You're only think about Ireland. Ireland cannot be regarded as separate from the rest of the British Isles. No one at the time thought of it that way and all the key players were clear that the end result would be someone sitting on the Throne in London ruling all Three Kingdoms. The dispute was who it would be. 1689 wasn't a War of Irish Independence, it was the Irish front of a British Civil War. As the fighting would go on until one side ruled all Three Kingdoms the choice is between Catholic Absolutists who would oppress everyone in the Three Kingdoms and Protestant Constitutional Monarchists would would oppress some of the people of the Three Kingdom.
Well, then I'm afraidI have to agree
Rapparee's comment that if it comes to a question of who gets oppressed it is more just to have everyone oppressed. I'm baffled why I should assume Ireland 'taking one for the team' and letting the British go free (free to oppress the Irish) is the logical choice.
But as others have mentioned I'm deeply sceptical that James was the monster you paint him as.
Yes, Britain wouldn't find it easy to forcibly subdue Ireland, especially if the Irish got lucky and won a few battles. But twice in the 17th century British armies crossed the St. George's Channel and rapidly defeated prepared, equipped Irish armies. Okay both were led by skilled commanders and both times the Irish had cowards and idiots leading them. But there were very real reasons why the Battle of Boyne in OTL featured 36,000 better equipped, better organised, better trained soldiers loyal to London against 20,000 Irishmen.
Of course how many of those troops were loyal to 'London' and how many to William again? Especially how many of the best trained, best equipped?
See what i mean about the almost ASB degree of luck Britain enjoyed in OTL?
Yes Ireland under the right circumstances could put together a decent army and resist Britain. But remember in the long run Hugh O'Neil's army was defeated and he fled to Spain. The big issue is that Ireland fell further behind throughout the 17th century. In 1600 you could plausibly fight with swords, pikes and a few gunpowder weapons, albeit at a disadvantage. Ireland could produce a few muskets and it had plenty of blacksmiths to produce swords and pikespoints. But by 1690 weapons technology has moved on and flintlocks and cannon are both more effective and much harder to produce than their predecessors and Ireland lacked the indigenous production capacity. That isn't necessarily a permanent thing, factories can be built but not overnight and especially not in the middle of a war.
But Ireland is in this era Britain's most important possession. The North Atlantic is Britain's key trading area and Ireland controls access to it, basic maritime strategy says Britain cannot allow Ireland to be hostile. While Britain has numerous overseas commitments Ireland took priority. Remember that throughout the American War of Independence Britain kept 35,000 men who would have made a difference in North America in Ireland.
The odds overwhelming favoured Britain. As it would in any contest between Britain and Ireland from 5000 BC to now. Of the two major Islands off North-West Europe one is much bigger, more agriculturally fertile and mineral rich. David can sometimes take down Goliath but on average Goliath wins.
Between 1692 and 1814 the British were involved in to the death land wars in continental Europe that required massive amounts of manpower to keep down, to say nothing of the huge manpower drain of the Royal Navy (very useful but those were able bodied men who were not serving in the army.
So less a case of David vs. Goliath and more one of a flyweight boxer vs. a heavyweight one. As I've said before in any one on one encounter the odds were firmly on Britain, but only overwhelmingly so in the 19th century. Before then Britain simply didn't have the population edge to be strong everywhere at everytime.
And the American Revolution is a particularly poor example - the Irish
did force
concessions out of a weakened Britain at the time by threat of force no less!
First of all it was Orangists, there never were Maryites in OTL and they are a creation of this scenario where William predeceases her. As to the rights and wrongs of it I subscribe to the Whig view that by acting like a Tyrant and trampling all over the Law he abrogated his Coronation Oath and this his subjects Oaths of Allegiance.
Actually Maryites is probably the better term for the British supporters of her illegal coup - remember they expected William to die first?
You do realise of course that taking the Whig view means William and Mary had no rights whatsoever to expect allegiance from their Irish 'subjects'? Tyranny and lawbreaking is a two way street.
And it did. Macaulay isn't the best person to get an unbalanced account of the Glorious Revolution but he does do a good job of giving the Whig line about why the Revolution happened and the Louis XIV factor is incredibly important. Everyone knew that James II was allied to Louis XIV, related (first cousin) to Louis XIV, shared a faith with Louis XIV, knew and was friends with Louis XIV due to his exile and most of all admired Louis XIV. Combine that with his actions and it's not wonder that lots of people (including me) believe that James II looked to France as a model to emulate, not an enemy to fight.
As you aknowledge Macaulay was biased.