WI: No Irish Rebellion of 1798

[Socrates]

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.

Labels like "loyalists" and "nationalists" could well have different meanings though. If there is more positivity towards the British state, and if the two sides are not split on a religious basis, there could easily be more of a spectrum of positions rather than two hard camps. A soft nationalist position of home rule within the British Empire would be more likely to come to the fore here.

Of course, the Great Famine will be the determining factor here, so it all depends on what happens with that. Perhaps a domestic Irish parliament means it is addressed more adequately, or if a domestic Irish parliament fails to address it and gets the blame, then the hatred of the British may not radicalise things as it did in our timeline.

 

[RossN]

Labels like "loyalists" and "nationalists" could well have different meanings though. If there is more positivity towards the British state, and if the two sides are not split on a religious basis, there could easily be more of a spectrum of positions rather than two hard camps. A soft nationalist position of home rule within the British Empire would be more likely to come to the fore here.

Of course, the Great Famine will be the determining factor here, so it all depends on what happens with that. Perhaps a domestic Irish parliament means it is addressed more adequately, or if a domestic Irish parliament fails to address it and gets the blame, then the hatred of the British may not radicalise things as it did in our timeline.

Actually I've never considered the Great Famine to be all that important regarding Irish views on Britain in Ireland (it did have a long lasting impact on the Diaspora). Consider O'Connell's massively popular Repeal movement in the early 1840s. If anything the Famine was a blessing for the Union, essentially breaking the power of Catholic grassroots democracy for over a generation.

I do think the Union was probably doomed regardless of how quickly Emancipation happened; Ireland as a whole simply wasn't in a position to benefit from the Industrial Revolution that Scotland was and there are no obvious political allies for a Catholic dominated conservative rural faction (as any Irish political faction would be) in Britain.

 

[Socrates]

Actually I've never considered the Great Famine to be all that important regarding Irish views on Britain in Ireland (it did have a long lasting impact on the Diaspora). Consider O'Connell's massively popular Repeal movement in the early 1840s. If anything the Famine was a blessing for the Union, essentially breaking the power of Catholic grassroots democracy for over a generation.

I do think the Union was probably doomed regardless of how quickly Emancipation happened; Ireland as a whole simply wasn't in a position to benefit from the Industrial Revolution that Scotland was and there are no obvious political allies for a Catholic dominated conservative rural faction (as any Irish political faction would be) in Britain.

I disagree. The Repeal Association was largely a reformist group, wanting to operate within the system. The willingness to use force accelerated dramatically after the Famine: see the Young Ireland uprising in 1848. It then lasted as a powerful cultural memory into the early 20th Century and beyond.

I'm not too convinced of the power of "Catholic grassroots democracy" among the landless peasantry. Any Catholic political activism at this time was largely confined to Catholic land owners, merchants and urban workers in Cork/Dublin. The people that were died were largely too busy making ends meet on the edge of survival.

I disagree that Ireland couldn't benefit from the industrial revolution. Sure, it wasn't as well positioned as Scotland, but it had coal deposits in the south west, ship building in Cork, linen manufacturing in Belfast, and food and drink manufacturing in Belfast. There was plenty of scope for further manufacturing too, given that it had a large workforce moving to the cities and everywhere was close to the coast, making for easy imports and exports via sea. It was just held back by mercantilism, then by incorporation into a state that wasn't interested in investing there, absentee landlords that extracted wealth from the country, a famine that decimated the workforce and local wealth, and frequent political instability that made a terrible investment climate.

 

[RossN]

I disagree. The Repeal Association was largely a reformist group, wanting to operate within the system. The willingness to use force accelerated dramatically after the Famine: see the Young Ireland uprising in 1848. It then lasted as a powerful cultural memory into the early 20th Century and beyond.

I think a good argument could made the liberal revolutions of 1848 and quarrels with O'Connell had more of a role in that regard. If not why was there no truly large scale revolt for three generations after the Famine?

More to the point while I agree the Repealers were willing to work with the system there stated goal was actually more radical than that voiced by Butt, Parnell and Redmond. Repealism was founded on the notion of Ireland as a seperate and legally distinct kingdom equal to Great Britain under the same crown. In other words a revival of Grattanism. That actually aligns it more closely to Arthur Griffith's original plans, in end goal if not methods, though it neatly also matches the not yet evolved Dominion ideal.

I'm not too convinced of the power of "Catholic grassroots democracy" among the landless peasantry. Any Catholic political activism at this time was largely confined to Catholic land owners, merchants and urban workers in Cork/Dublin. The people that were died were largely too busy making ends meet on the edge of survival.

Clearly the leadership was not made of people pulled from the field but are you suggesting the "Monster Meetings" did not suggest considerable popularity amongst the poor?

I'm also confused by your second point there - doesn't that agree with my argument that the Union was saved by the exhaustion of the Famine?

I disagree that Ireland couldn't benefit from the industrial revolution. Sure, it wasn't as well positioned as Scotland, but it had coal deposits in the south west, ship building in Cork, linen manufacturing in Belfast, and food and drink manufacturing in Belfast. There was plenty of scope for further manufacturing too, given that it had a large workforce moving to the cities and everywhere was close to the coast, making for easy imports and exports via sea. It was just held back by mercantilism, then by incorporation into a state that wasn't interested in investing there, absentee landlords that extracted wealth from the country, a famine that decimated the workforce and local wealth, and frequent political instability that made a terrible investment climate.

So, in other words the only way Ireland would have prospered was under its own government?

 

[Socrates]

More to the point while I agree the Repealers were willing to work with the system there stated goal was actually more radical than that voiced by Butt, Parnell and Redmond. Repealism was founded on the notion of Ireland as a seperate and legally distinct kingdom equal to Great Britain under the same crown. In other words a revival of Grattanism. That actually aligns it more closely to Arthur Griffith's original plans, in end goal if not methods, though it neatly also matches the not yet evolved Dominion ideal.

But the choice of methods reveals very clearly the degree of hatred of the British state. I think O'Connell would have been willing to accept something like home rule.

Clearly the leadership was not made of people pulled from the field but are you suggesting the "Monster Meetings" did not suggest considerable popularity amongst the poor? I'm also confused by your second point there - doesn't that agree with my argument that the Union was saved by the exhaustion of the Famine?

I don't think the people attending those meetings were pulled from the field either. They were mainly the urban proletariat. So a different type of poor to those who were affected by the Famine. Your argument was that the Famine wiped out the Catholic poor so they couldn't agitate any longer. My argument is that there are two types of poor: the rural poor (who weren't agitating before, so their death/emigration didn't make any difference) and the urban poor (who were agitating before, but weren't killed off, so could still agitate afterwards).

So, in other words the only way Ireland would have prospered was under its own government?

Depends on how early your POD. Potentially you could have an early one with no mercantilism (perhaps via early union) that allowed Ireland to get richer and been seen as more alike to Britain by the British political elite, allowing better treatment later. But yes, a better option is an Irish government, either via dominion-like status or home rule.

 

[Alt History Buff]

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.

I was referring to full Catholic Empancipation, meaning equal rights, which were still a long, long way off.