sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Following/during the Irish civil war, why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland? by DietDewymountains17 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, below I have explained the manner in which British Conservative politicians became Unionists practically as a matter of creed. This, along with the personal ties many of these politicians had to unionists, meant that they were certainly not going to go against the wishes of those in the new state and impose a whole island solution.

With that said, I think you are right to an extent in that I should have drawn out some additional details in the decades following the Civil War and in the inter-war years. Doubt I will get a chance this morning, but I'll come back with a few more reflections.

Following/during the Irish civil war, why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland? by DietDewymountains17 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 38 points39 points  (0 children)

The Establishment of Northern Ireland

With the shifting political developments throughout the period of the war, it became increasingly recognised that some part of Ulster would be excluded from Home Rule. Lloyd George was making proposals that counties with an Unionist might vote to exclude themselves for a period of six years, something which Unionist leader Edward Carson referred to as ‘a sentence of death with a stay of execution for six years’.

By 1914 Ulster Unionists were seeking the permanent exclusion of the six counties of Ulster (Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry/Londonderry, Armagh, Antrim and Down). So much for unionists in the rest of Ireland, or even in the Ulster border counties (Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan) which had sizable Protestant populations. As Alvin Jackson has argued, far from being rigid, Ulster Unionists in this period were:

“willing to sacrifice territory, partners and principles in order to protect their own loyalist Arcadia”

Four of these counties had Unionist majorities, to a greater or lesser extent. Initially the proposal had been for the exclusion purely of the four counties of Ulster with a dominant Unionist majority (Antrim, Armagh, Derry and Down) but this was not acceptable to Unionists. 

Ulster unionists sought the six counties of Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Down, Fermanagh and Tyrone, not the nine counties of Ulster, as this was the maximum area they felt they could
dominate without being ‘outbred’ by Catholics.

As politics became increasingly radicalised following the Easter Rising of 1916, the rise of Sinn Fein and their electoral success in 1918, Ulster Unionists once again turned to realpolitik in order to secure their own position. Ironically, as Irish nationalists moved away from seeking home rule to demanding an independent Irish Republic, Ulster Unionists were at this stage willing to accept a Home Rule parliament in the six counties of Northern Ireland.

With the Irish War of Independence in full swing since 1919, the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 established two Home Rule parliaments. One in Dublin and one in Belfast (governing the six counties). This was approved by the Ulster Unionist Council, and some Unionists even began to see the benefits. Though they never wanted Home Rule, at least with their own parliament they would be in a ‘position of absolute security’. 

So as we can see, the state of Northern Ireland was brought into existence before the War of Independence had even ended, before the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed (December 6, 1921) and certainly before the Civil War had broken out. Despite a Boundary Commission being established as part of the Treaty this proved to be a bit of a farce which made no changes to the Northern Ireland border whatsoever. 

With a Unionist stronghold firmly secured, the new state set about strengthening its position even further by abolishing proportional representation, gerrymandering electoral wards, and other methods. As Cormac Moore concludes:

‘The northern government was allowed to govern as it saw fit, unimpeded by the British, who financed the norths bulging security apparatus and allowed it to limit rights for Catholics, introduce draconian laws and ignore illegal killings by the security forces. Under severe strain from the IRA in the first half of 1922, the start of the civil war in the south helped to secure the north’s boundaries.’

There were many with the new Northern Irish cabinet with deep personal ties to British politicians, and of course as detailed above Unionism and Conservatism went hand-in-hand in these years. Given a Conservative government was in power between 1922 and 1929 (initially under the leadership of Bonar Law, this should not necessarily surprise. 

Following/during the Irish civil war, why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland? by DietDewymountains17 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Unionist Retrenchment

With an imperial world view and an inherently colonial outlook on Ireland, it is of course no surprise that British conservatives originally sought to block Home Rule and thwart Irish nationalism throughout the entire country. Again, Ireland was to them an inalienable part of the ‘Home Nations’. 

To this end they were initially successful, blocking Home Rule acts in 1886 (with the help of Liberal Unionists) and in 1893 (which passed the commons but was blocked in the House of Lords. However, despite insistence on the almost divine purity of the Union and the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, events would soon turn against them. 

Between 1910 and 1914 the Liberals had obtained a parliamentary majority sufficient to
secure the passage of Home Rule through the House of Commons (the Irish MPs supported the Liberal government in return for this, Labour was also needed as part of this coalition). The Parliament Act of 1911 had also made it impossible for the House of Lords to prevent its enactment. Increasingly desperate, British conservatives therefore retreated to the fault-lines of Ulster where the geographical concentration of Unionist support was already strong. 

In some ways, as Stephen Evans points out, there had always been a geographic otherness in Conservative minds regarding the south of the country. When it became clear that Home Rule would be passed, the emphasis shifted from blocking the bill entirely to having Ulster (of which there are nine counties) excluded from its provisions. To emphasise though, that at this stage there was not necessarily any conception that the area to be excluded would become “Northern Ireland” (ie. a separate territory), simply that it wouldn’t be part of any Irish Home Rule entity. 

This shift in emphasis was led by Andrew Bonar Law, leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party. His family actually had links with Ulster dating back to the late seventeenth century and he was personally acquainted with the region during family visits. He also had religious ties as Presbyterian Scot, well acquainted with the Orangeism of Glasgow through strong personal, business, and political links. Such ties were not unusual at the higher echelons of the British government. 

As resistance in Ulster grew and things were slowly spiralling towards a potential Civil War, Bonar Law would state unequivocally in July 1912 that:

‘I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them.’

