BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:31 AM

I suppose that's why all the books, TV programmes etc, etc have been produced.

As to the rest of your "contribution" the rest of us recognise the reasons were many and varies and have been discussed here and elsewhere at length.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:33 AM

Incidentally, I see someone above rather cavalierly referring to the men and women who went out in the Rising as "fools" because they had supposedly prevented a peaceful transition to independence via Home Rule.
Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.
Really, some of the ideas posted here are a little bizarre. It's a bit like saying the Native Americans were awfully foolish not to sit and wait for the peaceful transition to the justice promised by the treaties they made with the US government in 1778, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1789, 1790, 1794, 1795, 1805, 1816, 1818, 1826, 1828, 1830, 1832, 1852, 1853, 1865, 1867 and 1868. The fools! They could have had a peaceful transition to co-ownership of the land!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:39 AM

"It was the case Jim, but they did not want the rising before it started"
They wanted independence - when they relised they wouldn't get it they opted for full revolution
Your statement was actually "Not before, not during, and not after the rising" which, as you well know was not true.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Your exact statement - in full context was; "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge which is arrant nonsense.
Since the British betrayal"
You have proved that the only concept of the Irish you have is your utter contempt for them and their history
You really should have stuck at your "contemptible joke" exposure and left it there and not dug your self as deeply as you have now.
the pair of you have disgraced yourselves with your ignorance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:42 PM

Raggytash - 10 May 16 - 06:31 AM

C'mon then Raggy tell us all how that 700 years has actually personally affected you.

Me with my 70 years it hasn't affected me one iota - basically I couldn't give one single F**k about it. I find it incredibly ridiculous how people like you and Jom hype your "victimhood" into what is almost an art-form and adopt this supposed moral high ground - give you a hint buddy - it doesn't exist - live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:49 PM

"" you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English"
Utter bloody nonsense
He did not carry out wholesale massacres of entire towns, such as Drogheda, or Wexford"

Seriously Jom - read some history will you - not just the bits that you like - and them Jom comes the important question - what the fuck does what "so-and-so" did 300 years ago affect life today - look forward not BACKWARDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:55 PM

Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.

Really?
Do they not know that the Unionists were happy with the 1914 Act.
It was the rising that soured everything.

They wanted independence - when they relised they wouldn't get it they opted for full revolution

They never "realised" any such nonsense because it was all agreed and accepted until the rising violently polarised everyone.

Your statement was actually "Not before, not during, and not after the rising" which, as you well know was not true.

Thyat was not my statement.
By editing out the second sentence you change its meaning.
Dishonest of you Jim.

My full statement, which as you now know, is the absolute truth.
"Not before, not during, and not after the rising.
Only the executions brought them onside, so nothing the rebels said or did."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:08 PM

Thompson says: Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.

Wait! Wait! Wait! What was that thing that happened in Ireland between 1922 and 1923?

I wrote up a theory of combat this morning, applying it to the conduct of discussions at Mudcat, but I think it applies to many things in life: The militants who promote a cause, are convinced that because their cause is unquestionably righteous, all means are justified in their quest to ensure that the cause prevails. In most cases, there is another group of people (usually a much larger group) who also support the cause, but are unwilling to employ coercive measures. They prefer to use facts, logic, persuasion, and patience.
And then there is a huge number of people who don't really care, and are simply annoyed by all the squabbling. They are much more concerned about keeping their jobs and making sure their kids do their homework at night; and they have no time to concern themselves with lofty political matters. And at Mudcat, those people have the annoying habit of wanting to talk about folk music rather than politics, but that's another matter. In Ireland, I'm sure the dairy farmers were far more concerned about cows, than they were about Home Rule. Annoying, but true.

Anyhow, my thinking on all this is starting to gel as this thread progresses (at those times when it's not going around in circles).

I'm sure there were many moves to separate Ireland from England in earlier years, but it seems to me that the final drive to separate Ireland began in 1798 - and lasted until 1921, more or less. I'm sure that for most of the people of Ireland, life went on during the 19th century; and most people were not constantly involved in the campaign to separate from England. And it seems to me that at times, people would have grown weary of the whole thing. So, it would seem to me that by 1916, most people in Ireland just didn't care any more. I think Keith may be quite right that most people in Ireland didn't want the Rising. The militants did, and it seems to me that credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule bill that had passed Parliament. So, the militants brought about the Easter Rising. And it's clear that the campaign was a failure, and that a whole lot of people just didn't care about it. Most of Ireland was calm - the battle was only in a small portion of Dublin. But it was guerrilla warfare in the middle of a crowded city, so many noncombatants were affected.

But then the British responded to the Easter Rising by condemning ninety Irish militants to death. Now, it's true that only 15 were executed, but 90 families were at one point quite sure that their sons were to be executed. On top of that, Wikipedia says a total of 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested, although most were subsequently released. 1,836 men were interned at internment camps and prisons in England and Wales. Although Teribus finds it significant that only Kent was executed because of how he responded to this widespread roundup of Irish people, I'm sure most of the people of Ireland viewed these mass arrests as brutal imperialism on the part of the British.

Now, it appears to me that Britain had stationed officers in Ireland who were considerably less than the cream of the crop. A number of these officers were political extremists, not prone to diplomacy. And so, their response to the Easter Rising was brutal.

All of a sudden the Irish people had a reason to care about independence - and they got it.

And after that, they got the Irish Civil War and more than a half-century of Protestant-Catholic conflicts. I'm still trying to understand that part of the story, but I think my analysis of the Easter Rising has some merit. Thoughts?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:25 PM

not far off the mark, joe however
"So, it would seem to me that by 1916, most people in Ireland just didn't care any more"
no, that is overstated, imo, my impression is that it was about 50 per cent, but I   could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:01 PM

The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:30 PM

Your true colours have once again come to the fore Terikins.

Does one have to be personally affected to know that something is inherently wrong.

If you child was murdered does it not matter because it wasn't YOU that was murdered.

Some of us are only too well aware that you and your ilk don't give a single f**k about it or about the world in general as long as you can adhere to your MYTH that the "British Empire" was wonderful.

