BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 07:12 AM

You have been given the specific question which was not about The Easter Rising but directly relating the the subject you are protesting about - to repeat:
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."
Your response
"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."
You are saying partition is not an abomination.
No partitioned country under the jurisdiction of a foreign power can be described as "Independent in any shape or form.
You are supporting partition ero you are opposing independence.
Ireland was no more a "quaint little country than Britain was when it was divided into small Kingdoms and that aside, what it was like 800 years ago is totally irrelevant to what it has become since - so what relevance has that got to Easter Week or anything really?
You use the Normans to respond to an opposition to partition and you complain of others bringing in the repressive nature of the six counties since partition - you have to be joking!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 07:29 AM

"he was most definitely NOT speaking for the entire nation"
Redmond as a supporter of The Home Rule Bill which kept Ireland in the Empire for an AGREED period.
As for majorities - had the entire island of Ireland been given the vote on independence at the time, it would have voted overwhelmingly for Indendence,
Had Ulster as a whole been given the vote, the result would have been the same.
As it was, the decision of permanent partition was taken unilaterally and secretly on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, who claimed to represent two thirds of the six counties, but in fact were a minority of the population as a whole, a minority of the Protestant population and divided among themselves - a minority of a minority of a minority.
Their power came from the barrel of a gun and they were prepared to plunge the whole of the island of Ireland into civil War (when it was still a part of Britain) in order to mantain that power.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 May 16 - 08:41 AM

here is an article from the irish times written by john waters friday april 29 2011, especially for joe offer and other nit pickers about quotes.
this rather shows that dublin did not support the easter rising.what proportion of the irish population lived in dublin in 1916 50 per cent?


"In a sense, Dublin never quite seceded from the British empire, but seems to gaze forlornly across the Irish Sea, writes JOHN WATERS
WHENEVER THE events in Dublin of 95 years ago are raised, someone invariably tables a reminder that the Easter Rising had little or no support among the people of Dublin.
And indeed, while there are accounts not in accord with this version, there was undoubtedly some vociferous opposition to the Rising, mainly from the wives of men fighting in the war against Germany, and therefore dependants of the British crown. In his 1995 book, The Easter Rebellion, Max Caulfield noted that, as the rebel prisoners were marched away under arrest, they were attacked by working-class women, who pelted them with rotten vegetables and emptied chamber pots over them.
In his eyewitness account, The Insurrection in Dublin, James Stephens wrote: "Most of the female opinion I heard was not alone unfavourable, but actively and viciously hostile to the rising. This was noticeable among the best-dressed classes of our population; the worst dressed, indeed the female dregs of Dublin life, expressed a like antagonism, and almost in similar language. The view expressed was 'I hope every man of them will be shot'."
Because of the odd cultural dynamics nowadays attending these discussions, such accounts are usually presented as reflecting badly on the rebels. There is another perspective: that they reflect badly on Dublin and her citizenry.
The Dublin of the time was really just another provincial city of the British empire, bought in body, mind and spirit. It was in hardly any sense a capital city, but an outpost of British colonialism, more connected through governance, economics and culture to the "mainland" than to the country at its back, and unmoored from the Irish nation by virtue of its complicity in the continuing occupation of Irish hearts, minds and territory.
With a deliberate, strategic obtuseness, our dominant conversations nowadays seek to depict the Rising as a failed attempt to take power in the capital. But in the minds of its key leaders this was simply the most literal and least potent dimension of their endeavour. The idea that there was a realistic chance of gaining power, especially following the non-arrival of promised troops and munitions from Germany, was about the last thing on anyone's mind.
The point was to reclaim Dublin for the Irish nation by a gesture that would resonate for generations, to redeem Dublin of the sins of its acquiescence in the subjugation of Ireland.
In a letter to his mother on the eve of his execution, Pearse wrote: "We have preserved Ireland's honour and our own. People will say hard things of us now, but we shall be remembered by posterity and blessed by unborn generations."
Pearse insisted the battle they were fighting was not merely against Britain/England, but was a struggle for "the national soul", compromised and contaminated by centuries of interference and occupation. True independence, he wrote in The Spiritual Nation, "requires spiritual and intellectual independence as its basis, or it tends to become unstable, a thing resting merely on interests which change with time and circumstances".
This is a succinct description of what befell the business end of Ireland under British rule, and remains largely accurate of Ireland today.
It is worth recalling that just two of the signatories of the Proclamation, Pearse and Joseph Mary Plunkett, had been born and raised in Dublin. Thomas MacDonagh was from Tipperary, Seán MacDiarmada from Leitrim, and Éamonn Ceannt from Ballymoe, on the border between Roscommon and Galway. The other two, James Connolly and Thomas Clarke, were born outside Ireland.
It is pointless trying to arrive at a settled understanding of the Easter Rising in Irish culture unless we reflect deeply on these facts. Nowadays, we think of Dublin as entitled to speak for Ireland, as ruling over the State, albeit today in a certain quasi-democratic fashion. But Dublin is only a small part of Ireland, and by far the least representative part, an administrative capital that has hardly covered itself in glory by the quality of its administration.
It is impossible to imagine that, if the capital was Galway or Westport, this country would bear any resemblance to its present condition, which is largely a reflection of Dublin's confusing influence and control.
Dublin may well be the "brain" of Ireland, but this entity is by no means coterminous with the Irish mind. Our Dublin-based, supposedly "national" media are not so much Dublin-centric as Anglo-centric, obsessed with exploring comparisons between Ireland and Britain and promoting British provincialism as the reality of Irish culture.
Dublin never responded to the call of the Proclamation, believing itself to have too much to lose. The result, today, is a rather strange town, lacking any significant presence of an indigenous populace or self-generated culture, inhabited and run by people from outside itself, who seem never really to settle or belong but who existentially reject and are rejected by a city with a mind of its own.
In a sense, Dublin never quite seceded from the British empire, but seems to gaze forlornly across the Irish Sea as though to a lost lover cast aside in a moment of petulance. In this sense the Easter Rising might reasonably be said to have failed to achieve its primary objective."
jim, what have you to say about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:06 AM

