Conflict Between Ireland and Great Britain Free Essay Example

The republic of Ireland is heavily known by its cultural and patriotic identity as a sovereign state independent of Great Britain which is represented by a tricolour flag. Since ancient times, the isle of Ireland was colonized by a different branch of Celts: the Gaels. The Gaelic culture originated in Ireland and they extended to the mid-west parts of Scotland. Though, the scope of these ethnolinguistic groups are far more complex nowadays independently .Both nations united since King Henry VIII of Tudor dynasty took over house of Kildare and proclaimed himself in Dublin “King of this land of Ireland as united, annexed and knit forever to the imperial crown of the Realm of England” since throughout the years his kingship increased as a strong sense of authority, for instance, creating a sensation of resentment to the Irish folk as a result of the difficult situations that Irishmen endured and Henryґs political efforts made the 1520s a period of uncertainty.

Ireland was entirely Catholic but since Henry incorporated the isle to the Crown that was drastically changed therefore, his protestant belief will cause problems in future.

THE ROOTS OF CONFLICT

Queen Elizabeth I came into scene when she introduced a new policy (1609) that granted a land for plantation to the protestant supporters of Ireland that was previously took from the Catholics Irish rogues which caused major controversy and rebellion for years hence the strong nationalism that took place in the Irish folk.Later on, in 1801, it was declared the Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain therefore under the protestant rule still, half of the population of Ireland was Catholic, that ignited the Irish revolution that was to come in the following years.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE IRISH REVOLUTION

There have been and remain various historical debates concerning the Irish Revolution of 1916-23 that reflect the evolution of Irish Historiography in the following decades. Historical debates have attempted to discuss, explain and evaluate the Irish Revolution from different perspectives that have altered in the light of contemporary events and opinions as well as the evolution of Irish Historiography. The main perspectives of the historical debates outlined below will relate to the main actors during the Irish Revolution, the British government plus the Police and the Army, the Ulster Unionists and finally the Irish Nationalist and Republican movements. All played a part in either promoting or resisting the Irish Revolution, their roles having been opened to historical scrutiny and evolution in Irish Historiography or when apt other sources.

Historical debates have tended to concentrate on the causes of the Irish Revolution, whether it was a success or a failure and whether it could have been defeated. Historical debates have not remained the same over the decades; the passing of time can change people’s opinions of historical events. As people that lived through the Irish Revolution grew older and started to die out their viewpoints have been passed down the generations sustained as much by myth as by an understanding of events.The Irish Revolution in a relatively short period of time came close to ending several centuries of English or British involvement in Ireland. Britain in 1916 despite the strains of fighting in the First World War was the world’s foremost Imperial power, it seemed unlikely that it could lose the whole or the majority of Ireland when it ruled a quarter of the globe. However the First World War altered many things and gave those that wished for an Irish Revolution opportunities that had not arisen before (Schama, 2002, pp.447-48).

The desire for Irish independence was nothing new to the period of the Irish Revolution. There had been serious rebellions in the 1590’s, 1642 and 1798 yet none of them had succeeded in England and later British rule. The nationalist and republican cause was helped by the myths about those heroic failures. The Ulster Unionist were on the other hand reinforced in their determination to remain part of the United Kingdom by the myths surrounding their successful resistance of James II before the Battle of the Boyne . Not only did being British protect their Protestant religion it also provided economic markets for their linen and work for the Belfast shipyards (Mulholland, 2002 p 15). Ireland was and remains divided by two different visions of nationality that conjure up heated debate on the ongoing political situation as well as providing the spur for historical debate about the Irish Revolution and other key events in Irish history. The partition that followed in the wake of the Irish Revolution seemed to intensify the divide between both states in Ireland (Fitzpatrick, 1998, p.4).

THE IDIOLOGIES OF THE IRISH NATIONALISM

Ireland had formally become part of the United Kingdom with the 1801 Act of Union yet Irish Nationalists and R had either wanted to gain concessions from Westminster or cede from the Union completely. Moderate Irish Nationalists had campaigned tirelessly for Home Rule. Gladstone had not been able to deliver yet Asquith had finally got the Home Rule legislation passed in 1914. However that provoked resistance from the Ulster Unionists, the outbreak of the First World War put Home Rule on ice (Kennedy-Pipe 1998, pp. 10-11).

Whilst the Irish Nationalists fought for Britain alongside Ulster Unionists, Irish Republicans aimed to launch revolution whilst the war continued. Moderate Irish Nationalists died in their thousands on the war front whilst the Irish Revolution started by the military nave yet politically potent Easter Rising of April-May 1916. The suppression of the Easter Rising and the execution of some of its ringleaders proved a recruiting boom for Sinn Fein and the IRA (Carver, 1998, pp.138-39). Those that started the Irish Revolution were fighting for a united Irish republic whilst the British government was determined not to give in to terrorists. The British government would if pushed agree to the partition of Ireland whilst for the Irish republic compromising with the British government caused a dilemma and had caused much historical debate since.

Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins represented Sinn Fein/IRA in the peace talks with the British government accepted a partitioned Ireland and the forming of the Irish Free State, a dominion rather than a republic. Pragmatists saw it as the best deal available whilst more hard line republicans saw it as a betrayal of everything they believed and fought for. Divisions over the peace treaty resulted in civil war in the Irish Free State, with more summary executions than the British had carried out since 1916 (Moody & Martin, 2001, p.273).

