Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
What happens if the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the subsequent French invasion of Ireland does not happen?
WI: No Irish Rebellion of 1798
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
usertron2020
Donor
I'd like to be educated more on this. All I know of the '98 Rebellion is that it seemed to be one of the more sympathetic ones from an Irish POV. As an American Irishmen from New England, I'd appreciate being brought up to speed, or corrected, due to my ignorance.
It probably gets rid of one of the curiosities of British regimental history. During the rebellion, the 5th Dragoons were suspected of sympathy with the rebels and disbanded: no regiment was raised to fill their place until 1858, at which point it was decided that they had lost their precedence and should rank after the 17th Lancers, the most junior light cavalry regiment in existence at that point. In 1922, as part of the post-war reductions, it was decided that the 5th Dragoons, now the 5th Lancers, should be merged with the 16th Lancers. However, because the 16th Lancers were more senior, the amalgamated regiment was duly named the 16th/5th Lancers.
Pangur
Donor
As previously stated it would depend on why `98 never happened. The Act of Union did follow on from the rising and may have happened later on in history. There is one possibility. The rising was also non sectarian so no defeat may have lead to nationalist sentiments may equally have stayed that way. I`m reaching a bit here with out the POD
No United Kingdom at that time that brought Irish Protestants into Parliament. However, Catholics remained excluded (to their dissappointment).
The Act of Union firmly entrenched the Protestants into Great Britain's camp. Before then, many were demanding "Home Rule" in Ireland. The Irish Parliament was, by law, a cypher for the British Parliament and Irish Protestants were as irritated as Catholics.
By the Act of Union, only Catholics were discriminated against and it became a solely religious issue.
Note that the Act bought enough time for Trafalgar, ensuring the French would not interfere in Ireland directly again.
An interesting point is, at this time, Irish Catholics made up a substancial portion of this new UK and many Protestants in Ireland and England alike were horrified at having potentially so many Catholics in Parliament (they would have been heavily underrepresented as they were disproportionately poor and landless, not having the vote). However, the massive population boom in Britain over the next century (and Irish Catholic emigration) would make Irish Catholics a permanant minority in the UK. Had Britain offered full equality at this time, the Protestants would have been in no real danger of being challenged. Ireland would still probably be part of the UK.
However, this was politically impossible at the time. By the time it was (later 19th century), it was too late. Ireland's fate was sealed and the nation's political conscienceness was awakened.
The Act of Union firmly entrenched the Protestants into Great Britain's camp. Before then, many were demanding "Home Rule" in Ireland. The Irish Parliament was, by law, a cypher for the British Parliament and Irish Protestants were as irritated as Catholics.
By the Act of Union, only Catholics were discriminated against and it became a solely religious issue.
Note that the Act bought enough time for Trafalgar, ensuring the French would not interfere in Ireland directly again.
An interesting point is, at this time, Irish Catholics made up a substancial portion of this new UK and many Protestants in Ireland and England alike were horrified at having potentially so many Catholics in Parliament (they would have been heavily underrepresented as they were disproportionately poor and landless, not having the vote). However, the massive population boom in Britain over the next century (and Irish Catholic emigration) would make Irish Catholics a permanant minority in the UK. Had Britain offered full equality at this time, the Protestants would have been in no real danger of being challenged. Ireland would still probably be part of the UK.
However, this was politically impossible at the time. By the time it was (later 19th century), it was too late. Ireland's fate was sealed and the nation's political conscienceness was awakened.
usertron2020
Donor
What if because of this even the reforms made by Wellington were denied, and the later Great Reform Acts were drafted to exclude Catholics?
I'd like to be educated more on this. All I know of the '98 Rebellion is that it seemed to be one of the more sympathetic ones from an Irish POV. As an American Irishmen from New England, I'd appreciate being brought up to speed, or corrected, due to my ignorance.
How are you an Irishman if you're American and from New England? Were your parents Irish or something?
As Alt History Buff pointed out, this ensures that Protestant Nationalism doesn't die out as it did post Act of Union. This won't manifest itself in an independent Ireland (the Protestant elite's hold in power would be very precarious in such a set up, and Britain wouldn't accept an Ireland who's foreign policy and defence it couldn't control) but a form of Home Rule is definitely possible.
Pangur
Donor
I go with the Ireland staying part of the UK bit. By removing the religious angle what you might very well get is a weird mixture, Irish nationalist minus reglion with a more working class political element. The protestant worker in say Belfast would have no real reason to be loyal to London and have morein common with o say a worker in Dublin. The is also a strong chance that it would kill of the Orange order. Granted the real effect would only be seen towards the end of the 19th century
usertron2020
Donor
Yes. My Irish ancestors started coming over as early as the beginning of the 1800s, emigrating to Nova Scotia (I'm Canadian-American too!
) and then later settling in Massachusetts and Connecticut in the 1880s. Marrying into German families at this time. On my father's side, the Irish came over during the famine and married into Germans, Scots, English, and Welsh families, most of whom had long since been assimilated as Americans. The last "first generation" Irish was my maternal grandmother, born in Ireland and came over when she was five, and who died ten years before I was born. My mother tried to install a sense if Irish-ness into me, but it didn't take. I grew up a solid Anglophile
Mathematically I am about 50% Irish, as the other groups are heavily diluted. The Scots the most, the Germans the least.
General Humbert stays in continental Europe. Might appear a minor difference, but he was a skilled commander.
Less emigration from Ireland to USA.
Due to certain facts mayhaps Ireland will rebel later on.
Less emigration from Ireland to USA.
Due to certain facts mayhaps Ireland will rebel later on.
Derek Pullem
Donor
It's difficult to see history changing that much. However lets go for an optimistic outcome.