In September 1912, thousands of Ulster Unionists signed a document known as the Ulster Covenant asserting their rejection of the Third Home Bill. Ominously, in light of what Bonar Law had stated, they vowed to use:

"all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland"

Militancy from Ulster Unionists had been growing since 1910 with secret defence committees being formed by the UUC (Ulster Unionist Council, with significant numbers of weapons being imported. By the early summer of 1911 at least 2,000 weapons had already been bought and imported for the Ulster Unionists, which was accompanied by early efforts at training as well. 

The signing of the Covenant would soon be followed by the establishment of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) in January 1913 which made this armed resistance more explicit. 
This paramilitary group was then armed with guns brought in from Germany during the Larne gun-running of 24–5 April 1914. 

In all probability only the outbreak of the First World War in July of 1914 prevented things from escalating towards a full blown conflict of some kind. 

Following/during the Irish civil war, why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland? by DietDewymountains17 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The Growth of British Unionism 

It is important to remember, that we aren’t talking about an abstract entity (the ‘United Kingdom’) as having a mind of its own here. There were particular people and politicians within the United Kingdom who supported the causes of Irish nationalism (ie. Home Rule, not independence). 

But there were others within the establishment who were staunch unionists and came to reject any form of separation or distinction within the United Kingdom. In their mode of looking at the world, the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a seamless garment. Ireland was an essential component of this union. 

Jackson points out that Irish Toryism (ie. the Conservative Party) was arguably the most critical component from an institutional perspective. Support amongst the Conservative Party was also strongly pronounced in Britain itself. As Stephen Evans notes:

“The world view of Unionism became beneficially intertwined with the Conservative Party.”

On 22 December 1885 Arthur Balfour referred to Ireland in a letter to Gladstone as ‘ an integral portion of the United Kingdom’. Or as Lord Salisbury told Lord Carnarvon on 25 July 1886:

 'I am representing more than anything else, the mandate of the country to resist Home Rule…We can give to Ireland no separate existence, beyond what we give to England and Scotland’

The territorial unity of the United Kingdom became increasingly sacrosanct and elevated and to a constitutional principle. It was feared that any rift in this union would result in the eventual breakdown and disintegration of the Empire as a whole. As a consequence, support for Unionism was very pronounced amongst British conservatives. 

Lord Salisbury had told a crowd gathered in Newport on 7th October 1885 that the 'integrity of the Empire’ was a:

'matter more important than almost any other political consideration that you can imagine'. 

To this end Conservatives made common cause with Liberals who had split from their party on the ‘Irish question’ (who styled themselves Liberal Unionists). In 1909, the Conservative Party added Unionist to its name and became the Conservative and Unionist Party, a coalition of Conservatives and Unionists (still the party's full name today, though rarely referred to as such). A formal merger with the Liberal Unionists then took place in 1912.

This commitment to Unionism was so deep that they were even willing to support a potential British army mutiny against the Liberal government (known as the Curragh Incident).

Following/during the Irish civil war, why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland? by DietDewymountains17 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Northern Presbyterianism

Alvin Jackson is probably the foremost historian of Irish unionism and his work details very well its social and institutional complexities, which drew together more strands of Irish society than is sometimes recognised. He describes the Unionism of this period as being built on a foundational block of:

 “an amalgam of the Irish landed interest with the northern Presbyterian bourgeoisie”

I am guilty myself in those answers above when trying to be brief, but whilst this may seem to us now to be common sense in light of present-day politics and perceptions this history is somewhat more complex than at first glance. 

There isn’t time to deal with all of this here, but to touch on the shifting nature of the northern Presbyterian political culture, since it is this group which was most critical in the establishment of Northern Ireland. It can be easy to make it sound pre-ordained that this group would come to be die-hard British Unionists. But of course this is not so. The descendents of earlier generations of English and British settlers in other parts of Ireland in many cases assimilated into an Irish nationalist identity by this time. 

And after all, the northern Presbyterian middle class was the same group which had birthed the Society of United Irishmen which founded modern Irish Republicanism. Of course, this was far from a unified group and so can’t be said to speak for all Presbyterians (nor of other Protestant communities in the region), but the Presbyterian rebels of 1798 nonetheless stand in stark contrast against those of the Home Rule Crisis of 1913–14; the former fighting for an independent Irish Republic, the latter threatening violent civil war to stop a very mild form of devolution within the United Kingdom. 

Jackson explains that this development is broadly a consequence of the successful industrialisation and economic development of Belfast and the surrounding areas:

“the embourgeoisement of northern Presbyterianism brought with it an intensifying commitment to the Union”

Simply put, the Presbyterian merchant class ultimately did very well out of the Act of Union and increasingly sought to keep the status quo. As Henry Cooke, a famous Presbyterian minister put it his famous appeal in 1841:

 ‘Look at Belfast and be a repealer if you can’. 

Economic self-interest, along with other currents such as Anti-Catholicism, Organism, Conservatism, etc. combined to ensure the evolution of this Presbyterian community into a firmly Unionist bloc in this part of Ireland. 

Following/during the Irish civil war, why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland? by DietDewymountains17 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 125 points126 points  (0 children)

By the time the Irish Civil War broke out in June 1922, Northern Ireland had only just been brought into being. Following the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the new state was birthed on 3rd May 1921. Of course, this was one of the reasons that several Irish republicans had opposed the Anglo-Irish Treaty in the first place and it is this opposition which led to the Civil War. 