I've got news for you, a good part of the world, America included think the "British Empire" were out and out bastards, to a man.

It is arrogance like your that creates so many problems in the world, not just Ireland, but globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:39 PM

Joe, There were other, albeit small, disturbances in many other parts of Ireland, in Galway, Mayo, Cork and Kerry for certain. I'd have to do some more research to be entirely confident (fbecause of the obvious doubters) before I cited other towns.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:07 PM

True, Raggytash - but from what I've read, it seems that in most parts of Ireland, it was impossible to tell that anything was going on at the time of the Rising. Certainly not a justification for arresting thousands of people.

So, Teribus, you go to great lengths to emphasize very minor points and attack insignificant discrepancies. What is the point you are trying to make? What is your overview of what happened and its significance? Are you mourning the lost Empire?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 06:46 AM

Terrytoon
"look forward not BACKWARDS."
British policy down the centuries has effected the lives of every country they have ever ruled over, usually adversely.
It has destroyed existing cultures and manipulated economies to suit the Empire's interests rather than those of the people they ruled.
In the case of Ireland, an enforced and permanent partition has been the cause of inequality, persecution, ongoing violence and death - in the seventies and eighties, that spread to mainland Britain.
You're "forgive and forget" plea doesn't hack it and it won't begin to until the past is acknowledged and matter put right - it's called 'coming to terms with your history'.
Following the Famine, Ireland was left with a legacy of massive depopulation caused by avoidable death and enforced emigration.
The 'gunpoint' 'treaty' led immediately to civil war and a divided Republic on one side of the border and viciously violent sectarian riots and demonstrations on the other, lasting to the present day.
Your behaviour on this forum and your open defence of the 'good old days of Empire' is a perfect example of why that period of history is a thing of the past and why it was necessary to end it - you display all the strutting mannerisms of the Empire at its worst - and long may you continue to do so as an example of what it represented.
As with Keith, your contempt for the Irish and the other ex subjects is manifest.
Keith has at least had the balls to articulate his contempt even to the point of demonstrating how he believes it is not even necessary to seek knowledge or be interested in the subject in order to dismiss Irish history as "a contetible joke"
You, on the other hand, strut around, declaring that the world was better off as loyal subjects of her Maj.
You have Ballsed up big-time here - on The Treaty, on mutiny. on the fitting-up of Tom Kent, the kangaroo courts, the breaches of laws and rues by the British authorities...... on virtually everything you have claimed.
You declare rather than attempt to actually prove what you say; you put up your statements without evidence and expect them to be accepted without question, and when they are questioned, you sneer at those who don't accept what you have to say - a bit of a mess really.   
You have convinced nobody and now appear to have given up trying to, resorting to "go read a history book" - when you obvousley never have.
Think you're done here, don't you?
Keith - "Not before, not during, and not after the rising.." was what I was responding to - your addition alters that not one iota
Dishonest of you to have denied it and stupid for you have to done so publicly, as is your present attempt top extract yourself from it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 08:05 AM

"British policy down the centuries has effected the lives of every country they have ever ruled over, usually adversely."

Yes I dare say it has, but most would disagree with your opinion regarding "usually adversely" - as others have ignored it I will say again - if that was indeed the case there never would have been a Commonwealth, having shaken off what you seem to view as the brutal tyranny of British Rule by bloody rebellion they would naturally enough would want absolutely nothing to do with their former rulers - But that was not the case was it?

Largest democracy on the planet is? INDIA - not even an entity when the Europeans first arrived to trade, just a group of separate Kingdoms. Now who was it that gave them democracy and rule of law and order? The British knew that they were going to have to leave India shortly after the end of the First World War, here as in Ireland two distinct religious groupings came to the fore - now unlike Ireland they didn't undertake to advance their cause by violence, all three parties talked, neither of the two religious groups trusted the other and they elected for partition and two countries were formed India and Pakistan (East and West). It was only then after the British left that horrendous violence flared fuelled by religious hatred, mistrust and intolerance.

The Home Rule Bill of 1914 was the declaration of intent on the part of the British Government that it would grant self-government to Ireland - it was then to be up to the pro-independence group to talk to the pro-union group and come up with a compromise that would work. The British Government's declaration of intent that they would support that effort was signalled by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Unfortunately the 1916 rising hardened attitudes all round both Nationalist and Unionist. What happened after the Treaty that saw the creation of the Irish Free State was a tiny civil war that the newly formed Irish Government could contain, fight and win. Had the massive pro-union support base in the North been forced into an independent Ireland the newly created country would have been destroyed. That was the reality that Michael Collins & Co recognised and Eamon de Valera DID NOT. The Irish civil war demonstrated clearly to those in the North that they had chosen wisely and had done the right thing.

Support for armed struggle in Ireland has always been extremely weak.
The rising in 1916 had to be kept secret from the men who were in charge of the IRB and the IVF as they would have prevented it from happening - participation amounted to 0.004% of the Irish population.

The War of independence only managed to excite the interest and participation of 0.04% of the Irish population - hardly massive by any stretch of the imagination.

The civil war that followed attracted participation by 3.33% of the population so incensed were they at the partition - basically they could have cared less - they had to deal with life, loss of markets, and the "dog-in-the-manger" destruction of property and essential infra-structure wrought by the IRA in the death throws of their idiotic and completely unnecessary conflict.

Mourn the loss of Empire? Don't be ridiculous, I lived through the transition of many countries to independence all of them peacefully.

"It has destroyed existing cultures and manipulated economies to suit the Empire's interests rather than those of the people they ruled."