Although the United Irishmen were mostly non-sectarian, there was still a dominant Protestant elite which effectively excluded Catholics from power in Ireland.
The UK government had realised this and were trying to placate the Catholic majority in Ireland, not least by by giving Catholics back the right to vote in the Parliament of Ireland (although not the right to stand as an MP) and by removing the British Parliaments automatic right of precedence over Irish law - both of these done in the aftermath of the American Revolution.
However the United Irishmen's affiliation to Revolutionary France, whilst not unique in the early days of the Revolution, was unacceptable from a geopolitical viewpoint for Britain. The judgement call by the British Government was that it was easier to support the Orange Order and maintain Protestant (and non-Revolutionary dominance) via Union than to try and placate the liberals in the United Irishmen.
If the French Revolution was still born (or even less likely had a constitutional resolution) then Britain might continue on the tentative steps to a "dominion" like status for Ireland (as in Canada after Durham) . I have my doubts that it could withstand the Famine without major civil disturbances (much larger Young Irelander Rebellion in 1848?). But with very rose tinted glasses you might get to a situation similar to Canada by 1867.
Although the United Irishmen were mostly non-sectarian, there was still a dominant Protestant elite which effectively excluded Catholics from power in Ireland.
The UK government had realised this and were trying to placate the Catholic majority in Ireland, not least by by giving Catholics back the right to vote in the Parliament of Ireland (although not the right to stand as an MP) and by removing the British Parliaments automatic right of precedence over Irish law - both of these done in the aftermath of the American Revolution.
However the United Irishmen's affiliation to Revolutionary France, whilst not unique in the early days of the Revolution, was unacceptable from a geopolitical viewpoint for Britain. The judgement call by the British Government was that it was easier to support the Orange Order and maintain Protestant (and non-Revolutionary dominance) via Union than to try and placate the liberals in the United Irishmen.
If the French Revolution was still born (or even less likely had a constitutional resolution) then Britain might continue on the tentative steps to a "dominion" like status for Ireland (as in Canada after Durham) . I have my doubts that it could withstand the Famine without major civil disturbances (much larger Young Irelander Rebellion in 1848?). But with very rose tinted glasses you might get to a situation similar to Canada by 1867.
It wasn't just the Napoleonic Wars that affected Protestant views on oppressing Catholics.
There was no significant support whatsoever in British society to cede political rights to Catholics. If anything, the Napoleonic Wars sped up this process.
In hindsight, we can say that including Catholics in the political process of a vibrant nation, giving them a vested interest in maintaining a thriving Empire, would have kept Ireland in the fold (it probably would have).
However, any bill to give additional political rights to catholics at this time would have been voted down by a 20 to 1 margin and the sponsor thrown out of office.
Adding Irish Protestants only radicalized the process, as they were the ones in fear of an independent Ireland where they were no longer in control and were even more reactionary than the English/Welsh/Scots on the matter.
It took 75 years of incremental progress to get Irish Catholics to equality. By that time, they'd been struggling for a century against a "foreign oppresser" and the political climate was one of seeing Britain as an eternal enemy.
Irish independence at this point was a given. It was just a matter of time.
There was no significant support whatsoever in British society to cede political rights to Catholics. If anything, the Napoleonic Wars sped up this process.
In hindsight, we can say that including Catholics in the political process of a vibrant nation, giving them a vested interest in maintaining a thriving Empire, would have kept Ireland in the fold (it probably would have).
However, any bill to give additional political rights to catholics at this time would have been voted down by a 20 to 1 margin and the sponsor thrown out of office.
Adding Irish Protestants only radicalized the process, as they were the ones in fear of an independent Ireland where they were no longer in control and were even more reactionary than the English/Welsh/Scots on the matter.
It took 75 years of incremental progress to get Irish Catholics to equality. By that time, they'd been struggling for a century against a "foreign oppresser" and the political climate was one of seeing Britain as an eternal enemy.
Irish independence at this point was a given. It was just a matter of time.
With all respect, this post is a crystal clear example of how people state things on this board as if they're an authority, despite clearly not knowing the issues at all.
Catholic emancipation was supported by both the Pitt administration at the time, and had majority support in parliament. Indeed, part of the purpose of the Act of Union was that they could give rights to Roman Catholics without having a majority Catholic parliament. The only reason it did not pass was because of the personal objection of George III. William Pitt resigned in protest at the King's blocking of it. Far from being "thrown out of office", he came back as Prime Minister just three years later, after having a lot of respect for such a principled stand. Religious freedom for Catholics in the armed forces was allowed just ten years later.
Yes. My Irish ancestors started coming over as early as the beginning of the 1800s, emigrating to Nova Scotia (I'm Canadian-American too!
I grew up a solid Anglophile
Mathematically I am about 50% Irish, as the other groups are heavily diluted. The Scots the most, the Germans the least.
If no-one in your living memory was from Ireland, you're not really very Irish are you? By your logic, I could claim I was African!
As a suggestion, I wouldn't try to claim you were Irish in front of an actual Irishman.
Derek Pullem
Donor
I agree - but Irish independence can mean different things.
Most of Ireland became independent in 1922 - the dominions were arguably as independent as the Free State by 1931 under the Statute of Westminster.
The route to an independent all-Ireland could have been less bloody and the continuation of the Kingdom of Ireland may have delivered that.
Butterflies............
Keep in mind that early Catholic Emancipation is no guarantee that the Catholics will become/stay loyalists. As Socrates noted above Pitt's argument was that the Catholics would be in no position to dominate a UK wide parliament, but turning that on its head, that could well make independence or at least Repeal more attractive to a newly confident and rising political Catholic elite - in an Ireland ruled from Dublin they could rule the roost.
Even worse than that: Patrick Driscol would not be a character in The Trail of Glory by Eric Flint. This outrage must not stand!