Catholic Emancipation and Act of Union without 1798 rebellion

[Hood]

the late 18th century saw an easing of enforcment of the penal laws and a number of relief acts (mainly in times of war) towards Catholics in Ireland. There seemed to be a push for reform and full emancipation in the 1780s and became very much apparent in the 1790s. British interests, especially in the background of the napoleonic wars was to both secure their flank and to have a loyal catholic population to draw from militarily, financially and economically for the war, reflected by the relief acts. Protestants in Ireland felt increasingly at risk, with the likes of the 1641 massacre playing on their minds, but more generally fearing granting Catholics the right to sit in parliament would mean eventual stripping of the protestant position in Ireland, notably in regards to land.

The overall solution was hypothesised to be, and the one that ultimately came about was the Act of Union, with promise of catholic emancipation. However it came after the 1798 rebellion which considerably blunted any softening in opinion towards the Catholic Question, emancipation not being granted until much later.

The question is therefore, would it be possible for union earlier in the 1790s (pre 1798) or butterflying away the United Irishmen and their rebellion, and with such a union emancipation, as what was even expected by many in the aftermath of the otl union?

 

[Socrates]

the late 18th century saw an easing of enforcment of the penal laws and a number of relief acts (mainly in times of war) towards Catholics in Ireland. There seemed to be a push for reform and full emancipation in the 1780s and became very much apparent in the 1790s. British interests, especially in the background of the napoleonic wars was to both secure their flank and to have a loyal catholic population to draw from militarily, financially and economically for the war, reflected by the relief acts. Protestants in Ireland felt increasingly at risk, with the likes of the 1641 massacre playing on their minds, but more generally fearing granting Catholics the right to sit in parliament would mean eventual stripping of the protestant position in Ireland, notably in regards to land.

The overall solution was hypothesised to be, and the one that ultimately came about was the Act of Union, with promise of catholic emancipation. However it came after the 1798 rebellion which considerably blunted any softening in opinion towards the Catholic Question, emancipation not being granted until much later.

The question is therefore, would it be possible for union earlier in the 1790s (pre 1798) or butterflying away the United Irishmen and their rebellion, and with such a union emancipation, as what was even expected by many in the aftermath of the otl union?

The United Irishmen were mainly non-conformists. The whole purpose of Act of Union was a way to deliver Catholic Emancipation without having Protestants ruled by Catholics. Parliament was on board but it was the personal morality of George III that nixed the emancipation last minute.

 

[Hood]

The United Irishmen were mainly non-conformists. The whole purpose of Act of Union was a way to deliver Catholic Emancipation without having Protestants ruled by Catholics. Parliament was on board but it was the personal morality of George III that nixed the emancipation last minute.

UI were an isolated group, being mainly presbyterian and with ideology derived from the French Revolution, with significant focus on secularism, completely ignoring the very sectarian nature of most grevances, indeed despite the fact their allies, the Defenders were very much sectarian, with a great deal of the violence (notably in south armagh) being sectarian. So may be easy to have them at least have minimal effect, perhaps the Defenders tell them to bog off?
KG3 was definitely a massive thorn in emancipations side post act of union but he seemed to understand the public mood at the time (Bartlett), there seemed to have been a bit more leniency towards the earlier relief acts? I think 1798 rebellion really soured public opinion and reinforced a feeling of preventing catholic emancipation (Pitt, Cornwallis etc all resigning and being replaced by hardliners against emancipation, Peel, Foster etc) seemed to indicate a serious turn in opinion against any real reform.

I agree the intended purpose of proposals for union had been to bring about a solid compromise, but in reality it seemed more extreme reaction and security for the protestant minority in the wake of the rebellion.