This novel is about imperialism on one hand, and nonviolence on the other. Henry is a passive character, essentially, because he is an agent of someone else's authority. He is a demonstration of what the Irish war for independence looked like to the people on the ground—it was chaotic, but extreme and passionate, but ultimately, Henry notices that, if British imperialism is one kind of evil, perhaps violence is another kind of evil.
The question is raised therefore, posed to the reader: Is it appropriate to fight for freedom through violence? Historically, there are a number of reasons why this Irish rebellion didn't quite earn them the freedom they were hoping for, but ultimately, Henry's own criticism is the one we must consider first—by becoming too emotional and wrathful in the pursuit of justice, perhaps they lost sight of the goal, and therefore, they were not organized enough to make lasting political change.
To rush to judgment would be foolish, though, because the Irish are historically mistreated by pretty much everyone. In warfare, the Irish are known for their reputation of extreme demonstrations of power (throughout European history), so it makes sense to the characters in this fictional retelling that they should fight for freedom in that way, but Henry learns that perhaps, a more nuanced, strategic approach was necessary. Without a doubt, this conflict remains one of the most tragic and unnecessarily horrifying wars in British history.