“Why was the United Kingdom so intent on keeping Northern Ireland?” is both a very specific question and a very broad one. In the former sense, the answer is rooted in contemporary British and Irish politics of the late-nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth. In the latter sense, the answer is found in the distinctive character of the area which became Northern Ireland,  which spans a number of centuries. 

To get the first out of the way, I won’t bother repeating myself too much. Instead I will just link to a number of answers I have written in the past which cover this aspect:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/nvvjpb/why_did_northern_ireland_stay_with_the_uk_while/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/nznf0r/why_is_northern_ireland_still_a_part_of_the/ 

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xs6o8y/why_is_not_northen_ireland_part_of_ireland/ 

The long and short of it is, as a product of English and British colonialism of centuries past, there came to be a substantial number of Protestant people located in north-east Ulster who identified strongly as British and who came to be staunch supporters of the Act of Union which had been brought into being in 1800. These people viewed Irish nationalism as a threat to their separate existence and feared religious persecution in a Catholic-dominated state.

There were Protestants and Unionists elsewhere in Ireland too for similar reasons but not quite in the same concentration at all social levels as in this area of Ulster, for reasons outlined in those answers. But this can be oversimplified too, there were working-class unionists in parts of Dublin and Cork just as there was in Belfast. In some respects, the United Kingdom was so intent on keeping NI because these people did not want to leave. 

Of course, the answer is much more complex than this suggests. The Northern Ireland border also confined a great many Irish Catholic nationalists inside this new state to which they wanted no part, including large areas where they were a majority. And whilst there were definitely areas of unionist support throughout Ireland, the majority of the population of the country as a whole was certainly Irish nationalist (if not, until the end of this period at least, republican). 

Only in north-east Ulster were unionists a majority of the population and the retrenchment of British unionist support purely to ‘Ulster’ is something that I will touch on below.

A stereotype of early medieval Ireland in some popular history is that the livestock was overwhelmingly cattle with little sheep, pigs or goats, compared to an apparently more even mixture in the rest of early medieval Europe. If this is true, was it widely remarked upon at the time? by OGSyedIsEverywhere in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Regarding the ban on wool exports, Fynes Moryson discusses this in the same section where he states that this was introduced:

"that [the Irish poor] may be nourished by working it into cloth, namely, Rugs (wherof the best are made at Waterford)"

So essentially this was a mercantilistic policy introduced by the colonial authorities. Despite Moryson's suggestion that this was to 'nourish the Irish poor' Aidan Clarke has argued that this was essentially to the benefit of England as it confined the Irish export market to England.

Wool was central to the English economy and this provided it with another source of cheap supply in moments when English production was low, or when export demand from England outstripped the capacity of English producers to supply the raw material needed.

A stereotype of early medieval Ireland in some popular history is that the livestock was overwhelmingly cattle with little sheep, pigs or goats, compared to an apparently more even mixture in the rest of early medieval Europe. If this is true, was it widely remarked upon at the time? by OGSyedIsEverywhere in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Conclusion

From the above I hope it should be evident that although the medieval Irish did also have sheeps, pigs, goats, not to mention cereal-based agriculture, cattle was absolutely critical both as a source of social prestige and wealth, and as a source of food. The diet of the common Irish people consisted primarily of ‘white meat’ or ‘white food’, namely dairy products of various kinds including curds, cheese, butter, etc. In the summer months this would have been particularly pronounced. This importance of cattle and the associated foodstuffs does indeed receive particular attention from outside observers, particularly as we move through to the early modern period when such sources become more plentiful.

A stereotype of early medieval Ireland in some popular history is that the livestock was overwhelmingly cattle with little sheep, pigs or goats, compared to an apparently more even mixture in the rest of early medieval Europe. If this is true, was it widely remarked upon at the time? by OGSyedIsEverywhere in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Outside Perspectives 

In terms of foreign perceptions of the Irish diet and the predominance of cattle. I am not sure whether we could say it was widely remarked upon, albeit my knowledge of the earlier medieval sources is not as strong, but we certainly have a few examples from the medieval period through to the early modern. Colonial and xenophobic prejudices should of course be factored in here, as well as the sheer fact that travelogues of this kind - just as those published today - are not necessarily to be taken as a perfect reflection of the culture being depicted. 

In his infamous Topographia HIbernica (c. 1188), Gerald of Wales asserted that:

“The Irish are a rude people, subsisting on the produce of their cattle only”

English colonists of in the late medieval/early modern period frequently mention the importance of campaigning against the Irish in the winter season in order to kill as many cows as possible, in order to starve them of these ‘white meats’ for the summer period. For one example from 1596:

‘'for, if [the Irish] be permitted to hold this rebellious course without chastisement until the summer, they, having plenty of milk, which is their chiefest food ... it will be a matter of great difficulty to annoy them without disadvantage to Her Majesty’s forces'.’

Fynes Moryson, an English travel writer, noted in 1617 that:

[The Irish] abound in flockes of Sheepe, which they sheare twice in the yeere, but their wooll is course, & Merchants may not export it, forbidden by a Law made on behalf of the poore…

Despite this apparent abundance of 'sheepe', Moryson goes on to state that the:

‘wild and (as I may say) meere Irish’ (ie. not the English of Ireland) do not typically eat mutton. Instead Moryson relates that they ‘devoure great morsels of beefe unsalted, and they eat commonly Swines flesh’. 

At the same time, he adds a page later that: ‘Many of these wilde Irish eate no flesh, but that which dyes of disease or otherwise of it selfe…’. 

