"Only when you are putting words in peoples mouths Carroll."
I sign on as Jim Carroll - if you are going to use any, name use the one I have chosen - new rules, remember.
We've been through the rest of this interminably - I get the message, you don't think Ireland was entitled to independence, you think the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires.
Unless you have anything new, let's leave it there.
"There is nothing in the article to support that assertion, and you have not produced any other articles."
He makes clear in all his writings that he is disturbed at the betrayal of the ideals of the rising - that is what he writes about.
The "increased divisions" he writes about refer to the fact that, having become more politically conscious, Irish thought polarised around whether Ireland should remain with the Empire or leave it - the overwhelming majority went with Independence - even the Free Staters believed that full Independence was only a matter of time - the country was suffering from battle-fatigue and just wanted peace (I suggest you try Carlton Younger's 'Ireland's Civil War' if yoiu ever become interested enough to read a book.      
He says nothing about the Rising leading to Bloody conflict or the bloody conflict that followed - you have just made that up.
destruction
The bloody conflict that followed was first to do with a war for independence, then over a treaty forced on Ireland by Britain and finally by a permanently divided Ireland.
You are not really trying to claim this historian as agreeing with you are you - un******believable?
"I see no evidence of that among other Irish historians who dismiss his work with contempt."
As oyu don't read any history, are not interested in the subject and don't live in Ireland - how can you possibly see evidence of anything Keith
You have come up with tiny bunch of historians (out of how many?) who have criticised his methodology - only one of those has come anywhere near showing contempt (one again, you are making things up, like your running-mate
I asked a question last time I posted and received no reply.
Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.
What problem do you have with this Keith - is it wrong - have I made it up - did this not happen - what?
I have responded to every single one of your and Terribus's points - you have responded to none of mine, not eve to claim that "all historians disagree with you".
Now this really is boring - my response to you is as it was with your friend; We've been through the rest of this interminably
I get the message, you don't think Ireland was entitled to independence, you think the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires.
Unless you have anything new, let's leave it there.
Then maybe those who are genuinely interested and are not just pushing time-wor agendas can join in.
Jim Carroll