I've just got back from a trip to Dublin where I tried to learn as much of the history regarding Home Rule, and the formation of an Irish Republic as possible, as it is a subject utterly overlooked in English secondary school education, despite our obvious connections with the aforementioned subjects.
While I was in Dublin a recurring theme of what was told to me was that the Easter Rising was viewed as a disaster (at least in the short term), many people needlessly died, nothing was achieved, the possibility of the Irish simply being granted Home Rule after WW1 anyway was now off the table, and a large part of Dublin was destroyed, all over a cause few were sympathetic to to begin with. As I was told, the execution of the leaders of the Easter Rising by the British caused a phenomenal shift in public opinion. Where before the Rising and those behind it had been execrated by the Irish, their execution spawned a complete renege of previously held opinions, and a move towards strong semi-revolutionary Republicanist sentiment in the country.
The crux of my question is: is the execution of the leaders of the Rising overstated as a turning point in the road towards Home Rule and the eventual formation of an Irish Republic? Or, would have history actually played out largely the same had their lives been spared, or some other fate befallen the leaders? Finally, did this really get a lot of previously non-political members of society to sympathise with efforts towards Home Rule, or is this simply an obvious flash point to draw attention to, that did not really significantly change the views of people at the time - as I said previously, would things basically have played out the same anyway regardless of the executions?
The first thing to be said here is that there is a distinction between the very popular nationalist aim for Home Rule for Ireland [via efforts in the Westminster Parliament] and the view that the Irish public initially held of the Easter Rising.
From the time of Isaac Butt in the 1870s up until the Home Rule crisis of 1914 the Irish population had constantly returned a majority of nationalist MPs in general elections. By 1886 under the leadership of Charles Parnell out of 100 MPs elected for Ireland, 84 were Home Rule nationalists. Irish nationalists also won a seat in Liverpool. So the idea of a Home Rule parliament for Dublin had widespread support. The problems within the Home Rule movement arose for a number of reasons. There was the Parnell divorce 'scandal' in 1890 [he lost the leadership] and then the constant failure of Home Rule bills in Westminster. There was also growing discontent in the northern part of Ireland amongst unionists for the idea of Home Rule. They found favour with the English Conservative Party who gave political support to Unionists to breaking the Home Rule movement. Randolph Churchill [father of Winston] was the first to declare that “Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right”. Events came to a head in 1913 when the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force [UVF] was formed in Belfast with the expressed aim of preventing Home Rule, with force if necessary.
The response amongst nationalists in Ireland to the formation of this paramilitary group was to organise their own military response. On Nov 1st 1913 Eoin Mac Neill wrote an article in An Claidheamh Soluis [the Gaelic League journal] that called for a nationalist response to the UVF. Bulmer Hobson and Michael The O’Rahilly [then editor of the journal] agreed to meet Mac Neill and together they formed a military organisation called Óglaigh na hÉireann or the Irish Volunteers. Within months they had signed up almost 200,000 volunteers who pledged to meet the violence of the UVF and establish Home Rule by force if necessary.
By 1914 the Home Rule movement within the Irish Parliament Party was getting into trouble. Although in 1912 the HR bill had passed and would become law in 1914 the content of what was in the bill was constantly under revision. By the summer of 1914 an amendment clause was added which provided for partition of the island and the exclusion of certain Ulster counties from Home Rule. John Redmond, the leader of the Irish Party, was considered to be weak proponent and we know from his letters that the partition of the island was of little matter to him. This incensed many Irish nationalists.
World War I then intervened, and the bill was put aside ‘for the duration of the war’. John Redmond urged the Irish Volunteers to join in the war effort as a goodwill gesture to ensure Home Rule. Volunteers split on the issue and a minority refused to fight. It was from within this group that the Easter Rising came about. The Ulster Volunteers and the Irish Volunteers were gun running into Ireland for the period leading up to WWI. But the British reaction to the two sides differed. In what became known as the Curragh Mutiny the British army refused orders to disarm the Ulster volunteers or intervene in their importation of guns. In a separate incident in Dublin in July 1914 however, the British army attempted to intervene in guns being brought into Howth Harbour by the Irish Volunteers. Members of the Dublin public attacked the army by throwing stones at them at an area in Dublin known as Bachelors Walk. The army responded by shooting at the crowd and killing 4, including a 50 year old woman, and injuring 30. A massive public funeral followed with a widespread display of the republican movement . This was considered an important incident by nationalist leaders of the Volunteers who referred to the support that the public had given for the guns being imported as evidence of the public mood.
