Sir, – I find myself in a position which must be rare among your letter writers. I write to criticise an article of my own of September 27th concerning the Ulster Covenant. My concern, however, is not with the content of the article but with the headline chosen by your paper. It reads “How Ulster Covenant put the gun into Irish politics”.
This title gives a false impression about my article. The gun was no stranger to Irish politics in 1912 and indeed I quoted Michael McDowell’s reference to Irish separatists, “who would countenance the use of physical force”. My main point was that both unionists and nationalists were prepared to back the threat or use of force in this period, with serious consequences for both sides.
I pointed out that the unionist reference to “using all means which may be found necessary” led to unionists advocating the threat or use of force to support their cause, which resulted in the creation and arming of the UVF. This would have serious consequences for the position of unionists in Ireland.
Certainly such actions helped to defend their position and can be seen as important in leading to the establishment of Northern Ireland. At the same time, the unionist action caused a nationalist reaction which led eventually to the rise of armed resistance and separatism in the rest of Ireland. Fellow unionists in the rest of Ireland were abandoned. Within Northern Ireland the early years would be marked by violence.
The response of nationalists to the unionist threat of force had serious consequences for their community. For nearly a year, nationalists very sensibly resisted the challenge to follow the unionist example but after November 1913 the Irish National Volunteers were formed to show their willingness to back the threat or use of force, and in May 1914 they also received arms.
The Irish Volunteers gave both cover and arms to a minority of separatists who staged a rising in Dublin in 1916. This then led to the War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Many nationalists/republicans welcomed these developments.
However, thanks to the central role now played by force, divisions over the treaty would lead to civil war and widespread bloodshed. Concerns of Northern nationalists would be forgotten.
The worries of Frederick MacNeice in 1912 about the consequences of violence or threat of violence were well justified by what followed over the next decade in both unionist and nationalist camps. – Yours, etc,