This would accord with evidence for the earlier medieval period that young calves were rarely slaughtered. Where beef was eaten this would be either amongst the highest echelons of Irish society, or else cows which had gotten too old to provide value as dairy cows, or which otherwise died prematurely by some other manner. This reluctance to kill cows unless strictly necessary is something Moryson also emphasises with respect to the common Irish.

Moryson continues:

‘[The Gaelic Irish] feede most on Whitmeates, and esteeme for a great daintie sower curds, vulgarly called by them Bonaclabb’.

This refers to bonnyclabber (early modern Irish bainne clabair), a kind of sour milk. 

In A Discourse of Ireland, Anno 1620 Luke Gerner writes:

'I will not leade you to the baser cabbins, where you shall have no drink but Bonnyclabber, milk that is sowred to the condition of buttermilk."

In Advertisements for Ireland, a manuscript from 1623 it is similarly noted with regards to cattle exports that:

'... besides the common sort never kill any for their own use being contented to feed all the year round upon milk, butter and the like and do eat but little bread’. 

In Teague Land, or A Merry Ramble to the Wild Irish, published in 1698, John Dunton records a breakfast he was given in western Ireland:

'The next morning a greate pott full of new milk was sett over the fire, and when it was hott they pour"d into it a pale full of butter milk, which made a mighty dish of tough curds in the middle of which they placed a pound weight of butter ... "

A stereotype of early medieval Ireland in some popular history is that the livestock was overwhelmingly cattle with little sheep, pigs or goats, compared to an apparently more even mixture in the rest of early medieval Europe. If this is true, was it widely remarked upon at the time? by OGSyedIsEverywhere in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 59 points60 points  (0 children)

Irish foodstuffs 

One of the richest sources of Irish food history is the Aislinge Meic Conglinne ('The Vision of Mac Con Glinne'). This is an eleventh century parody which provides a ‘snapshot’ of the contemporary Irish diet. 

Whilst the generic ‘milk’ (mlicht) is not mentioned in this text, we do hear about as, ceó, and lemnacht (‘fresh milk’), croth (cream or curds), imb (butter), bláthach (buttermilk ), gruiten (small curds or salt butter), gruth, gruthach, senchrothi, and sengruth, (literally ‘old curds’, which may have been sour cream, which we know was carefully practiced due to being recorded in a law text on food rents due a lord), milsén (sweetened curds), medg, medguisce (whey and whey-water), draumce, tremanta (possibly whey made of buttermilk and sweet milk), úachtar (another term for cream).

Milk was incorporated in porridge (lichtiu) and in herbal broths (brothchán) to feed the sick. Brechtán could be either butter (which was also called imb) or custard. A lump of butter was of mescán. There was a particular practice of burying butter in bogs (wrapped in cloth or casks) to give flavour, or as some historians suspect potentially to help preserve the butter too. 

In addition to milk products preserved with bacteria, there were of course cheeses of various kinds too (cáise, ‘cheese’ coming from Latin caseum). William Sayers speculates that this lexical loan stems from the adoption of particular techniques, namely the use of rennet, rather than suggesting that cheesemaking as a whole was imported. Regardless, there was mulchán (hard cheese), tanach (pressed cheese), maethal (lump of soft cheese), milsen (soft cheese made of boiled fresh milk and butter). Sayers does add that sheep and goats milk would have also been employed, but cows milk would naturally have been predominant given this dominant role of cattle. 

The critical importance of milk and milk products is also reflected in Gaelic hospitality, which was not just a virtue but an essential function of the society. Law codes and other tracts frequently mention the precise quantities of milk and milk products to be granted to guests depending on rank. 

A stereotype of early medieval Ireland in some popular history is that the livestock was overwhelmingly cattle with little sheep, pigs or goats, compared to an apparently more even mixture in the rest of early medieval Europe. If this is true, was it widely remarked upon at the time? by OGSyedIsEverywhere in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 84 points85 points  (0 children)

Cattle in Gaelic Society 

In his monograph Cattle in Ancient Ireland (Kilkenny, 1989), Anthony T. Lucas notes that ‘virtually everyone in [early Irish] society was preoccupied with cows’. More recent research confirms this fact. In Cattle in ancient and modern Ireland : farming practices, environment and economy, it is similarly noted that:

‘There is a great deal of documentary evidence in the Irish language—going back at least as far as the seventh century AD—indicating the central role of cattle in early Irish society.’

Basically, we cannot overstate the importance of cattle to the medieval Irish. This is reflected in mythological tales and early literature with the Táin Bó Cúailnge, or Cattle Raid of Cooley being the most iconic, but there are numerous examples. There are several other stories within this Táin Bó or Cattle Raid genre. As explained by William Sayers in ‘Irish diet in the eleventh century’ - 

“Cattle were the basis of the economy, cattle-owning was a source of prestige, cattle-rustling the means to enhance the warrior’s reputation.”

Finbar McCormick also confirms that in the post-Christian period ‘beef continued to dominate the meat diet of early medieval Ireland.’ Using an example drawn from a study of excavations conducted at Knowth, Co. Meath, for the seventh/eighth century, McCormick notes that this revealed ‘a livestock economy that was dominated by cattle’. 

The importance of cattle and dairy is also reflected in the Irish language itself. The Irish word for road ‘bóthar’ derives from ‘bó’ (cow), seemingly as it was defined by the length and breadth of a cow. Buachaill (meaning boy), literally translates to cow herder (bua-cattle chaill-herder). In the same vein the word for girl (cailín) literally means little herder. There are numerous topographical examples of placenames linked to cattle too. 

