we not validating the actions of any other group of idealists who have taken, or may in future take the same course? Is that what we want? – Yours, etc,

TOM DUNNE,

Beale’s Hill,

Lovers Walk,

Cork.