I wish our islands were still united.Is there some way we could have kept Ireland without going full Cromwell mickmasher on the Irish?
Yeah, not adopted progressively more hostile policies towards the Irish catholics throughout the entire 19th century. Irish were actually pretty chill with us until the 1801 Act of Union and imposing our will on them, even right up until the point of needlessly slaughtering the 1916 revolters to make a point.
>>18629855No, they were very angry before then too. The battle of the Boyne, the Irish rebellion of 1798 that prompted the act of union, etc.
>>18629894They didn't have anything like popular support. You might as well cite the Jacobite rebellion as proof Scotland hated the Union.
>Keep Hugh O'Neill in favour and positioned to rule Ulster instead of giving the job to Bagenal. The Kingdom of Ireland stays intact, the Tudor conquest succeeds via diplomacy rather than war.>Grant the Graces to the Catholic nobility; they didn't want independence, just an end to their persecution. They were happy to serve in a Kingdom ruled by the Stuarts.>Do not pass the Act of Union. Follow the lead of Henry Grattan and the Patriot movement, grant their reforms and empower the Irish Parliament. No revolution in Ireland, no century of permanent destabilisation.>Grant Home Rule; don't organise Unionists, instead reach for the conservatives in the Irish Parliamentary Party and gain their loyalty in return for including them in the drafting of the bill. Ireland remains in the UK indefinitely, maybe only leaving to become a Canada-style Commonwealth country in the late 20th century.
>>18629841Not from there, but why can't the islands be united under Irish rule instead?
>>18629894By the 19th Century the revolutions had come and gone, like in the rest of Europe. The big controversy was the Act of Union dissolving Ireland's parliament; the rise of the Patriot movement had made many very fierce defenders of their autonomy. Independence wasn't really on anyone's mind save for the few bands of guerrillas out in the countryside.Independence really wasn't on anyone but small revolutionary groups minds until 1916 onwards.
>>18629841The only reasonable way this would have happened would be if home rule was granted before WWI. Ironically by listening to Ulster loyalist retards, Westminster torpedoed any chance of it.
>>18629841Should've been nicer to the Irish
>>18629894The 1798 rebellion had a much broader base of support than the 1745 Jacobite rebellion did in Scotland. It drew support across the country across religious lines in a way none of the Jacobite risings did in Scotland. The three areas where major uprisings happened in 1798 were all profoundly different. You had East Ulster, which was primarily Ulster Scots Presbyterian with a radical proto-bourgeois strata, you had Wexford, which was a quasi-Anglicized Catholic agrarian region and then Mayo, which was deeply impoverished, marginal and very traditionally Gaelic and Catholic. You could hardly pick three more different regions of Ireland.
>>18629855>not adopted progressively more hostile policies towards the Irish catholics throughout the entire 19th century. The complete opposite of what happened, all of the draconian anti-Catholic laws of the 17th and 18th centuries were gradually abolished and Catholics were granted full equality before the law. Even the expropriations of Catholic land was largely reversed through the 1903 Land Act, forcing landlords to sell their land to their Catholic tenants at a low price.
>>18629855It was far from a consistently increasing hostility. Certainly the British government and ascendancy response to the Famine marked one of the nadirs of Irish history as a whole. But it was also in the 19th century that>Catholic emancipation was granted under pressure from O'Connell's mass movement >Irish Catholicism underwent the devotional revolution led by Cardinal Cullen, transforming it from a essentially a folk religion in many places into the behemoth which dominated national life for over a century>the Church of Ireland was disestablished, Catholics were no longer forced to pay tithes to support a Protestant church >The pressure exerted by the Land League largely broke the power of the ascendancy >Nationalism became the dominant political force in the country under Parnell, with home rule becoming a realistic possibility
>>18629935>It drew support across the country across religious lines in a way none of the Jacobite risings did in Scotland.The Jacobite risings had support from Presbyterians, Catholics and Anglicans.The United Irishmen only had support from Presbyterians and Catholics.
