HOW WOULD YOU VOTE IN A BORDER POLL?

[Lar Naparka]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

[yellowcard]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.   

[sid waddell]

Those who hold the "youse left us behind" narrative should note the following:

Had the Free Staters decided to invade the North or go to war with Unionists, it would have been done on the exact same rationale as Hitler used to invade the Sudetenland

The Nazis believed that the concept of a Greater Germany was an inherently natural, God-given one

Putin uses this narrative to occupy parts of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova

Hardline Israelis use this narrative to occupy Palestine

There is no such a thing in nature as an independent all-Ireland state and there never will be such a thing, because no state exists in nature

An independent all-Ireland state would be an artificial creation, just like the United Kingdom is and Northern Ireland itself is

[sid waddell]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

[sid waddell]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

I'm not splitting hairs

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

[Milltown Row2]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

Lets just say you closed the gate, welded it shut and moved on

[yellowcard]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

I wouldn't be just as definite about whether it was the correct decision and it is easier to say that it was if you are living in the south and have already gained your independence. We could be sitting here today with an entire island under some form of British rule or alternatively we could be sitting in a 32 county republic, who knows. The likelihood is that there were would have been further bloodshed though.

[yellowcard]

I also note that another northerner has voted to 'keep Ulster British' in the poll. Is there no way of revealing usernames on these polls?

[sid waddell]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

Lets just say you closed the gate, welded it shut and moved on

In your view, not in reality

Bunreacht na hEireann had Articles 2 and 3

Those who believe the South should have invaded the North appear to maintain that a fledgling quasi-independent state could have defeated the might of the British Empire and successfully claimed a territory which was part of the United Kingdom itself - where a clear majority wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom

Even Hitler didn't try that

Argentina invaded the Falklands, a group of islands on its doorstep with a tiny population, conditions were infinitely more favourable for a successful conquest than they would have been in the North, but they were routed by the Brits

And yet some people here think there would have been a different result had the new Free State tried it in the 1920s?

Delusion is putting it mildly

Consider the mass forced population transfers in Europe after wars in the 20th century

Consider India/Pakistan post-1947

Consider what's happened to the Rohingya in Burma recently

It is far from beyond the bounds of possibility that had the Free State decided to "not leave behind" Northern Catholics in 1922, there would scarcely have been a Northern Catholic remaining at the end of it all, they'd have been either dead or ethnically cleansed into Louth or Monaghan or Cavan or Leitrim or Donegal, or further south

They might have taken Donegal as plunder

There would likely have been no North to ever "get back"

[yellowcard]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

Lets just say you closed the gate, welded it shut and moved on

In your view, not in reality

Bunreacht na hEireann had Articles 2 and 3

Those who believe the South should have invaded the North appear to maintain that a fledgling quasi-independent state could have defeated the might of the British Empire and successfully claimed a territory which was part of the United Kingdom itself - where a clear majority wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom

Even Hitler didn't try that

Argentina invaded the Falklands, a group of islands on its doorstep with a tiny population, conditions were infinitely more favourable for a successful conquest than they would have been in the North, but they were routed by the Brits

And yet some people here think there would have been a different result had the new Free State tried it in the 1920s?

Delusion is putting it mildly

Consider the mass forced population transfers in Europe after wars in the 20th century

Consider India/Pakistan post-1947

Consider what's happened to the Rohingya in Burma recently

It is far from beyond the bounds of possibility that had the Free State decided to "not leave behind" Northern Catholics in 1922, there would scarcely have been a Northern Catholic remaining at the end of it all, they'd have been either dead or ethnically cleansed into Louth or Monaghan or Cavan or Leitrim or Donegal, or further south

They might have taken Donegal as plunder

There would likely have been no North to ever "get back"

Have people here suggested that an invasion should have took place?

I think you are being just a tad hyperbolic by continually referencing Hitler but I do agree with the jist of the argument in that it would have been a mission doomed to failure.

[Lar Naparka]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

You are splitting hairs, sid. All roads led to the same end...
Those who were pro-treaty were prepared to take the Oath of Allegiance and those who were anti- weren't.

I'm not splitting hairs

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America

Partition was not the reason for the existence of the anti-Treaty side in the Civil War

The only reason one would believe this is if one took the film "Michael Collins" as definitive historical fact, rather than light entertainment aimed at Middle America[/quote]

If you are not, you have me lost for words.
The anti-treaty side rejected the oath of allegiance . The Free State was to be an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. This entailed the taking of the Oath. One side refused to take it and the other did not. As with the Tan war, neither side declared war but there was an inexorable drift towards conflict.
The Irregulars took possession of the Four Courts. The Brits gave the National side an ultimatum- either get them out or we'll bombard the effing' lot of them.
The government, aka  Nationalists decided to attack to prevent a flare up of the Brits vs the IRA all over again- they were windy that in the event of  resumption of hostilities, the 'ra would have more support among the masses than they had so they borrowed British guns and attacked the place and the rest is history..
Now,, sid, those who were murdered, blown up or plain executed and their kith and kin
weren't too pushed about which came first. partition or the Oath.

[johnnycool]

I also note that another northerner has voted to 'keep Ulster British' in the poll. Is there no way of revealing usernames on these polls?

[Angelo]

We Northern Nationalists need to get beyond the "yous left us behind"narrative, there were very good reasons why the 26 Counties were powerless to do anything about the situation. It is worth remembering that southern voters will need to vote in favour of unity and that can't be taken as a given. Throwing insults is no way to persuade them.

What good reasons were there?

A "not my problem" attitude. The Free State has absolutely no position to moralise on what happened in The Troubles when they were happy enough to stand idly by and let nationalists be terrorised in a sectarian state.

When you have families who have lost and suffered at the hands of the British state and calls for restorative justice are handled with a "but the IRA" response then I think it shows the absolute contempt the Free State establishment has for northern nationalists.

There was civil war in the south over the partition of this island 

I know you have conveniently forgotten that detail

It doesn't suit your narrative of they left us behind

Was the Civil War over partition or the dominion status and oath of allegiance?

The north was soon forgotten about and FFG politicians have shown nothing but contempt for northern nationalists since then.

Unlike you, I don't have a narrative here. I prefer to stick to the truth and the cold hard truth is the Free State were happy to do nothing as we endured a loyalist pogrom aided and abetted by the British and Irish Free State.

[Angelo]

I also note that another northerner has voted to 'keep Ulster British' in the poll. Is there no way of revealing usernames on these polls?

My bet would be trailer.

I'd say you could guarantee a few of the free state trolls saw fit to recognise that option.

[Angelo]

The oath of allegiance was the primary reason for the Civil War

That it wasn't a Republic

Partition was barely a reason at all, if even that

That may be true and I think it was more a case of a bird in the hand and just take what is on offer while we can. Nobody can sit here now and definitively say whether that was right or wrong, it was probably the correct decision at that particular time given the context since even the anti treatyites main bone of contention was primarily with the oath and not with partition.

It was presumed then though that a 32 county republic would follow at some point afterwards but somewhere along the line this faded as the southern state had enough problems of its own.

I think it was definitely the correct decision because it did indeed give the Irish Free State the freedom to achieve real freedom

As regards the North, to go to war over the North would have been a bloodbath which would have resulted in total Unionist victory and likely mass murder of Catholics and mass ethnic cleansing

There might barely have been a Catholic in the entire six counties by the end of it

So when people say "youse left us behind", consider that

I wonder do the Bosnian Serbs say to the Serbs "youse left us behind"

Eoghan Harris eat your heart out.