Originally Posted by Glaucon

An interesting point. I'd argue that Pearse's actions were certainly undemocratic, Tone's meet a different standard, for the simple reason that the vast majority of the Irish and British populations at the time were disenfranchised, and the United Irishmen fought to establish generalised democracy in Ireland; a reformed Grattan's parliament where all citizens had access to voting would have been preferable to conflict, as reform in the thirteen colonies would have been preferable to war; still, this was rejected by the landed interests that dominated the parliament and the then British government.

Now, on principal, it is hard to see Carson's actions as anything but fatal to the concept of liberal democracy, for, rejecting the will of the government as expressed in the House of Commons (and at the ballot box where the Liberals and the IPP won sufficient votes to pass the measure), a putative armed revolt was organised. Taking that principal further, where are we to draw the line against the likes of Pearse, or anyone else who can rally a group of people to take to arms rather than to the ballot box?

Furthermore, if we accept Carson's actions as valid, then we must also accept partition according to regional minority wishes. In that case, the partition of Ireland was illegitimate in the sense that vast swathes of Nationalist-majority territory remained under the purview of a Stormont parliament when they expressly desired to join the South. A true Carsonian Northern Ireland should include Antrim, parts of Londonderry, Armagh and Down.

Have you ever heard the expression: "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it."? I'm not being funny here, but I don't see 'democracy' in quite the way you do. Votes can actually be legally 'bought' you know. The Conservative and Labour parties in The UK do it all the time. If you've no cash you don't tend to get too many MPs. I read a report regarding The Republic recently that actually put a value on each vote in terms of cash required. SF have access to US cash and as such have a great advantage over say Labour in getting votes and seats in The Republic. No mainland party can raise cash outside The UK and Unionist parties (and to a degree The SDLP) have no real fund raising ability in The States. So hilariously, a deal agreed during The Belfast Agreement gives SF access to funds that no other party on The Island can match. Cash means voters, means seats. Just a couple of examples. That's democracy (not that I'm against it).

Regarding violence or the threat of violence, as practised by Pearse, Carson and the rest, I'm afraid you're stuck with it. Why? Because it can work, that's why. I could give you a rational for both Carson and Pearce, but ultimately it was the use of force (or it's threat) that triumphed. That my friend is the way of the world and I would suggest that 'democracy' is particularly vulnerable to it. If these types fail, then they're scum, but if they (or their cause) succeeds then statues are put up to them - often by 'democrats'. LOL

As regards your final point, you might well have been right. Or perhaps you may yet be right?

Originally Posted by EnglishObserver

The use of the word treason here is deeply problematic. What Carson was was a type of ULTRA. An Ultra is someone who is prepared to use unconstitutional, illegal or even violent methods in defiance of established authority in order to maintain the status quo or achieve a historically idealised version of the state/nation. Ultras include groups such as The OAS in Algeria, The US Militia movement, Loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles and Serb paramilitaries in the former Yugoslavia. They differ from REVOLUTIONARIES in that they aspire to a 'conservative' vision rather than a 'progressive' vision. Sometimes the vision is mixed, such as The SA in pre-war Germany.

Interestingly, The IRA in the decades following partition can be seen as Ultras, in the sense that they have opposed those governing The Free State/Republic and been imprisoned by said authorities, in pursuit of an idealised Irish nation.

The use of the word 'traitor' presupposes that the relationship between the governed and the authorities is that of master to slave and that the governed offer UNCONDITIONAL loyalty to the authorities. Obvious nonsense. According to this concept 51% would be entitled to put 49% to death, even in a democracy.

I would suggest that a term like traitor is applied to those, who for individually selfish reasons, conspire against their people with a third party, probably foreign power.

According to that logic Hitler and Stalin were right to put millions to death and the so called democracies had no right to interfere.

************************ off.

Originally Posted by Keith-M

‘Covenant’ parade to converge on Stormont - Local - Belfast Newsletter

Glad to see this historic date being commemorated, but I would rather it was done by the wider pro-union community than just the OO. The people of NI have a lot to thank Carson for.

You're right about that, 25.000 German rifles and about 3 million rounds of ammo, for starters. Democracy in action. Heady days.

Originally Posted by SKBAC

Nail firmly on head.

I've said before, but it's worth repeating. Were it not for the short-sighted and anti-democratic actions of Ulster's Protestant community in 1912, there would likely still be a union flag flying over Dublin Castle today.

I think Ireland would have become independent anyway sooner or later. But probably a more drawn out affair like Canada or Australia. And very likely the Queen would have come as Queen of Ireland when she visited, not as a foreign head of state.

Originally Posted by EnglishObserver

Have you ever heard the expression: "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it."? I'm not being funny here, but I don't see 'democracy' in quite the way you do. Votes can actually be legally 'bought' you know. The Conservative and Labour parties in The UK do it all the time. If you've no cash you don't tend to get too many MPs. I read a report regarding The Republic recently that actually put a value on each vote in terms of cash required. SF have access to US cash and as such have a great advantage over say Labour in getting votes and seats in The Republic. No mainland party can raise cash outside The UK and Unionist parties (and to a degree The SDLP) have no real fund raising ability in The States. So hilariously, a deal agreed during The Belfast Agreement gives SF access to funds that no other party on The Island can match. Cash means voters, means seats. Just a couple of examples. That's democracy (not that I'm against it).