As for majorities - had the entire island of Ireland been given the vote on independence at the time, it would have voted overwhelmingly for Indendence

Opinion masquerading as fact.

Had Ulster as a whole been given the vote, the result would have been the same.

It wasn't and you have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty how people would have voted. Again opinion masquerading as fact. And just because an author states an opinion or the opinion of someone else in a history book does not make that opinion a fact.

As it was, the decision of permanent partition was taken unilaterally and secretly on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, who claimed to represent two thirds of the six counties, but in fact were a minority of the population as a whole, a minority of the Protestant population and divided among themselves - a minority of a minority of a minority.

Ah you mean much in the same manner as:

As it was, the decision to instigate and mount an armed rising was taken unilaterally and secretly on behalf of the Irish Volunteers by seven men, who claimed to represent the entire movement throughout Ireland, yet who had to keep their plans secret from the executive committee and membership of that organisation and were in fact representing a minority of the Irish Volunteer Movement, a tiny minority of the population and divided among themselves - a minority of a minority of a minority.

However in the case of the Unionists they had lodged their objection in 1912 when the Bill was first introduced, those objections were given in Parliament by the MPs for Ulster elected by the people of Ulster. I think Keith supplied the demographics but a massive percentage of the Protestant population of the North signed the Covenant and Declaration in 1912 stating clearly that they would resist Home Rule by all means necessary. No such clarion signal was given in support of Independence in the South at that time - support for Home Rule yes, but independence No. Agreements relating to six year temporary exclusion came to nothing in part because of the Easter Rising and the Unionists in the North saw exactly the style of Government they could expect from Dublin after the 1918 General Election. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 called for two autonomous self-governing areas on a temporary basis, the Unionists accepted this and established their own Parliament, the Sinn Fein Government in Dublin rejected it and fought the Irish War of Independence, tell me why didn't the whole of Ulster fight for Irish Independence if what you said above was true? The war which resulted in a stalemate was brought to and end with the negotiation, ratification and signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which gave six counties of Ulster the option to secede from the newly created Irish Free State and that is exactly what their Parliament did one day after the creation of the Irish Free State was announced (6th December, 1921, Ulster seceded on the 7th December 1921). Hardly unilaterally they'd been discussing it for damn near ten years.