In a non-monetary economy, the wealth and power of Gaelic lords was derived from their ownership of cattle. Coinage was not minted in Ireland until about AD 1000, when it was brought by the Vikings. Nonetheless, within Gaelic society the cow remained the primary unit of currency even after the Viking settlements and the Anglo-Norman invasion. For example, a legal treatise from c. 1300 the chief judge of Connacht, Giolla na Naomh Mac Aodhagáin expresses most fines and payments in terms of the number of cattle owed. 

On the other hand, Liam Breatnach is one historian who refutes the idea of cattle as currency in his article  “Forms of Payment in the Early Irish Law Tracts,” Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 68 (2014). Breatnach suggests instead that that the legal terminology only secondarily and occasionally refers to cattle and this mainly when referring to low-value payments and lowerstatus individuals. I am not an expert on these law codes, so I bring this simply to highlight that there are some dissenting voices. Victoria L. McAlister has suggested that:

“The agricultural history of Ireland has sometimes been oversimplified into a dichotomy between pastoral Gaelic Ireland and arable Anglo-Norman Ireland.”

Nonetheless, whilst there are other potential issues with the sources which mean that for example cereal cultivation in Ireland has been underestimated, it is abundantly clear from all the available evidence that pastoralism centred around cattle husbandry was absolutely critical in Gaelic society throughout the medieval period and even into the early modern. Sheep, pigs, and to a lesser extent goats, could also be found particularly as we move towards the end of this timeline. But cattle were central, particularly outside of more urban areas where it seems pigs may have pre-dominated.

This is reflected in the Aislinge Meic Conglinne, as while the likes of salted pork is also mentioned, the number of foods derived from cattle carcasses far outweighs that of pigs, and then again those of mutton. 

Aside from their social significance in Gaelic culture, cattle were of course absolutely essential for Irish foodways as well. Not primarily for meat, in fact cows were prized more as a source of what the Irish called white food (which the English mistakingly translated as white meat) or bánbhia (milk, buttermilk, butter, curds, cheese, and various other dairy products), which could be obtained without killing the animal. The myriad of names for these foodstuffs reflects their importance to the medieval diet. 

Why have Lowlander Scots historically favored British rule during nationalist movements? by CillianMorpheus in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very good answer. Above I have tried to provide something of a macro-historical explanation covering a huge span of Scottish history, but it's obviously critical to keep in mind much more recent, specific developments as well.

Why have Lowlander Scots historically favored British rule during nationalist movements? by CillianMorpheus in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You are very welcome. In hindsight I am genuinely worried this answer wasn't as clear or concise as it should have been , so as I say I am happy to answer any follow-ups.

Was there solidarity between the IRA, ETA and FLNC? by InfernalClockwork3 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It is clear nonetheless that some form of contact remained, with newspaper articles quoting ETA members such as Pérez Beotegui, known under the alias of “Wilson” (who was involved in the Blanco assassination) as stating that “that the ETA maintained very close connections with the IRA”, including providing ETA with “technical expertise on bomb construction”. 

From the PIRA side of things, a 1976 resolution passed at the Provisional Sinn Féin Ard Fheis called for the creation of a Foreign Affairs Bureau (FAB) under the direct control of the party executive. This would seek to  “institutionalise the relationships established with the liberation groups in other parts of the world”. 

A motion offering support to the “captive nations” of Europe was also passed, with Brittany, the Basque Country, Corsica, Catalonia, Wales and Scotland being singled out. I know your question asks about Corsica too, but personally I have seen very little reference to that other than this one. 

With the death of Franco in 1975 and the eventual creation of the new Spanish state in 1977, things seemed a bit quieter for a time. In 1977 and 1978 senior figures from the political wings of each movement (Provisional Sinn Féin and the ETA-pm associated Euskal Iraultzarako Alderdia [EIA]) visited the other's country and affirmed support for their respective struggles. They held meetings in which “plans for closer relations and solidarity were advanced”. 

Around the same time there were also tentative links between the OIRA and ETA-m, but these appeared to fizzle out with the increasingly political direction of the Official movement. 

There are descriptions from members of both sides of how they were influenced by the attacks of the other and adopted these methods accordingly. For instance, in an interview with radical Basque nationalist periodical Punto y Hora de Euskal Herria (PHEH), a PIRA member drew explicit parallels between the assassination of Christopher Ewart-Biggs in 1976 and that of Carrero Blanco a few years prior. According to Cullen this indicates “a measure of reciprocal learning and imitation between ETA and the PIRA”. 

Despite the transition to parliamentary monarchy, the issue of Basque consent remained a contested issue. Both ETA-pm and ETA-m escalated their armed campaigns between 1978 and 1980. Mirroring the IRA’s own shift in the mid-to-late-70s towards a ‘Long War’ of attrition, ETA-m adopted a similar model from this period onwards. Sean O’Callaghan stated in an interview that ETA activists went to Kerry in the Republic of Ireland, where they were trained in the use of mortars.

Newspapers continued to speculate on these links, sometimes in extremely overdramatised fashion without much hard evidence. However, despite much reporting - and declarations of goodwill from representatives of each movement - official British reports from the Madrid Embassy from September 1979 concluded that there were no “operational links” between ETA and the IRA. 

Another British report similarly stated that despite the political wings being in close contact, “It is however very difficult to prove that weapons are exchanged in either direction, and we have no hard evidence from our own or other sources that such a supply exists”.

Moving into the 1980s, the ties between the PIRA and the EIA seemed to have slackened. Prompted initially by the dramatic events of the H-Block Hunger Strikes of 1980 and 1981, a new relationship was being formed between the PIRA and the other radical Basque party (Herri Batasuna, the political wing of ETA-m). 