>>18629841There were a couple ways to probably keep the Irish, but the best way would have been England remaining Catholic. But if England remained Catholic, then it would have lost the fanatically Protestant Scotland. Pick your poison.
>>18629957A fair number of the leading United Irishmen including Wolfe Tone were Anglicans. They were just a small percentage of Irish Anglicans overall since they were largely synonymous with the large landowning class.
Threadly reminder that Oliver Williams alias Cromwell was patrilineally Welsh. His mickmashing was celt on celt violence.
>>18629841The British actions during the Potato Famine were unforgivable. There were literally wagons stock full of food being transported through villages of skeletal Irish peasants on the brink of dropping dead from starvation. But if any of the starving Irish dared to try and take even a small amount of food, they were shot dead. It was a man made famine, not a natural disaster.
>>18629972>small percentageMore like permille, if even that. They were just a handful of intellectuals out of touch with the vast overwhelming majority of Anglicans who were naturally not going to side against the system that was heavily rigged in their favour.
>>18629980>There were literally wagons stock full of food being transported through villages of skeletal Irish peasants on the brink of dropping dead from starvationThis happened but is massively overstated, the exported food was a very small amount compared to the corn being imported to Ireland by westminster at the same time. Not saying it wasn't a massively bungled relief effort, but the common trope that the british stole all the remaining food is a bit of a meme. There was concern that banning exports would cause farms to fail for what was a very small amount of export. Ireland never ran out of food, the issue was potatoes were the cheapest food available and you had a huge amount of people in extreme poverty whose entire diet was literally just potatoes. So once the famine started they couldnt afford enough food, became even more underweight, got sick because they were immunocompromised from starvation and died. Actually dying from starvation rather than reasons secondary to it, like disease or exposure from being homeless were generally rare.
>>18629841You need to stop sucking Jewish cock.
>>18629841>Is there some way we could have kept Ireland without going full Cromwell mickmasher on the Irish?Yes. The government of the time was working up to granting Ireland self governing, Dominion, status within the Empire. If it hadn't been for Plunket and his retarded friends it would have gone ahead (answering 90% of the rebels concerns) in a few years. Once the Empire began to fragment it's likely that the Irish Dominion would have joined the UK formally, or become so closely diplomatically and economically entwined with it that it might as well be formally incorporated.
>>18629904>You might as well cite the Jacobite rebellion as proof Scotland hated the Union.Why shouldn't you?
>>18629904I don't think the fact that the majority of the population didn't endorse an abortive rebellion is evidence that Ireland enjoyed being in the Union.From the moment the Act of Union was forced through, the most popular political cause in Ireland for the next century was undoing said Union because the prevailing attitude of the vast majority of people was that Britain was simply incapable of proper governance in Ireland.
>>18629841The reformation successfully spreading to Ireland or never getting a hold in England. Protestants and Catholics through most of Europe distrusted and loathed each other till the 19th century and then the Irish and English were far too estranged to find a compromise.The English could have given them home-rule but that would probably only serve as a stepping stone to independence.
>>18629841You could have just stayed in the EU and have everyone on the mainland think of you as the "British isles" entity of the union but no, you had to draw a sharp border between North and Republic Of Ireland.
>>18630826Nta but by 1745, a large majority of Scots accepted the union and Jacobitism was unpopular. Also, the entire point of Jacobitism was to have the same Stuart monarch reign over Scotland and England, so it wasn’t like it was a movement for total independence.
>>18629841Anglo identity is too individualist to the point the Scottish falsely adopted a Celtic identity again in search of collectivist unity despite being as Anglo-Germanic. Basically bongs can’t into real assimilation, and i don’t mean some multi cultural modern standard. Germs and frogs united dozens of unique cultures each into a single identity, even Russians managed to unite most east Slavic identities into their own.