Examples please Jom. Give you a couple Hawaiian culture was all but totally destroyed by American Missionaries, elsewhere in the Pacific Islands missionaries from the British Missionary Society recorded the native languages, created written word where none existed and translated the Bible into those native languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 08:35 AM

Sorry Terri - no valid verification of your claims, no response - don't ring us, we'll ring you.
And don't demand an answer until you start giving them yourself.
"Anyhow, my thinking on all this is starting to gel"
That's a nice, handy summing up of the chronological reality of Irish history Joe.
I've just had a dip into my 'Chronology of Irish History' (one of those handy little books you can still pick up for half-nothing in many bookshops – also available on 'British', 'Scottish' and 'World' history – all indispensible little aides memoires in my opinion.
The timeline between 1798 to the Independence is an interesting one to work through.
You have Emmet's rising in 1803, the Thresher agitation in Longford (1807), the Ribbonmen, Rockites and Whiteboys (1820s), the Tithe War in Kilkenny (1831) and masses and masses of political activity right up the Great Famine in 1845.
The years following The Famine with the evictions and the sheer callous brutality of Britain's response to the Famine brought about more or less permanent struggle, including the Fenian Rising in 1867, followed by the Land Wars, which actually continued right up to and in some places, after Independence.
Even up to the Eve of the Rising, there was an active anti-recruitment campaign in cities such as Dublin and Cork.
Easter Week didn't come as a spur-of-the-moment whim – it was part of long line of protests and revolts dating back to over a century earlier.
To say the Irish people didn't want change is utter nonsense – some may have been happy to get World War One over certainly – that was the Redmondite line, but most people were under no illusion that Britain would give up Ireland and go quietly – they wouldn't and they didn't, and that was what Easter Week was about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 09:20 AM

By the way.
Those who argue about what the majority of the people want or don't want are invariably those who don't give a toss what ordinary people want until it becomes a handy alternative to arguing on facts - as is the case here.
We don't know what the people wanted one way or another because they were never consulted, including changes in Ireland.
Revolutionary changes of the left, right and centre are invariably brought about by a tiny minority.
The people did not oppose the changes brought about by Easter Week other than to take up arms against the decisions forced on Ireland by the imposed Treaty - by anybody's logic, an indication that those changes were unacceptably wrong.
One of the great mistakes in assessing history, Irish history in particular, is to judge it by at happens in the cities, ignoring the fact that Ireland is a largely rural nation.
It's still a truism that if it rains in Dublin, then it must be raining everywhere - I know that to be a fact, that nice weather-forecasting lady told me!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:38 PM

"By the way.
Those who argue about what the majority of the people want or don't want are invariably those who don't give a toss what ordinary people want until it becomes a handy alternative to arguing on facts - as is the case here." - Jim Carroll

You mean people who make statements like this?

"Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916 as soon as Britain revealed what an appalling load of shit they were and that there was no hope whatever of obtaining Independence in any other way - repeating this piece of misinformation just confirms your dishonesty
Irish people always wanted Independence from Britain - Britain's "traitorous" behavior was n indication that even the limited aims of 'Home Rule would never be honoured so within months the call went out for full Independence - **** the Free State." - Jim Carroll

So Jim how long have you been the spokesperson for the Irish Nation?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:49 PM

But you have to admit, Jim, that the views from Teribus are interesting. A(n) historical curiosity, almost a trip back in time. I didn't think there was anyone left living on the face of the earth who would still defend British and American imperialism (well, he condemns the American and missionary imperialism, but thinks British imperialism benign). I can picture him now, in his pith helmet and Bermuda shorts with black stockings and garters, drinking tea and ordering the natives about - benignly, of course.

I think, though, that the British and American imperialists did have good intentions, and may truly have believed that they were giving the natives a better life. And yes, there were many things that they and even the missionaries did, that were not all bad. Nobody is all bad, and nobody is all good.

I think it's worthwhile to explore things from the point of view of the imperialists, too.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:52 PM

And yes, Keith, you are spending a lot of time defending yourself and not adding to the discussion. This is not a battle to see who wins or loses. Your messages are getting boring and repetitive.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:13 PM

😉

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:17 PM

"that the British and American imperialists did have good intentions"
Some may have done Joe, but don't forget, 'Gallant Little Belgium' slaughtered up to ten million Congolese Colonials and cut the hands of countless numbers of rubber workers who did not meet their quotas, in pursuit of profit.
Britain wasn't above massacring and ill treating its inferior colonials, and I'm assured by Terribus, Keith and others that life for the colonials under Germany, had they won W.W.1. would have been pretty intolerable.
There were certainly those who believed they were doing a favour to 'The White Man's Burden' (as our colonial brothers were known) and there were those who actually contributed to the lives of some under their care (often by offsetting the excesses of colonial life), but it needs to be remembered that the Empire was a profit-making business, not a charity.
Loved the "pith helmet and Bermuda shorts with black stockings and garters" image - didn't take you to be old enough to remember 'Jungle Jim'.
"So Jim how long have you been the spokesperson for the Irish Nation?"
I'm not a spokesman for anybody, though I am a keen observer who has had the privilege in hearing about these events from people who were there and who took part in much of what is under discussion.
I'm also here at the present time and have the opportunity to shower in the delights of wall-to-wall programmes on The Easter Rising put together by scholars and researchers - all praising the people they regard as national heroes who have changed Irish History, never mentioning the terms "gullible" or 'contemptible joke".
Perhaps reading books and showing an interest disqualifies me from having strong opinions on these matters.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:29 PM

Jim, I think there's a lesson here - partly thanks to the advance of technology, the 19th Century was THE century of brutal imperialism and oppression, particularly on the part of Americans and Europeans. The upper classes seemed to believe they had a right to oppress all others. I wonder what rationalization they used to justify that mindset.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:37 PM

Great believer in generalisations and stereotypes are you Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:48 PM

It's called humor, Teribus - or "humour," if you prefer. Nonetheless, I think it's worthwhile to take a broad look at things at times, and not get bogged down in minutiae.

If you look at individual situations, I'm sure you can find examples of slaves who were happy on their plantations, and Irish farmers who loved their landlords - and I'm sure it's true that there were plantation owners and landlords who were truly benevolent. You may call a broad overview a generalization, but it's clear in the overview that there was mass oppression in the 19th century by the upper classes - slavery, especially in the Americas; serf labor in Europe; the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the famine in Ireland; workhouses all over Europe; the systematic extermination of Native Americans in the United States; the European colonization of Africa and much of Asia.

What can you say that's good about all that, Teribus?