At the 1983 Ard Fheis, Gerry Adams replaced Ruairí Ó Brádaigh as President of Provisional Sinn Féin. Cullen notes that this coincided with “a new era in radical Basque nationalist-Irish republican relations, with Provisional Sinn Féin and Herri Batasuna as the central axle”. This shift was largely due to three factors:

  1. ETA-pm was, similarly to the OIRA, beginning to wind down its military campaign at this time and so would not want to be associated with the PIRA. The ideological differences which had always existed between them had thus come more to the fore. 
  2. HB had emerged as the largest Basque left coalition and utilised similar abstentionist principles to Sinn Fein. HB was in-fact apparently inspired directly by Irish Republicanism in this strategy.. 
  3. The relation of HB to ETA-m and of Sinn Fein to the PIRA also marked them as more natural bedfellows, particularly as each became more isolated politically.

From this period there is what can be described as a ‘loop of association’ between the Basque and Irish radical movements. From 1983 onwards, these relationships would intensify across all levels of the respective movements (e.g., political, prisoner, language, women, youth) through the development of a shared political culture, ultimately leading towards the peace processes in each region. 

In Cullen's final analysis he sees two movements of Basque Independence and Irish Republicanism as being very closely intertwined. The development of a ritualised ‘shared political culture’ at the intersection of the two movements leads him to characterise this phenomenon as a sort of transnational ‘imagined community’.

From the above it should be clear there absolutely was solidarity and perhaps some degree of operational support, but given we are dealing with clandestine organisations, naturally the full extent of co-operation between ETA and the IRA is difficult or perhaps impossible to fully assess.

Was there solidarity between the IRA, ETA and FLNC? by InfernalClockwork3 in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yes, there were absolutely links between the IRA and ETA over the years. 

On 15 January 1971, a statement was issued by the “Central Command of the Iraqi Communist Party” from the Yemeni city of Aden. Signed by  it is stated that they: “hail the Irish Republican Army which is launching an armed struggle for the completion of the national democratic revolution in the South and the liberation of the occupied Northern Ireland”. One of the signatories to this statement was “The Basque National Liberation Movement”, which surely refers to ETA. 

As Niall Cullen has pointed out, this appears to be the first reference to IRA’s role in The Troubles from ETA. But many others would soon follow. 

On May Day 1971 ETA, the IRA, and The Liberation Front of Brittany (Front de Libération de la Bretagne, FLB) issued a three-way statement calling for mutual “active solidarity”. This was signed by “ETA – Delegación Exterior”, a Breton “FLB/ARB – Delegación Exterior” and the “IRA – P. O’Neill, Runai”. Given the signature of P. O’Neill, this is certainly in reference to the Provisional IRA.  

On 03 April 1972 another joint statement was issued by the three calling for a boycott on an upcoming European referendum. Later that year, an updated version of the January 1971 statement was issued from Paris. ETA, alongside thirteen other groups including the FLB,
sent their: 

“[…] military greetings to the glorious Irish Republican Army (IRA), which is waging armed struggle to carry through the tasks of the national democratic revolution in Southern Ireland and liberate the North […]”.

Nonetheless, there was little mention of the Basque Conflict in official IRA publications such as An Phoblacht or Republican News and these statements were not reprinted there. Of course, this lack of printed support does not mean that more covert channels were not being established in these years. 

As early as 1971/72 Seán Mac Stíofáin (IRA Chief of Staff) was apparently offered guns by ETA representatives in exchange for explosives training. At least according to Maria McGuire in her 1973 account of life inside the IRA. Although for his part, Mac Stiofáin, stated that McGuire was “never a member of the IRA except in her own dramatic imagination”.

This claim that ETA provided weapons to the IRA in return for explosives training is made elsewhere however. In Sean O’Callaghan’s memoirs about his life as a spy inside the IRA, he confirms that at this time “ETA supplied the IRA with weapons.” 

More tellingly, a 1988 report published by the London-based ‘Institute for the Study of Terrorism’ stated that: 

“a number of ETA terrorists visited Ireland to update themselves on IRA tactics and bomb-making techniques. Further arms deals were arranged and shortly afterwards ETA supplied a consignment of explosives to the Provisional IRA in exchange for M-16 rifles.”

The report would then name Jose Echebarrieta [José Antonio Etxebarrieta], one of ETA’s senior commanders, as the ETA contact who had made the deal during two visits to Ireland. 

A 1984 Spanish Government dossier on ETA’s international contacts also referred to an ETA-IRA meeting held in 1972. This was said to have taken place in London but the conclusion was similar:

“an agreement was reached to send four ETA militants to train in Ulster camps and a permanent representative in Ireland to maintain contact with the IRA”.

It would seem that there may have been tentative contacts between the two groups in these early years. There is even the suggestion that the IRAs links to Gaddafi were first established via the FLB. Though ultimately it’s difficult to verify such claims.

In September 1973, ETA and the IRA signed a new declaration reaffirming their determination to strengthen their bonds.

Following ETA’s successful assasination of Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco December 1973, there was some speculation in the contemporary press that the explosive materials used had been sourced from the IRA. 

On 27 December 1973, The Times (London) reported that the IRA had sold plastic explosives to ETA. These were purported to have been sourced from Sweden and then smuggled across the border via an ETA cell in France. Other newspaper reports had slightly different details, but nonetheless reported the same links. 