>>18629855>uspiss off, Taig. You're not fooling anyone
>>18630864>by 1745, a large majority of Scots accepted the union and Jacobitism was unpopularThen how come they were able to take over the entire country in just a month?>so it wasn’t like it was a movement for total independence.And? Having your own separate kingdom still makes a massive difference.
instead of keeping ireland maybe ireland should conquer the others
>>18630890>Then how come they were able to take over the entire country in just a month?Military apathy and unpreparedness. The initial clan support included guys who already had weapons and military experience plus knowledge of the country. Highlanders were great light infantry, so a series of blunders and quick advances allowed Charlie to take Scotland. Many people, including most clans, still opposed Charlie, and they joined government forces when they came north in 1746.>And?Well, if the question is whether Scots wanted independence, support of Jacobitism doesn’t prove that. And if Jacobitism is pointed at Scots wanting to dissolve the union then, it was patently unpopular. So, it doesn’t prove a general want to dissolve the union either. At least not then. Many Scots were greatly benefiting from the union by 1745 because they excelled with the business and trade benefits.
>>18630928Isn't that how must uprisings pre the 19th century worked? A circle of relatively few professional soldiers, desperate or well off men choosing a cause to fight for, everyone else mostly staying out of it.
>>18630840>The English could have given them home-rule but that would probably only serve as a stepping stone to independence.I have heard this a lot but I really dunno where people get this idea. The Irish Parliamentary Party categorically opposed any idea of Irish independence. They didn't push for Home Rule because it was the next-best-thing to full separation, but instead because they very firmly believed that Irish self-governance was necessary for Ireland to run properly and prosper.Any "independence" that came later would be more akin to Dominions like Canada but with far closer ties to Britain than any other. The guys who wanted independence were on the far fringes of politics until it became mainstream post 1916.
>>18630964>Any "independence" that came later would be more akin to Dominions like Canada but with far closer ties to Britain than any other.All of the Dominions are completely independent today and have closer ties to the US than to the UK.
>>18630972And do you think for some reason Ireland would also be closer to the US than the UK?Remember, Parnell's IPP (the most radical iteration of the party) were ready to accept 2 incredibly limited and somewhat flawed Home Rule Bills just to get it done. The leaders of the Home Rule movement completely disavowed any Republican or secessionist politics, a century-later repeat of the Constitution of 1782. We don't consider Daniel O'Connell to have been secretly agitating for independence due to his opposition to the Act of Union, it makes even less sense to pretend the Home Rulers were doing so.Realistically, given the political landscape of Ireland at the time, any Irish Government would have consisted of:>Conservative Home Rulers, backed by farmers >The "Unionist" vote, now an extremely powerful anglophilic bloc backed by huge industrial influence and wealth in the northeast>Labour agitators In *our* timeline, Ireland remained a Dominion until the late 1940s and had a currency tied to the British Pound until the late 1970s. Secessionist politics and revolutionary agitation was typically born of British malice or mismanagement, rather than being some huge dormant giant that chose the right time to wake up.
>>18630972I think recent irrendaist US policies against Canada might have brought them closer to the UK than the USA, actually.
>>18630983They could have ended up being closer to continental Europe, as they are at present. Point is the dominion route only really maintains ceremonial ties. And dominion status was not really considered separatism at that time, since the dominions were still a couple of steps away from full independence.Also, politics can easily change very drastically. Historically most IPP voters, including some of their MPs, switched over to Sinn Fein in just a couple of years.>>18631002Only politically and it will likely go back to normal as soon as Trump is out of office.
>>18631002Not really because people who aren't terminally online know that those threats are just theater and aren't credible. The first new international crossing between the US and Canada in decades just recently opened (The Gordie Howe Bridge) and is even free to pedestrian and cycling traffic
>>18631022>>18631022I don't think Canda can rule out another trump or forget that his policies were accepted by the rest of US elites.>>18631024That bridge is a pretty good example of cooling relations between Canada and the US actually. It's a decades long project, Trump broke a treaty that they would get the full income from the tolls without any political pushback and its opening was attended by Canadean but not US officals.