Oh, yeah, they gave us Kipling and Little Black Sambo, and for that we are eternally grateful.

Admit it, Teribus - it was a century of oppression, and I would really like to know where the goodness was in that mindset. But hey, I think you'd look cute in garters and a pith helmet.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 05:20 PM

"but it's clear in the overview that there was mass oppression in the 19th century by the upper classes - slavery, especially in the Americas; serf labor in Europe; the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the famine in Ireland; workhouses all over Europe; the systematic extermination of Native Americans in the United States; the European colonization of Africa and much of Asia."

Really Joe - may be "clear" to you but then as you are not so keen on detail you miss quite a lot out in your rather biased perspective.

You mention slavery - no nation on this planet did more to eradicate the slave trade than the British

Serf labour in Europe? Hardly Joe the only country where serfs existed in "Europe" in the 19th century was Tsarist Russia - nowhere else.

Highland Clearances? More a 18th century thing greed on the part of land-owners was the motivation not Government policy.

You ignore the massive advances made throughout the 19th century in a vast variety of fields. The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan commented on it comparing the social and economic improvements made between 1815 and 1914.

In Africa for the tribes who were subservient to the Zulu, or further North the Maasia definitely found the British to be more benign rulers.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 06:00 PM

You sure look cute in those garters, Teribus...

You refute my examples of brutality by saying that they didn't happen somewhere where they didn't happen. But my point was to give examples to show that brutality existed the world around, in one form or another. It was a brutal age.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 03:30 AM

The 19th century "a brutal age"? Relative to the centuries that preceded it? Don't think so and neither does Margaret MacMillan. The dark ages, medieval and renaissance times were far more brutal. Are you seriously attempting to tell us that the root cause of all the brutality in the world during the 19th century was "imperialism" - utterly ridiculous.

But I suppose as an American to you the dark ages, medieval and renaissance times are abstracts and don't really count much in the scheme of things - so Joe if I am to you a "pith helmet, shorts and gaiter" wearing defender of empire, you are a hair-shirt wearing, self-flagellating failed?wannabe priest.

But if I look at Thompson's list of treaties broken by the US Government from 1778 onward and look at just what happened in the USA and elsewhere in the Americas I can see your point. And in all fairness to Thompson he probably does not know that the US Government had no intention at all in honouring, or enforcing any of the Treaties it signed with the native North Americans - hells teeth your War of Independence was fought specifically to break a treaty made between the five nations and the British Government in 1754 - a treaty that the British Government not only kept but enforced - and that Joe did not suit the greedy ambitions of the colonists who wanted to expand westward - your war of independence had absolutely S.F.A. to do with taxation or representation, they were just the excuses latched onto. Same opportunistic attempt at a land grab was made in 1812, fortunately for those who call themselves Canadians it didn't come off. Elsewhere in the Americas you had the Spanish who DID established their empire through ruthless and brutal conquest where whole races were destroyed in the name of Holy Mother Church - the main point of difference between the Spanish and the British Empires that you as an American reader of historical fiction can't seem to grasp is that the British Empire was founded on trade NOT conquest - and the plain fact of the matter is that you cannot trade with dead people.

Throughout the 19th century the British fought hard to abolish slavery and eradicate the slave trade - the Americans did little or nothing about it until the century was almost three-quarters past and even then freedom didn't mean freedom did it? That took almost another hundred years - true? You wear your hair-shirt if you like, I will continue to explode ill-informed and inaccurate myths whenever they are trotted out on this forum by those who are clearly biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 04:44 AM

Joe, sorry I keep defending myself, but Rag and Jim keep making false accusations that I can not allow to stand.

it seems to me that credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule bill that had passed Parliament.

I do not recall any such evidence presented.
Could we have a reminder please?

Thompson
The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd.

It is isn't it, but true all the same.
They volunteered in huge numbers to fight for Britain in WW1 and even after independence in WW2!
Because it was not an occupation. Ireland was an integral part of the UK just as Scotland and Wales were and still are.
Their independence movements never refer to an occupation, so why do you?

Jim, I have only expressed contempt for the 1916 rebels, never for the people of Ireland who shared my contempt for them.(Sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:31 AM

Ah the old game of trying to have the last word.

When you actually learn something of Irish History, when you take an interest in the subject, when you actually read a WHOLE book and not just snippets trawled from the Internet, then and only then will you have a useful contribution to make. Given that these things are not going to happen you will continue to snipe uneducated comments from the wings, because in your ignorance that's what you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:38 AM

Once again Rag, produce one historical fact I have got wrong instead of just accusing me of it.
(sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:49 AM

Still trying to have the last word, read a book on the subject yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"you just have to produce examples of how the Rebels actually supported the Germans rather than pay lip-service to it to get guns.
The Rebellion was an Anti Imperialist Revolt - Germany was an Imperial power - speaks for itself."
Jim Carroll

Casement's "Irish Report" - Which required German troops to be landed on the west coast of Ireland

The aim of the "rebellion" as put by both Plunkett and by Casement in 1915 to the Germans was that with German support the rising would draw British troops away from the fighting in France - Now in time of war I would call that active support of the enemy.

The "Rebellion" as you call it was a sham from start to finish. It was deliberately set up to fail by those who led it. It had absolutely no other purpose than to keep the "men of the gun" and Sinn Fein in the game - Pearse's "Blood Sacrifice". The men who fought in Dublin believed in their cause and in their leaders who deliberately fed them lies and threw their lives away in an exercise of wanton destruction mounted to achieve nothing. It's crowning achievement? Rather than further the cause of an independent united Ireland it hardened "Unionist" opposition and guaranteed that the "Unionists" in the North would insist on partition, and for all the attempts by the "men of the gun" down through the years since 1916, that goal of a united independent Ireland is further away today than it was then - why do I say that? Because back in the early part of the 20th century all the nationalists had to do was convince the "unionists" in the North, today written into law not only do those living in the North have to decide for themselves that they want to be part of a united independent Ireland, then the second part of the process has to be fulfilled - those living in the Republic of Ireland have to agree to the union - and if the "men of the gun" in the North have their say then the Republic of Ireland has to take one enormous leap of faith and trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 16 - 07:07 AM