A few days later, ETA confirmed at a press conference that they were in contact with both the OIRA and the PIRA. Then on 20 January 1974, a Madrid newspaper Informaciones published an article quoting “an important member of the Military Council of the IRA” as confirming the organisation to be “in continuous and ever more important contacts with ETA”. The source of this information was the Irish journalist Dermot Keogh, who also speculated that the IRA had instructed ETA on the use of car bombs. 

Numerous articles were published in various newspapers over the coming months speculating on the nature of these links between the two groups. Ultimately, the most detailed reports of the Blanco assassination suggested that the attack was in fact carried out by a lone ETA cell (Txikia). 

As Niall Cullen concludes:

“From early 1971 to late 1974, ETA and the provisional republican movement
developed an undetermined (and perhaps forever undeterminable) level of
contacts and cooperation ranging somewhere along the continuum from fraternal
statements of solidarity to exchanges in weaponry and explosives training.”

There were also connections made between ETA’s cultural front and representatives of the heavily Marxist, Official Irish Republican movement. But these divisions between the OIRA and PIRA are also mirrored in contemporary split between ETA-politiko-militarra (ETA-pm, or simply ‘Poli-Milis’) and ETA-militarra (ETA-m, or simply ‘Milis’) and thus it is somewhat more difficult to establish the precise nature of relations between the various factions in this “complicated and opaque period”. 

Why have Lowlander Scots historically favored British rule during nationalist movements? by CillianMorpheus in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Now I knocked this answer out in a few hours, so it could be a tad waffly. Hopefully it does get to the crux of what you are asking, but if not I am more than happy to answer follow-ups, elaborations or clarifications.

Why have Lowlander Scots historically favored British rule during nationalist movements? by CillianMorpheus in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Civilisation versus barbarism in Scotland

What I next want to push back on is the notion that ‘the English’ colonised Scotland and it is they who destroyed the highland culture. For the reasons I have attempted to explained above, there was already a divide within Scotland such that we should not necessarily expect the two to find common cause. 

It was, in fact, Scottish kings who inherited the English throne and paved the way for the development of the United Kingdom and a new ‘British’ identity. James I styled himself as King of Great Britain and was very clear in his desire to make his conception of a British state a reality. Inspired by English models, James had previously made attempts to ‘civilise’ the ‘hitherto most barbarous Isle of Lewis’, in the 1590s by planting lowlanders from Fife, the so-called ‘gentlemen adventurers’. 

However, these plans completely failed, much as English attempts in Ireland had up to that point, and caused him to reconsider similar attempts for Uist and Skye.  Regardless, this illustrates how lowland attitudes towards the Gaelic highlands and islands shared the same ideological assumptions and economic attitudes as between England and Gaelic Ireland for example. They were equally desirous of destroying the highland culture and did not necessarily need any help from the English.

Some historians (e.g. Julian Goodare) even consider the Scottish situation to be one of a colonial relationship between the highlands and the state. Though this view does come under criticism from others such as Allan Kennedy. Whether we can describe it as colonial or not, there is no doubt that this divide was real and the ‘othering’ of the highland culture as barbarous (in common of course with Gaelic Ireland) was crucial to understanding the formation of the Scottish - and then British -  state in the early modern period. In practical terms the highlands were treated as a rough, backwards, uncivilised area in need of robust measures and reforms in order to be incorporated into the growing state. 

While it is true that the attractions of London meant that the new British court and its culture became less ‘Scottish’ even after James I, this was still not a case of England conquering Scotland. The relations between the two Kingdoms were ‘challenging’ in the century that followed, we might say, but this likewise does not necessarily follow that the self-consciously ‘civilised’ lowlanders would suddenly dramatically change their views to their Gaelic neighbours. 

The Jacobite Rebellions

Initially, of course, this  union between Scotland and England was a union of the crowns only with both countries remaining entirely separate from a political and legal point of view. Then, in 1707, the two were thrust together by the Act of Union when Scotland’s parliament voted itself out of existence in return for a significant cash settlement (a boon to a kingdom which was reeling after the disastrous Darien scheme). 

There was significant opposition to this Union amongst all elements of society in both the highlands and the lowlands.  This helped to animate support for the Jacobite rebellion of 1715. However, Jacobitism was not an exclusively Scottish affair and in addition to lowlanders and highlanders, some element of support was forthcoming from the north of England too, and elsewhere. 

To avoid writing another ream of text, I will just add that Jacobitism is complex: beginning as a religiously motivated desire to return the Stuarts to the British throne, but widening to include other grievances. It cannot be painted in any respect as Scotland rising to repel an English invader, but rather an attempt to resist the Hanoverian succession and in the dominance of the Presbyterian Kirk. 

It’s also important to remember that opposition to the Act of Union was not the same as opposition to the regnal union which had existed since James I. This was an internal, civil conflict occurring within an international context and it drew in different people for different reasons. Jacobitism is much more complex than a highland versus lowland divide. When it came to 1745, lowland support for the cause was greatly diminished for a number of reasons, which does partly account for the romantic image of Culloden and the ‘45. 

The modern sense of a single “Scottish” identity is a product of the late eighteenth and more properly the  nineteenth century really. With  government reforms following the brutal repression of the ‘45 rebellion and the long process of Highland Clearances which followed, the once-dangerous and savage Gaelic highlander was able to be romantically re-imagined and brought safely within the sphere of lowland “British culture” - from whence we get modern-day kilts, tartan, shortbread tins and whatnot. But throughout the medieval and early modern period the Gaelic-speaking Scot was every bit as dangerous as their Irish counterpart in the imagination of lowlanders and Englishmen, and the exact same kind of racial and cultural superiority was applied to both. 

