The violence had broken out in both sides, but our philosophy as a party was very, very clear.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
But transitions from the politics of violence to democratic compromise are always messy.
I think that the basic philosophy was very good. It was just be nice to each other, and don't step on other people's toes and infringe on their freedom.
In coming to that agreement, my party had a clear philosophy throughout. In Northern Ireland, we should have institutions that respected the differences of the people and that gave no victory to either side.
I was ready to accept the philosophy that the Party is right and that in the coming struggle you could not permit yourself any doubts after the party had made a decision.
It was very much a cry for democratic control at that time. Above all, breaking the accomplished power of a few people to rule the lives of everybody else.
There was a very convincing argument made that the extremists have won and the aggression is now supported by the majority, therefore fighting until surrender was the only alternative.
I've certainly thought a lot more about things like tyranny and patriotism and violence. I think I found some kind of clarity - definitely a thicker understanding.
I think it was my study of history that convinced me that the Democratic Party was more on the side of the average American.
Mission accomplished, we didn't have any problems as far as violence goes.
We now have a political process, we've had a period of parties that have been fighting each other quite literally with bombs and bullets, talking to each other, and having sat together in the assembly and sharing government with each other.