Democracy, of course, has its weaknesses, many of them manifest, as you point out; the money issue is particularly problematic in Anglo-American politics, somewhat less so in continental Europe, where the state controls funding of political parties. An imperial republican government, such as ancient Rome, is often far more effective, in many ways. That said, it's what we have, and in a liberal representative democracy, the governed give their consent to the government to govern them, even if parts of the electorate oppose certain governmental policies, some vehemently so.

Originally Posted by EnglishObserver

Regarding violence or the threat of violence, as practised by Pearse, Carson and the rest, I'm afraid you're stuck with it. Why? Because it can work, that's why. I could give you a rational for both Carson and Pearce, but ultimately it was the use of force (or it's threat) that triumphed. That my friend is the way of the world and I would suggest that 'democracy' is particularly vulnerable to it. If these types fail, then they're scum, but if they (or their cause) succeeds then statues are put up to them - often by 'democrats'. LOL

Again, this is correct, however, no true liberal state can effectively function under such circumstances, it introduces a strain of fanaticism into the public mind that is very hard to later root out. A recourse to violence, or the threat of violence, can only be allowed in the most extreme of circumstances. I don't accept (neither did the then British government) that Ulster Protestants or, for that matter, Irish Unionism were faced destruction if Ireland were granted a regional parliament any more than Scottish RCs were faced with extinction at Holyrood.

Switzerland, for instance, is perhaps the most advanced example of a grass roots democracy. Many cantons, and many Muslims, opposed the minaret law that was recently passed by voters; as much as people may dislike it, it is the law and the only way to overturn it is to win at the ballot box; otherwise we are led into the rule of the strongman. I'd argue that Irish politics has, in many ways, been based on strongman politics since the coming of Carson (not that he is solely to blame, of course). Mainland British politics has not seen this evolution.

Neither Northern Ireland or the Republic have developed the clear left-right choices seen in England, Wales and Scotland. One wonders if they soon will, or if power politics will continue to leaven the discourse.

the reenactment of the Carson Trail

Originally Posted by Glaucon

Democracy, of course, has its weaknesses, many of them manifest, as you point out; the money issue is particularly problematic in Anglo-American politics, somewhat less so in continental Europe, where the state controls funding of political parties. An imperial republican government, such as ancient Rome, is often far more effective, in many ways. That said, it's what we have, and in a liberal representative democracy, the governed give their consent to the government to govern them, even if parts of the electorate oppose certain governmental policies, some vehemently so.



Again, this is correct, however, no true liberal state can effectively function under such circumstances, it introduces a strain of fanaticism into the public mind that is very hard to later root out. A recourse to violence, or the threat of violence, can only be allowed in the most extreme of circumstances. I don't accept (neither did the then British government) that Ulster Protestants or, for that matter, Irish Unionism were faced destruction if Ireland were granted a regional parliament any more than Scottish RCs were faced with extinction at Holyrood.

Switzerland, for instance, is perhaps the most advanced example of a grass roots democracy. Many cantons, and many Muslims, opposed the minaret law that was recently passed by voters; as much as people may dislike it, it is the law and the only way to overturn it is to win at the ballot box; otherwise we are led into the rule of the strongman. I'd argue that Irish politics has, in many ways, been based on strongman politics since the coming of Carson (not that he is solely to blame, of course). Mainland British politics has not seen this evolution.

Neither Northern Ireland or the Republic have developed the clear left-right choices seen in England, Wales and Scotland. One wonders if they soon will, or if power politics will continue to leaven the discourse.

I'm afraid I can't agree with the highlighted section. You seem to see the start of history as being the first time a ballot paper dropped in a box! There were many 'strongmen' in Irish history - some of the wars were as bloody as The Somme. Ireland was ruled by English/British 'strongmen' for 800 years apparently. As for the mainland, wasn't Cromwell a 'strongman'? Didn't he overthrow the constitution by force? Who knows what the future holds in The UK.

NI has a tribal community, hence the lack of left/right politics. I don't think The Republic has the same excuse.

Philip has added further information culled from newspapers and other written sources as well as employing photographs located in the museum archives, in order to bring the period of the Home Rule Crisis alive for the modern reader. This is not just the story of local Unionism but also of local Nationalists, who had been looking forward to the restoration of a Dublin parliament within the British Empire and who were deeply disappointed by the prospect of losing that parliament before it had ever got ‘off the ground’.

Tinderbox: Ballymena and the Ulster Covenant - Local - Ballymena Times

“It was an evening of entertainment, fun and fellowship, but with a serious side as we celebrated the men who signed the Covenant and the women who signed the Declaration 100 years ago. Their acts cemented the foundations of Northern Ireland and the retention of our British Identity.”

Covenant commemoration celebrated - Local - Banbridge Leader

Later this week, a connecting event, "Making History Talk - Understanding the Ulster Covenant " takes place in the Clinton Centre, Enniskillen on Thursday evening at 7.30pm with two prominent speakers, Dr. Brian Feeney and Professor Brian Walker.

Parade marks the start of Carson Trail / Impartial Reporter / News / Roundup