"Jim, I have only expressed contempt for the 1916 rebels, never for the people of Ireland who shared my contempt for them.(Sorry Joe)"
Your contempt was in describing the Irish people as being gullible and supporting murderers - you specified Fergie, but he said what is being said throughout Ireland now and will be for the rest of the year
You have apparently laboured over an excuse for your behab=viuour.
Simple question - why do you think Ireland is celebrating this in the way they are at the present time
Please take Joe's adivice an leave this.
Terrribus
Can't believe you are still attempting to salvage this from the ashes of your failed arguments.
Germany certainly expected the Rebellion to act as a diversion, as they did when they gave safe passage to Lenin in their revolution the following year, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY "SUPPORT IRELAND EVER GAVE TO GERMANY AND NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE
The Irish made a bid for self-determination while the empires were tearing each other apart - no better time to choose.
I didn't see Michael Portillo's programme on Easter week but this was hit take on the affair.

"Martyrdom
Portillo puzzles over the reference in the Proclamation to "our gallant allies in Europe", namely Germany.
He believes the reference was put there by Patrick Pearse to provoke the British into an over-reaction.
"How do you expect the British not to shoot people who refer to the gallant allies? It is not central to declaring independence for Ireland.
"The whole thing makes sense without having to mention Germany at all. If you pursue this theory that Patrick Pearse wanted martyrdom, then you know this is all part of it."
Hence, he believes the British fell into the "propaganda trap" set for them by the leaders of the Rising."
How Britain Lost the Easter Rising

Was fascinated to read your defence of Empire - like taking the dog for a walk through Jurassic Park.
When I described you as a "Empire Loyalist jingoist", I really didn't mean that literally - my, my, my!!
Nobody supports that garbage now, nor have they for decades.
The British Empire was a predatory set-up based on extracting wealth from those the conquored - no different from any other Empire throughout history - It was like a giant beehive with all it's occupants living only to serve a queen.
The Famine ws typical of how it could work - despite a catastrophic natural disaster, Britain continued to export food from Ireland for the merchants to sell off to Britain.
The warehouses, full of food, were locked and guarded.
Relief was sent from Britain to be sold to the starving at the going price so as not to interfere with the profits of the merchants.
If native cultures or practices got in the way of British rule (little more than absentee landlordism - it was removed - a typical example being the Irish language, which was all but systematically destroyed.   
Are you planning a further film in the series, 'Jurassic Park" - look forward to it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 07:19 AM

Like the way Thompson compares apples to oranges in his attempts to make a point:

"The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?"

Anybody see anything wrong with that? Shouldn't he have more accurately stated:

The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then having ruled Britain for 700 years and incorporated Britain into the German State went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?

I'd say yes they would.

Numbers who fought for "the cause" in 1916 - 1,250
Numbers potentially available to fight for "the cause" but who were deliberately ordered to stay home and do nothing in 1916 - 13,750

Number of Irishmen who fought in the British Armed forces in the First World War ~210,000 - Those numbers speak volumes for a country of roughly 3 million in 1911, it clearly demonstrates which conflict they were more concerned with.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:09 AM

"Germany certainly expected the Rebellion to act as a diversion, as they did when they gave safe passage to Lenin in their revolution the following year, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY "SUPPORT IRELAND EVER GAVE TO GERMANY AND NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE" - Jim Carroll

Agreed Jim - so will please stop claiming that the Leaders of the rising did not support the Germans - after all you've just admitted quite clearly in Upper Case above that they did. And at that time, two years into a world war involving Great Britain and Germany, that constituted an offence under the Treason Act, namely these two facets of it:

"levied war against the King in his Realm;" The rising in Dublin

"adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere" Colluding with the Germans in an attempt to land arms supplied by the enemy and create a diversion that would draw troops away from the war in France thereby giving comfort to the enemy.

Nobody supports that garbage now, nor have they for decades.

Oh dear Jom, speaking for everybody else again? Delusions of grandure or what?

The British Empire was a predatory set-up based on extracting wealth from those the conquored - no different from any other Empire throughout history - It was like a giant beehive with all it's occupants living only to serve a queen."

Ah so no such thing as outward investment then? I think the Indians would disagree with you on that.

Which nations did we conquer Jom? Care to tell us how with a population the size of Great Britain's between 1690 and 1916 we managed to "conquer" two thirds of the earth's surface and hold it?


"The Famine ws typical of how it could work - despite a catastrophic natural disaster, Britain continued to export food from Ireland for the merchants to sell off to Britain.
The warehouses, full of food, were locked and guarded.
Relief was sent from Britain to be sold to the starving at the going price so as not to interfere with the profits of the merchants."

Want a thread on the famine Jom? then open one detailing in your OP your case with all statements made backed up by real evidence (First looking up what constitutes real evidence)

One inconvenient fact for you Jom the imports of grain into Ireland during the "famine years" was four times what was exported.

Please explain to us how all the food in those warehouses was to be transported and distributed.

Another inconvenient fact for you Jom - the primary cause of the drop in population during the "famine" was emigration, the second was death from disease (Diseases that for the next thirty years would know no cure - so hardly avoidable as you claim) and the third, by a long way was starvation (IIRC in the worse of the "famine years" the number that died from starvation numbered 6,000)

"If native cultures or practices got in the way of British rule (little more than absentee landlordism - it was removed - a typical example being the Irish language, which was all but systematically destroyed."

Better example for you Jom - General Sir Charles James Napier, the Commander-in-Chief in India from 1849 to 1851 is often noted for a story involving Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of sati by British authorities.