>>18631036>The opening of the Bridge is le bad thing actuallyThe Canadian government worked closely with Michigan on the construction and opening of the bridge despite Trumps tantrums, because he ultimately doesn't matter and people know half the things he says aren't credible
>>18631036"Back to normal" was a poor choice of words as the relationship will definitely be on different terms since, as you said, you can't rule out another Trump, but they will still be friendly. Canada is way too intertwined with the US to cut ties.
>>18631044Construction started before Trumps second term. Were they supposed to blow it up?Anyway the most likely next president is Vance so Canada should decide its policies with that in mind.
>>18631052>Anyway the most likely next president is VanceIt'll be Gavin Newsom, let's be real here
>>18631052>Construction started before Trumps second term. Were they supposed to blow it up?Why wasn't it ever an issue during his first term? Construction started in 2018 during the peak of his first term
>>18631022>Point is the dominion route only really maintains ceremonial tiesI think maintaining ceremonial ties by the end of the 20th Century is a pretty good outcome for British rule in Ireland, anon.>most IPP voters, including some of their MPs, switched over to Sinn Fein in just a couple of years.The main switchover from IPP to Sinn Féin was between 1916 and 1918. It had many factors, one of the main ones being mass dissilusionment with constitutional politics after Home Rule was STILL not being granted and Unionist concerns were being given greater precedence than decades of landslide victories for Home Rulers.The 1916 Rebellion saw a rebirth of separatism and republicanism which filled the political void between Home Rule and Unionism, and several other awful decisions (such as the attempt to impose conscription) rallied people around Sinn Féin. Worth noting that Sinn Féin at this point was also not a Republican party, instead advocating for a dual-monarch approach to Irish self-rule. Most of the old Home Rulers and their supporters naturally ended up with the conservative faction of SF which became Cumann na nGeadheal and later Fine Gael-John Redmond's son and his party among them.
Our only mistake was not eradicating the irish menace from the face of the earth
>>18631053he's a major contender but statistically it's the VP.>>18631059If certain sources are to be believed it's because his aidees would purposefully sabotage his agenda.https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2162786/aides-appalled-donald-trump-questions-us-security
>>18630958I guess so, but I can’t really speak to every other uprising in that era and before. I think that if the 1745 Rising had truly been popular, you would have seen many more clans joining, most prominently the Campbells (who, contrary to romanticism, were not always the government’s men, see the 1685 Argyll Rebellion) and others from across Scotland swelling the ranks greater than they were. Iirc, the 1715 Rising closer to the Act of Union did see broader support like that. Even formerly staunch government supports like the Campbells of Cawdor ended up supporting, at least in spirit, the 1715 Rising because the union was initially unpopular.
>>18631061>I think maintaining ceremonial ties by the end of the 20th Century is a pretty good outcome for British rule in Ireland, anon.Only in hindsight.
>>18631110Yeah, with hindsight Home Rule was very obviously the better option than direct rule. Irish independence is as much a byproduct of British incompetence as it is talent on behalf of the Irish side; the fierce opposition to self-governance in Ireland was as retarded in the 18th Century as it was in the 20th.
>>18631097requiring the eradication of a people in order to successfully conquer their home says more about the ineptitude of the conquerors than it does the problems posed by the people they're wiping out.
>>18631103>see the 1685 Argyll RebellionAnon, that rebellion was against James VII, you know, the king that the Jacobites supported...
>>18631129Yeah. My point is that if Jacobitism was this popular force in 1745, you’d have more clans like them joining. But it wasn’t. It was more complicated. It wasn’t popular, even in the Highlands. Major players like the Campbells didn’t support it. If they did, they would’ve risen, like they’ve done for past causes. Like that 1685 Argyll Rebellion. But it doesn’t stop at the Campbells. The MaKays, Sutherlands, Rosses, the main Gordon branches, etc. were the same.
>>18631127They are papist vermin
>>18631144Aren't there already more churchgoing Catholics than Anglicans in England as-is?
>>18631146not really a good comparison considering Anglicanism is full of anglo-catholics anywaysmost of the puritans went to america
>In *our* timeline, Ireland remained a Dominion until the late 1940sWhat was going on in this time? Like after the war but before full independence. were the IRA around?