As WWI continued for a longer time than was originally considered some nationalists became more convinced that Home Rule was being put aside for too long and the now real threat of partition was becoming more of a reality. It was within this climate that the Rising was planned in early 1916. It was planned by the remaining Volunteers, the Citizen Army [led by James Connolly] and Cumann na mBan [women’s military organisation].
Historians on all sides of the issue have made much of the initial rejection by the public to the Rising. But there can be little doubt that the underlying public mood was for a Home Rule parliament in Dublin. Eyewitness accounts reveal more of a public who thought that the Rising could not succeed and therefore was hopeless - rather than a rejection of the aspirations of the participants. This is an important point. Eoin Mac Neill for example, thought it a ‘lunatic idea’ because they could not win against such superior odds. When the British responded by sending in 25,000 troops to attack the force of 1,500 Irish men and women the die was cast in favour of the Volunteers, now calling themselves the Irish Republican Army, the IRA.
Sentiment began to shift before the shootings of the leaders and eyewitness accounts describe pride in the fact that such a small force could hold out for a week against such superior odds. The shooting of the leaders further incensed public opinion especially as the trials were held in secret. Then Connolly who was wounded in the fight was taken from a hospital bed, propped up in a chair and shot. The images produced by all this were a disaster for the British. The underlying public resentment against the withholding of Home Rule burst into the public agenda. By the end of WWI Ireland was in the midst of revolution and the 1918 general election gave 73 seats out of 100 to the new force in Irish politics, Sinn Féin, who declared independence from Britain and established an Irish parliament in Dublin. They called it Dáil Éireann. The present day Irish parliament in Dublin is a direct descendant of this.
For more details of this period I suggest you consult Atlas of the Irish Revolution edited by John Crowley, Donal Ó Driscoill and Mike Murphy.
Edit: typos
That's a tough one. There were a large number of Irish people (both Nationalist and Unionist) who joined the British army at the outset of the First World War at the behest of Irish politicians. So when the rising occurred it was initially quite unpopular at the wives and families of those who were in the war weren't too pleased at this group of rebels 1. trashing their city and 2. betraying their husbands/sons/brothers who were fighting the 'real' enemy in the war. From what I've read people began to be radicalized when word of the executions started to spread. There also had a been a number of atrocities committed by the British troops during the rising which didn't help either. Most of the books I have read on this topic point at the executions as a turning point where Irish people moved from Constitutional Nationalism (see John Redmond and Home Rule) to wanting Irish Independence (see Sinn Fein and Irish Republicanism). I could refer you to a number of books etc. on this topic but I'll use a family story instead. My Great Grandfather joined the army in 1914 because he wanted Home Rule and thought that by joining the British army he, along with the other Irish people who joined, would show the British Government that Irish people were loyal subjects of the crown and therefore worthy of ruling themselves within the British Empire. When he returned from the war in 1918 he promptly burned his army papers, uniform and threw away his medals because he was disgusted with what happened in 1916 – and also the slaughter in the war. He then went on to join the Irish Volunteers in the local area. To fight in the war of independence. Sadly for him my family lives in Tyrone so no independence for him. Just further subjugation.
You'll find that periods of conflict in Ireland (against British rule) were usually preceded by or accelerated by the actions of the British forces. Or in the case of the recent conflicts, seemingly reasonable demands for social reform being met with violence. Most families in Ireland have stories of the terrible things British soldiers did to them. I could regale you with some of the stories my family told me - or even my first hand experiences with British soldiers during the Troubles in Northern Ireland but that would be off topic.
Hope this helps!