David Lloyd George is said to have threatened sending British Army reinforcements to persuade Griffith and Collins to accept partition (Jenkins, 2001,p.364). Both sides realised that the brutal fighting caused by the Irish Revolution would not produce a total victory for either side. The British Army reckoned that only a garrison 250,000 in strength could ensure crushing the Irish Revolution, not a feasible option for a war weary and financially stretched country (Carver, 1998, p.147).The consequences of the Irish Revolution produced much historical debate most noticeably from those with a national or republican perspectives for much of the 1920s and 1930s there was debate about whether the IRA/ Sinn Fein and the Irish Free State should have carried on fighting for a united Ireland.

However the brutal fighting of the Irish Revolution meant that many ordinary wanted peace not more bloodshed. With hindsight Griffith and Collins return from Downing Street with dominion status was probably the best result for them, yet it sparked off civil war (Moody and Martin, 201 p. 258). During the 1960s and 1970s Irish Nationalists and Republicans in Northern Ireland tried different approaches for achieving their different objectives. The Nationalists formed a civil rights movement similar to the Black movements in the US yet the methods were also constitutional like those of the Home Rule movements that had their dreams of a peaceful Home Rule wrecked by the First World War and the Irish Revolution. The Ulster Unionist reaction was similar to that of 1912, they took to the streets and protested. However, the Ulster Unionist had used Home Rule in Northern Ireland to their advantage, controlling the special branch police reservists that reacted brutally to the violence.

The majority of Ulster Unionists did not need the evolution of Irish historiography to tell them that Home Rule had allowed them their own state within Britain that had been for them and not for the Nationalist and Republican communities (Fitzpatrick 1998 p.24). The Ulster Unionist hostility towards the civil rights movement in the 1960s caused the intensification of sectarian violence and ultimately the troubles. The troubles came as a surprise to the British government who took little notice of the evolution of Irish history that clearly showed that the partition of Ireland following the Irish Revolution had not solved the Irish Problem on a permanent basis.

That complacent attitude was shattered by the events of 1968-69, which forced the government to send in the British Army to protect the nationalist and republican communities, an unusual situation that nobody could have anticipated. The renewed sectarian conflict showed that the complexity of the Irish situation had not gone away with partition, instead it was concentrated in Northern Ireland. Historiography could be used to justify the present by vindicating the actions of the past. All sides in Northern Ireland claim to be upholding the truth yet use propaganda for their own means just as they did during the Irish Revolution.

For Irish nationalists and republicans the evolution of Irish Historiography had been regarded with greater interest than by British governments or the Ulster Unionists who were happier with the partition of Ireland. The Unionists believed that Home Rule gave them protection from further advances towards a united Ireland and made it harder for British governments to let them down (Wilson 1989 p. 51). For Irish republicans the very existence of Northern Ireland was testament to the unfinished aims of those that had started the Irish Revolution. The Irish Revolution was intended to sweep away British culture and influence as well as political control of the whole country. Some 90 years on from the start of the Irish Revolution Irish Historiography shows that Ireland is still influenced by the English-speaking peoples particularly Britain and the United States.

The IRA started bombing campaigns in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s to force the British government whilst imposing a united Ireland upon the Ulster Unionists. These campaigns were nowhere near as effective as those organised by Michael Collins during the Irish Revolution. Some of those in the Republican Movement argued that only organising and effective armed struggle could achieve their aims whilst others sought constitutional means of doing so. In the 1960s the official IRA had debated abandoning armed struggle leaving its members in Northern Ireland (Kelleher, 2001 p.339).The failure to force Britain to withdraw during the 1970s led the provisional Sinn Fein to change its strategy combining the armed struggle with taking part in more elections. Its electoral support was increased due to the death of Bobby Sands and other hunger strikers in 1981(Ardagh, 1994 p. 350).

The troubles in many respects revived interests in the Irish Revolution and how the evolution of Irish historiography could explain how the troubles had developed. The most valuable lesson of historiography should be if that a conflict is in stalemate then its time to talk rather than carry on fighting. Yet that is very difficult when both sides believe that the other side has no right to exist.Therefore there are areas of debate concerning the Irish Revolution that have been influenced by the evolution of Irish Historiography in the subsequent decades. As with other areas of Irish history the revolutionary period has inspired myths that have continued to the presente and reinforced prejudices and religious or political divisions.

One area of debate has been over why the Irish Revolution was more successful in removing British rule than previous rebellions yet failed to deliver a united Irish republic. Perhaps the main point shown through the evolution of historiography is that the Irish Revolution was able to survive the British attempts to defeat it through some favourable circumstances and some astute political and military tactics on the part of the IRA and Sinn Fein. The whole process was set in motion by the Easter Rising of 1916 that created the myth of republican martyrs dying for their nation’s liberation rather than a badly organised group of terrorists as the British government would have considered them.

It is widely agreed that the First World War gave the Republican movements their chance to expel the British from Ireland.The evolution of historiography can be seen as helping to explain why partition became the most practical solution following the outbreak of the Anglo-Irish War and the IRA’s guerrilla tactics. Partition was only accepted once the IRA realised they could not defeat the British Army and then subdue the Ulster Unionists. Whilst the British government wanted to keep all of Ireland under its control it was not prepared to send the number of troops to Ireland that would have been needed to crush the revolution.

CONCLUSION

Overall, as a result of these facts that contributed to the rise of nationalism in Ireland, there are still unresolved matters between Ireland and Great Britain, specially in the disputed territory of Ulster, Northern Ireland, majorly motivated by religion differences.But thanks to the efforts of both sides, they have compromised to work to achieve a truce for a period of peace and keep away any possible threat to the population.