>>18631140The cause in 1685 was that the legitimate monarch James VII needed to be deposed for being a Catholic.The cause in 1745 was that a Catholic pretender needed to be restored to the throne as the legitimate successor of James VII.They were diametrically opposed to each other so it goes without saying that the people who supported the former would most likely oppose the latter.
>>18631159I brought up 1685 as an example that even the less (going by romantic falsehoods) rebellious clans would have risen if it was a cause they believed in. But most of them weren’t Jacobites and they didn’t rise. The Campbells are just one example.
>>18631177Meant for >>18631160
>>18630907They're to submissive for that. Even invented a very popular 800 years of conquest famtasy.
>>18631127Sometimes your subjects are just stuck up cunts who would do worse to others if they could, like roman judea.
>>18631177>>18631178They're the worst possible example you could bring up since they opposed the Jacobite cause even when that was the risky bet. Most of the other clans had fluctuating loyalties to some extent, the Campbells didn't.
>>18629955Certainly the British were being worse to the Irish in the 1840s than in the early 1900s, but the fact that the treatment was still in its own right very bad with the famine and that whole social order virtually in living memory(and its not like things had gotten so much better that that cultural memory no practical current relevance) is an outrageous position to take. It should have been an outright charm offensive at that point if they really wanted to head off independence, not "better than losing 25 percent of the population in about 3 years, fighting tooth and nail to prevent home rule for decades."For one very specific thing just don't kill the leaders of the rising, turning them in many peoples eyes from dumb troublemakers with sympathetic motivations(but we can still probably pursue independence through politics) to martyrs and immortal heroes who exposed the true face and nature of British rule.
>>18631242The point of the example isn’t who had the most consistent loyalties across three or four generations. The point of the example is that almost all of the clans would rise for causes they supported.
>>18631218I think, given what they witnessed, the remaining Catholic nobility in Ireland were incredibly forgiving. Many of those who witnessed the complete and permanent death of "Gaelic Ireland" were happy enough to just move on provided they didn't continue getting fucked with.
>>18629841Cromwell was a communist philosemite.
>>18631288Actually I just wanted to voice my contempt for the classical hebrews
>>18631293And he still beat charlie "run run away" twice and then his spawn at the battle of the Dunes.
>>18631159>What was going on in [Irish Free State] time?Well there was the civil war, obviously, which had an enormous impact on Irish politics.From the initial division (Pro-Treaty vs Anti-Treaty) there emerged 4 main political groups;>Fine GaelConservatives, former Unionists, former Home Rulers. Extremely opposed to the IRA, generally opposed to anything seen as linked to revolutionary politics. Linked to Big Farmers and big business. Happy enough to put full independence on the backburner to focus on stability.>Fianna FáilThe more "liberal" side; veterans of the Anti-Treaty side of the civil war and smaller farmers/businesses. They (in theory) wanted to Republicanise the Free State and sought full severance from Britain.>LabourThe remnants of the Irish Labour Party, which was torn to shreds in the civil war and declined throughout the 1920s, then further due to infighting in the 1940s.>Sinn Féin/Republicans/the IRAWhile Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil were basically breakaways from Sinn Féin, SF continued to exist-but refused to recognise the legitimacy of either the Dáil Éireann or the northern government in Stormont. Suffered heavy suppression in the 1920s and 1940s, were in perpetual decline until their rebirth in the 1970s during the Troubles.The Government's focus was basically>1920s (Cumann na Geadheal)Total IRA death, WE are in charge and the revolution was stupid. We need stability and economic recovery.>1930s (FF)The IRA are fine, let them LARP. All other parties are British spooks. Time for economic self-sufficiency, and to start stripping British influence away.>1940s (FF)Okay the IRA aren't LARPing anymore, back to jail. Also WW2 is none of our business. Also we're leaving the Empire and becoming a full Republic.
>>18629921This. William Gladstone was also the greatest British PM btw