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

The practice of burning widows on the death of their husbands ceased - Oooh nasty British Empire eh Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:21 AM

"The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan", T-Bird? You obviously haven't read her works on WW I.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:26 AM

Well then GregF from what you say you certainly haven't - or listened to her lectures either I'd guess:

Salzburg, Austria, 2014:

"How could a Europe that had been so prosperous and so largely peaceful for so many years, that was basking in a glorious period of trade and technological advance, that was flourishing within a long-established global order, have been thrown — in the course of a month — into the bloodiest conflict the world had then ever seen?"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 09:37 AM

Jim,
Your contempt was in describing the Irish people as being gullible and supporting murderers

I never have. (sorry Joe)

Simple question - why do you think Ireland is celebrating this in the way they are at the present time

I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate.
Is St.Pat's Day celebrated as an historical occasion?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 10:00 AM

Raggytash - 12 May 16 - 05:49 AM

Still trying to have the last word,

No Raggy he was simply asking you for once to provide an example to back up your accusations.

My bet is that not a single one will materialise - par for the course - no surprises there at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:47 PM

Terribus
"Agreed Jim - so will please stop claiming that the Leaders of the rising did not support the Germans"
'bout time we finished this, doncha think?
It's always intrigued me why you never link your claims to anything - whenever I've tried to trace your statements I've drawn a blank
I've confess I've been a bit slow on the uptake on this- YOU HAVE MADE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM UP.
Take this one for instance.
Nobody claims nowadays that the Rebels ever supported the German war effort - they took guns - nothing more.
They were not tried for treason - in your own words they were charged with "in other words" and their trial was rigged in order that they could be executed.
Technically, of course, they were guilty of nothing - they received no proper trial, they were not allowed to mount a defence, they were allowed no legal representation, the proceedings were condemned as illegal by the British courts, the 'trials' were held in secret and the details of those proceedings have never been released a century after they took place.
It remains to be seen whether Britain will apologise of this miscarriage of justice as they did over The Famine.
Their "collusion" is simply an invention on your part.
Even good ol' Norman Portillo describes the Irish 'support' for Germany thus:
"Martyrdom
Portillo puzzles over the reference in the Proclamation to "our gallant allies in Europe", namely Germany.
He believes the reference was put there by Patrick Pearse to provoke the British into an over-reaction.
"How do you expect the British not to shoot people who refer to the gallant allies? It is not central to declaring independence for Ireland.
"The whole thing makes sense without having to mention Germany at all. If you pursue this theory that Patrick Pearse wanted martyrdom, then you know this is all part of it."
Hence, he believes the British fell into the "propaganda trap" set for them by the leaders of the Rising."

The trained section of the Rebel Forces actually posed in front of the building shelled by the Helga, Liberty Hall, under a banner reading "We serve neither King nor Kaiser"
This photograph has been put up several times, but I'm happy to dig it out again, if you wish.
The Rebels did not support Germany, they were not charged with supporting Germany - you and Keith made it up, individually or between you, neither of you has produced proof - (or a historian between you)
Casement's case was different; he was tried for treason based on his 'Pro-German' statement
He was given a trial, allowed to offer evidence and had legal representation.
He was found guilty, allowed to appeal, his appeal was turned down and he was hanged.
Even here, there is a question mark hanging over whether Casement actually said what he said.
Britain mounted a campaign to smear Casement, using his supposed homosexuality so he would not be regarded as a hero as were the Rebels.

"Whitehall was guilty of plain blackguardism in deploying private documents to manipulate public opinion in Britain, Ireland and America during the Great War," he said. The diaries, written in an Army field notebook, three pocket diaries and a cash ledger, chart Casement's prolific homosexual activity at a time when such exploits were not only discreditable but illegal.
Home Office papers released in 1995 by the PRO showed how the "black diaries" were used to turn public opinion against Casement. The Cabinet was told as Ministers considered clemency that he "had for years been addicted to the grossest sodomical practices." They were advised that if he were executed "the knowledge of his immoral character. . .will alienate sympathy and prevent his being treated as a martyr".
The Telegraph, March 2002.

For a long time it has been claimed that these "Black Diaries" were faked, though now, it appears they were probably genuine and Casement committed the 'unforgivable sin' of being a homosexual.
Though the matteris still contested
Given that the Government colluded with Maxwell to have Tom Kent executed for something he did not do, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same to smear Casement - the British Dirty Tricks team left today's Israeli propaganda efforts at the starting post when it came to Ireland.
One thing is certain; when Casement was in Germany negotiating for weapons, he was under constant surveillance by German Security men because they suspected him of spying for Britain - some friendship.   
Anyway - you can clear all this up by breaking your life-long golden rule and actually producing some proof that anybody other than you pair actually claims that the Rebels supported the German War effort.
Keith
"I never have."
Yes you have and you've taken this long to get round to denying it.
The next step is that you only said it because someone told you to - unfortunately, there you have been unable to find any "real historians" to back your claims.
"I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate"
More racist stereotyping and more sneering at the Irish and their traditions - keep it up Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 12:59 AM

DE VELERA, took part in the easter rising, here is an interesting book.The book, provocatively titled 'England's Greatest Spy: Eamon de Valera', suggests that Dev was terrified of being executed after the Rising and was "turned" in exchange for his life. For some years afterwards, the book claims, Dev was under British control.
The 470-page hardback is published by Stacey International, a London publisher specialising in politics and history.

The author is retired US naval officer and historian John Turi from Princeton, New Jersey. He developed an interest in Irish history through his wife, who was born in Ireland. Turi has been researching his controversial book for a decade.
The case against de Valera by Turi is based firstly on a detailed analysis of Dev's emotionally stunted formative years.

He claims Dev was rejected by everyone in his early life -- his mysterious father in New York (in fact, Dev was probably illegitimate), his mother, his uncle in Ireland, who treated him coldly, even the Church, which rejected his ambitions for the priesthood because of his probable illegitimacy.
His miserable upbringing left Dev with an inadequate personality, Turi suggests, which made him susceptible to being influenced later on.

Turi is scathing about Dev's erratic behaviour during the Rising, when he was in charge of the men at Boland's Mill.
He stayed awake for days, became disorientated and issued confused, sometimes ridiculous, orders. "It was not just his tactics the men questioned," Turi writes, "they questioned his sanity as well."

