Though their aims did not include any of those things.
Also they could have got all of those gains without murdering anyone (as witnessed by the fact the Scottish Nationalists have achieved them, and in fact have had independence referendum )
I guess you will have to define what you mean by politically radical.
The New deal was very radical for its time. Its only in retrospect that food assistance, crop subsidy, social security and federal regulation of banks seems like the normal role of government.
Radical means root. Radical change and radical policies mean things that risk ruining the country as a whole, rather than just causing an uproar. A civil war is by definition radical.
It was a big change, but I wouldn’t be inclined to call it radical. I don’t think anyone seriously thought the country would cease to exist because of New Deal. (But ceasing to exist was a real possibility of the civil war).
Unfortunately not quite. The parliamentary system was already quite well-established well before the Civil War, and the King kicking back against it was a major cause of the war.
Cromwell tried to rule with parliament but got impatient whenever it failed to act the way he wanted, and ended up erecting and dissolving five different parliaments in his eight year rule.
An unintended consequence, I guess, of the Interregnum was an approximate balance between the King and Parliament, which was cemented in the Glorious Revolution in 1689.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’m not an expert on Ireland, but I don’t think the experiences of Northern Ireland and Scotland are quite the same in this regard. Scotland has always been an equal partner in the Union in everything but it’s smaller size compared to England. Northern Ireland saw systematic segregation and oppression of a portion of the population internally.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Many successful countries and empires began with violent, or even heinous, bloodshed.
Are you referring to the 17 July (1968) Revolution? I’ll need a cite for the “people dancing in the street.”
What about the gay liberation movement? It was an extremely radical movement when it started, designed to have homosexuals be given equal legal rights at a time when being gay was illegal, and most gays were still in the closet.
There was plenty of sectarian oppression and segregation in Scotland (though it never reach the extent of Northern Ireland). There are still sectarian tensions. But the state aim of the IRA was not to end that segregation and oppression, it was to unify Ulster with the rest of Ireland. that they spectacularly failed to do. The IRA’s radicalism was not the only reason for the troubles, but they certainly bear a large part of the blame, however justified their complaints may have been. And if you think “the troubles” were anything but a bad thing for Northern Ireland and its people i’d recommend you talk to people who lived through them. And certainly all the advances you mention would certainly have been achieved by a non-violent civil rights movement, far faster, with fewer deaths than the radical violent insurgency the IRA attempted. Though that is with the benefit of hindsight, and a hard an argument to make to a republican in the late 60s.
Of course we are talking about the PROVISIONAL IRA that took part in the Troubles post starting the late 1960s. You could certainly make the point that OFFICIAL IRA’s campaign against British rule in Ireland was absolutely radical violent action that achieved a successful democratic modern nation state.
But not without its own period of civil war and periods of repression of those who wanted a more violent and radical course.
The gens de couleur were inspired by French Revolution rhetoric, so I would still consider that to be a radical movement. Landowners can be radicalized.
Yeah and the American Revolutionaries were absolutely radical. Raising an army to disobey the decrees of your sovereign using violence is completely radical.
The fact they were white protestant landowners who had zero intention of sharing their power with people who weren’t white protestant landowners (most especially the white part) doesn’t make them not radical. In fact it makes them pretty typical of white landowning radicals throughout history.