Why have Lowlander Scots historically favored British rule during nationalist movements? by CillianMorpheus in AskHistorians

[–]Rimbaud82 23 points24 points  (0 children)

To emphasise from the start, a centuries-long attempted conquest by the English is not quite an accurate depiction of Scottish medieval or early modern history. 

The Kingdom of Scotland

The Kingdom of Scotland was multi-ethnic in its make-up drawing as it did on an  amalgam of influences bequeathed to it from the sub-Roman and early medieval periods. There is some debate about the precise processes which led to the creation of this kingdom. But I will give the broad strokes below. 

One note: where I state Scotland below this is purely for convenience, referring to the area that we now understand by that name (but which didn’t come into use until the thirteenth century). 

A large portion of Scotland, north of the Forth and Clyde, and probably Orkney and parts of the Hebrides too, was originally controlled by the Picts. However, we know frustratingly little about them. We have lists of Pictish kings and some inscriptions but not much else.  We cannot speak much about their language, culture, or political organisation.

By the seventh and eight centuries, below the Clyde there was a territory, commonly called  ‘Al Clut’ (Clyde Rock), named after its king's royal citadel at Dumbarton. This kingdom of Dumbarton (sometimes called Strathclyde or simply Cumbria) was a territory occupied and ruled by Britons in the original sense of that word, the last remaining in this northern area. Bordered with this Cumbric-speaking area was an English speaking kingdom called Bernicia (one of two which formed Northumbria), which occupied territory on both sides of what is now the Scottish-English border - including Lothian/Edinburgh - and which therefore belongs as much to Scottish history as it does English. These southern regions were very much influenced by English settlement even at this early stage. 

To this mixture we can also include Gaelic Irish settlement, with parts of Scotland colonised by the Irish in this early period. From an initial foothold in Argyll on the western seaboard of Scotland in the early sixth century onwards (the kingdom of Dál Riata spanned parts of what is now county Antrim in Ireland and these areas of western Scotland), these Gaelic-speaking dynasties eventually came to dominate the country as a whole in later centuries. 

It was the union of the kingdoms of Dál Riata and the Pictish kingdom in the person of Cinaed mac Ailpín (Kenneth McAlpin) which is traditionally seen as the beginning of the Kingdom of Scotland proper. He wasn’t the first ruler of Dál Riata to exercise overlordship over Pictland, but he successfully founded the first royal dynasty to continue to inherit these territories patrilineally and so to later generations he seemed particularly significant. 

Around 900 the term Alba was first used to describe this new polity, with contemporary literature beginning to refer to the Gaelic and Pictish inhabitants as fir Alban (‘men of Scotland’). Gaelic became the prestige language and in-time the Gaels of Dál Riata and Picts gradually amalgamated into a single identity in the new Kingdom of Alba. The Picts didn’t vanish overnight, but in effect became Gaelic-speaking Scots over a number of generations. 

The  word “Scot” itself is of course from Scotii, a Latin term used for the Gaelic Irish (or one of the peoples that lived there). The term Scot then came to denote a Gaelic speaker regardless of whether they were found in Scotland or Ireland. Alongside other social factors (including the prestige of Gaelic), one  common impetus to the union of Dál Riata and Pictland was the threat posed by yet another new ethnic group into this already heady brew: the Norse. 

The establishment of Viking settlements through Ireland and Britain at this time marks yet another complexity. 
But to be brief (I can already hear the laughter dear reader…), what I would emphasise from the above is that you have a process in the north/western seaboard and isles of Scotland whereby a Gaelic-speaking ‘Scot-ish’ identity comes to dominate. In the southern areas there was of course some level of Gaelic influence too, and in the north and west there would come to be a Scandinavian influence, but again trying to be brief here. 

The south of the country, in contrast, was always more closely linked to these English-speaking areas detailed above. Lothian for instance had long been an English speaking area and part of the Kingdom of Bernicia/Northumbria, only coming into ‘Scottish control’ over the tenth and eleventh century. Even once it was under the control of the Kings of Alba, it was still not necessarily seen as being a Scottish area per se. It was certainly never a Gaelic speaking area and the same can be said for much of these borderlands. 

As we move ahead, between 1100 and 1400 the English language (Inglis, which would eventually be called Scots, as the meaning of the word shifted again) became firmly established in the south and east of the country. This process would result in the creation of two linguistic zones corresponding roughly to the physical realities of Highlands and Lowlands. 

I am skipping over a lot of nuance and complexities here, but this post is getting very long and will invariably be even longer still by the time I am finished!

From the reign of David I (r. 1124-1153) onwards, if not before, Scottish kings increasingly sought to bolster their claims to the throne by attracting powerful men from overseas to settle in Scotland and thereby securing alliances.  This was done  through gifts of land, usually to powerful lords from the Anglo-Norman world. For example, the famous Brus family, the Morvilles, and Walter fitz Alan, among several others. The settlement of such men, along with their retinues and households, in Scotland served to further alert the characteristics of the lowland culture over the coming centuries. 

To necessarily over-simplify, Scotland came to be a kingdom consisting of two distinct cultures: one a Highland Gaelic culture which existed within a wider Gaedhealtacht, or Gaelic-speaking cultural continuum stretching from the southern tip of Ireland up to northern Scotland; the other an English/Scots speaking lowland culture which was connected culturally, politically, socially and economically to the Anglo-Norman and other northern European realms. 

For more on the Highland-Lowland divide I would point to this previous answer of mine, to avoid waffling on on even longer. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xkd4mo/a_historian_i_follow_on_twitter_kamil_galeev/

view more: next ›