Dev kept his men "sitting on their heels" while a short distance away at Mount Street Bridge eight Volunteers were trying to hold off hundreds of British soldiers.
In fact the men at Boland's Mill played little or no part in the Easter Week fighting, Turi says, because Dev was so exhausted and fearful.

At the end of the week, when word reached Boland's Mill of the surrender, Turi writes that de Valera "abandoned his men and slipped out of Boland's at noon on the Sunday, taking with him a British prisoner . . . as his insurance against being shot before he could surrender".


Cowardly

"De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops was (later) repackaged as de Valera the lonely hero fighting valiantly against overwhelming odds."
What followed was also suspicious, Turi says.

Dev later claimed that he was tried with a number of other men and sentenced to death.
Turi writes: "Not one of the men allegedly tried with de Valera ever confirmed that such a trial took place, and there is no trace in the British Public Record Office of any trial."

He also quotes the flat denial by the army prosecuting officer, William Wylie, that de Valera had been tried.

Turi also considers Dev's fragile mental state and tearful collapse at Richmond Barracks the night before he was taken to Kilmainham, to where condemned prisoners were sent.
All the events indicate that Dev was terrified of dying, Turi suggests, and that it would have been easy for the British intelligence officer Ivor Price to turn Dev into a British collaborator. Major Price was "skilled at manipulating weakness".

Turi notes that Dev was the only one of four Dublin commandants not to be tried and executed.

He dismisses theories that Dev was spared because he was born in America or because the British realised that further executions would be a mistake; as others were executed later.
The only reasonable explanation, Turi claims, is that Dev was "turned". In all, Turi sets forth a dozen instances of what he calls "de Valera's machinations that aided and abetted British interests" to support this claim.



Collins

Some of this 'evidence' concerns Dev's activities in the US after he was released from prison -- which split the powerful Irish-American lobby.
Turi also says the British feared what Michael Collins might do in the North and used de Valera to engineer the situation that resulted in Collins's death.

Turi also calls Irish neutrality during the World War II "a hoax on the Irish people and a major boon for English interests".

His book, which ends with a call for a posthumous trial of de Valera, was published in Ireland and Britain on November 30 and in the US last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:53 AM

"It's always intrigued me why you never link your claims to anything - whenever I've tried to trace your statements I've drawn a blank"

Three points on that Jom:

1: Both Keith A and myself have in the past given references and links which you dismiss or do not bother to check.

2: I don't know why it intrigues you Jom as it would not make the blindest bit of difference to you, what evidence was laid before you - you would ignore it. Your bigotry, rascism and Anglophobia is far too ingrained.

3: As far as your ability to trace and check facts given - Try harder, I am not going to do your homework for you.

But we will try a couple shall we, just to demonstrate:

Example 1:

In previous threads on WWI you stated that Kitchener was forced to resign from his post as Secretary of State for War.

Lord Herbert Kitchener

Time taken to find and put that link up was less that a minute from the easiest source of information on the internet - yet you say you have trouble doing that?

List of Secretaries of State for War

OK then Jom give us the date he was forced to resigned or state unequivocally that you were wrong and that the truth was he was never forced to resign - he was appointed as Secretary of State for War the day after war was declared and he died in office 5th June 1916.

Example: 2

You have repeatedly come out with the dissembling rubbish about there being no evidence of collusion between the IRB, IVF and the Germans.

Sir Roger Casement:
"Casement helped to form in 1913 the Irish National Volunteers, a nationalist organisation. The following year, in July 1914, Casement visited New York in an attempt to garner support for the organisation. With the outbreak of war the following month Casement similarly hoped for German assistance in gaining Irish independence from Britain.

With this in mind Casement travelled to Berlin in November 1914; once there however he found the Germans reluctant to undertake the risk of sending forces to Ireland (Indicates that he must have asked them). He was also disappointed in his hopes of recruiting to his cause Irish prisoners taken to Germany.

"While in Germany Casement strove in particular to effectively borrow a number of German officers to assist with a planned Easter rising in Dublin; again, he was disappointed. Believing the planned rising unlikely to succeed at that stage Casement arranged to be taken by German submarine to Ireland where he hoped to dissuade nationalist leaders from undertaking rebellion for the present.

Consequently he was landed near Tralee in County Kerry on 12 April 1916. Twelve days later he was arrested by the British, taken to London, and charged with treason. At about this time copies of a diary (the 'Black Diary') reputed to be written by Casement were circulated among government officials, detailing alleged homosexual practices with native boys.

Although clearly an attempt by the British to discredit Casement the diaries' authenticity was verified by an independent panel of scholars in 1959 and, more recently, in 2002. With an appeal dismissed Casement was taken to Pentonville Prison in London where he was hanged on 3 August 1916."

Source - Casement

Time taken about one minute - of this you are incapable?

Then there is this one Jom:

"In November 1914[23] Casement negotiated a declaration by Germany which stated:


"The Imperial Government formally declares that under no circumstances would Germany invade Ireland with a view to its conquest or the overthrow of any native institutions in that country. Should the fortune of this Great War, that was not of Germany's seeking, ever BRING IN ITS COURSE GERMAN TROOPS TO THE SHORES OF IRELAND, they would land there not as an army of invaders to pillage and destroy but as the forces of a Government that is inspired by goodwill towards a country and people for whom Germany desires only national prosperity and national freedom".[24]

Source - Casement

Casement went to Germany with the knowledge and consent of the leaders of the IRB and the IVF this piece of information backed up by:

"The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany.[22]   Source - Caulfield, Max, The Easter Rebellion, p. 18

Then there is this:

After the war began, Roger Casement and Clan na Gael leader John Devoy met the German ambassador to the United States, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, to discuss German backing for an uprising. Casement went to Germany and began negotiations with the German government and military. He persuaded the Germans to announce their support for Irish independence in November 1914.[31] Casement also attempted to recruit an Irish Brigade, made up of Irish prisoners of war, which would be armed and sent to Ireland to join the uprising.[32][33] However, only 56 men volunteered. Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.[34] The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers.[35]"

Collusion on a massive scale and as the Military Council took over the Easter Rising and kept the details of it secret then those who signed the Proclamation were guilty of Treason - They were accordingly charged with committing offences UNDER THE TREASON ACT namely:

1 Taking up arms against the King - which they most undoubtedly did.

2 Providing aid and comfort to the enemy - which they most undoubtedly did and for which you have previously been given the links to the Treason Act and the actual Anglo-French wording of these two specific charges.

But none of that matters to you does it Jom - so be intrigued no more. You and your pals rarely if ever provide substantive evidence for either your claims, statements or accusations - you just fling shit and run.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 02:30 AM

"Tom Kent executed for something he did not do"

The Treason Act 1351 is an Act of the Parliament of England which codified and curtailed the common law offence of treason. No new offences were created by the statute.[3] It is one of the earliest English statutes still in force, although it has been very significantly amended.[4][5] It was extended to Ireland in 1495[6] and to Scotland in 1708.[7] The Act was passed at Westminster in the Hilary term of 1351, in the 25th year of the reign of Edward III and was entitled "A Declaration which Offences shall be adjudged Treason". - Source - Treason Act 1351

Extract from the above:

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

"compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned; the original Norman French was "fait compasser ou ymaginer") the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 on 26 March 2015,[10] this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest child and heir);

violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest son only if he is also the heir[11]);

levied war against the King in his Realm;

adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

counterfeited the Great Seal or the Privy Seal (repealed and re-enacted in the Forgery Act 1830; death penalty abolished in 1832;[12] reduced to felony in 1861[13] (except in Scotland[14]));

counterfeited English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage (reduced to felony in 1832[15]);

killed the Chancellor, Treasurer (this office is now in commission), one of the King's Justices (either of the King's Bench or the Common Pleas), a Justice in Eyre, an Assize judge, and "all other Justices", while they are performing their offices. (This did not include the barons of the Exchequer.[16])

In firing on the Police and the army and initiating the gun-battle that took place in Cork on the 2nd May 1916, with the country under Martial Law, Thomas Kent was guilty of levying war against the King in his Realm.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:13 AM

More uncorroborated bullshit.
"Thomas Kent was guilty of levying war against the King in his Realm."
Kent was tried and executed for murder - after his execution " "Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'"
What part of the English book of rules does that appear in?
"Both Keith A and myself have in the past given references"
Keith carefully selects and quotes out out context, from books he has never heard of up to that point, bits which suit him - you provide nothing but expect us to accept your declarations without question.
"it would not make the blindest bit of difference to you, what evidence was laid before you"
I respond to everything put up - you respond to nothing and certainly qualify nothing.
You have the arguments for the position of the rebels on Germany and the War - nothing you have put up in any way changes their 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser" stance.
How about putting up someone who is actually making the same claims aas you are, but be careful not to make Keith's mistake of persistently backing the wrong horses?
Your flag-wagging, pro-Empire struttings are things of the past - they went with 'Empire Day' and 'From Greenland's Icy mountains', where, to be foreign was to be "in error's chain".
I assume your continued silence means we are in agreement of the illegal conduct of the trials
"Kitchener"
We all make mistakes - I could sit here all day discussing "democratic Britain at the time Trade Unioninists were being transported" or "prosperous Liverpool at the beginning of the 20th century", or the "poppies for profit" enterprise of 2014 - or even your defence of the Kent fit-up - or every single argument you have ever put up, drawn a blank and fallen silent on - but why take part in a pissing competition with someone with a flow problem?
Your vicious and archaic two-man arguments have totally failed to ring any bells here as they failed to on The famine - they appear to be as unaccepted here as they are in the rest of the modern world.
I repeat, nobody is putting up these arguments any more - even Keith, with his assiduous trawling of the net, has totally failed to come up with one "real, living historian" who backs your case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:28 AM

Jim,
"I never have."
Yes you have and you've taken this long to get round to denying it.

No. I denied it last time you made that accusation.
I only expressed my contempt for the rebel leadership, never the Irish people. (sorry Joe)

"I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate"
More racist stereotyping and more sneering at the Irish and their traditions - keep it up Keith.

Not sneering. I love to celebrate too, especially Paddy's day. (sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:33 AM

"You have the arguments for the position of the rebels on Germany and the War - nothing you have put up in any way changes their 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser" stance."

So Jom all you have to refute the Easter Rising's Leaders and the Supreme Council's documented collusion with an enemy power in time of war is a F**kin' photograph - are you serious? Just by taking up arms and diverting British troops from the front was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then we have the minor detail of the German weapons in their hands with which they gunned down unarmed policemen and civilians right at the start of the "Rising".

Don't just scream in multi-coloured upper case rants that what I have put up is incorrect you cretin - prove it. I don't think that you will you never do.

"Poppies for Profit" - Amazing how I forgot that classic example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit", those were the 888,000-odd poppies that were made for £9 a piece that raised £15 million for charity - Come on the Jom tell us all about it and I will knock you flat again with straightforward facts from the Royal British Legion website.

Still no thread on the Famine then Jom - speaks volumes for your confidence level in carrying that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:36 AM

Keith carefully selects and quotes out out context, from books he has never heard of up to that point

Not true.
I quoted from whole articles written by historians and available on line, with a link so they could be seen in their original, intended context.

Only you have quoted from a book you have not read, O'Callaghan's of which a few pages are available on line and which you quoted without link.
(sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:24 AM

You are responding to nothing I put up Terribus other than to deny it.
You want to show that The Rebels were all German agents - where's your evidence and who agrees with you?
I repeat
Kent was tried and executed for murder - after his execution " "Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'"
What part of the English book of rules does that appear in?
The trials of the Rebels were rigged, even by British standards making their executions an act of mass-murder.
The Empire was a corrupt and predatory business that habitally led to those it ruled over.
A total justification for The Easter Rising which set in motion its downfall
Game, setand match, I think - you didn't even get up the ladder as far as Tim Henman.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:38 AM

Game, set and match, I think

"This is not a battle to see who wins or loses. Your messages are getting boring and repetitive."
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:48 AM

Apologies goe - I was responding to unnecessary aggression
Won't happen again
Jim Carroll