Their power came from the barrel of a gun and they were prepared to plunge the whole of the island of Ireland into civil War (when it was still a part of Britain) in order to mantain that power."

Nope their power came from the display of solidarity displayed in 1912. In comparison the Pearse faction of the Nationalists their power really did come from the barrel of a gun and they actually did use them, in Dublin in the Easter of 1916, during the War of Independence and then again after they had refused point blank to follow the democratic will of the elected representatives of the people of the newly created Irish Free State when they actually did plunge the newly independent state into a Civil War in an attempt to overturn the treaty and impose their will on the people. Please don't say that "the people" supported them - they didn't only 3.33% of the population turned up for their idiotic and totally unnecessary civil war.

Tell me Jim is the United States of America any less independent by being a Federation of independent states each of whom have their own state executives, legislatures and judiciaries?

Is Australia any less independent by being a Commonwealth of independently governed states with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State?
During WWI when expansion of their Commonwealth Defence Act 1911 to include service overseas was being discussed in Australia the plebiscite was run on a state by state basis, three voted for expansion and three voted against. Being a plebiscite all votes were lumped together and counted and those opposed to the expansion of the Act won.

Is Canada any less independent being Confederation of Provinces each with their own self ruling Parliaments?

The Unionists in the six counties wanted nothing to do with a united independent Ireland in which they, according to their perception, would always be a minority and in which they would always shoulder the main burden of taxation, their trade and industries relied heavily on being part of the United Kingdom, being part of a united independent Ireland was simply not in their best interests and they said so very plainly, when no-one in either Dublin or London paid them any attention they registered their objections in an even plainer manner, signed their Covenant and formed the Ulster Volunteer Force. Now then that had nothing to do the interference or imposition by any foreign power - That was simply how a large minority group of Irishmen in the North viewed independence. Or are they still to you "Blow-In Newcomers" from 500 years ago with no right to speak of at all? No right of self-determination.

In 1914 both Redmond and Carson had agreed to a temporary exclusion for Ulster and had the nationalists held off and had the Easter Rising never happened I believe that the two sides would have come closer together. But that is not what happened and the events of Easter 1916 polarised and hardened views of both nationalists and unionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:19 AM

Very interesting article GSS, thank you for posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:21 AM

John Waters may be a lot of things - homophobe, depression-denier, domestic violence apologist, journaslist, etc, but one thing he ain't is an historian.

But at least he's alive, and his journalistic productions are available at high road book-sellers.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:40 AM

did you read the article Greg, it verifies what both sides are saying in this discussion , in different places it both confirms what jim is saying and what keith a and teribus say , read it in full again

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:02 AM

A run-down of the struggle for Irish Independence:
What objection in particular do you have against this analysis?
Jim Carroll

The Irish people have been struggling for independence for many centuries, 1798 being a major milestone, when it turned to Revolutionary France for support, all of the attempts ended in failure and resulted in Britain tightening its grip on Ireland.
The struggle came to a halt during the Famine years, but the handling of that disaster, the holding of available food from the starving people, the mass evictions, the enforced Emigration and the holding of the land by absentee landlords shifted the focus of the struggle from a Nationalist fight to a struggle over ownership and possession of land.
THE LAND WAR
THE FAMINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_War
The struggle over land continued into the early 20th Century, officially up to 1911, but in the poorer areas, right into the 1920s following the treaty granting 26 counties independence.
LAND AND REVOLUTION
Politically, The Home Rule Movement, which had come into being at the beginning of the 19th century, fought peacefully for a situation where Ireland could remain within the British Empire but could enjoy a degree of autonomy; "an Irish legislature with responsibility for domestic affairs. It was variously interpreted, from the 1870s was seen to be part of a federal system for the United Kingdom"
HOME RULE MOVEMENT
Three Home Rule Bills were presented to Parliament, the first two, in 1886 and 1893 were all rejected by the House of Lords, Asquith stated his parties's position in 1902;
""Is it to be part of the policy and programme of our party that, if returned to power, it will introduce into the House of Commons a bill for Irish Home Rule? The answer, in my judgment, is No.""
His opposition was galvanised by his attempts to appease the Ulster Unionists
"One of the major problems faced by Asquith was appeasing those in the region known as Ulster who were against any form of Home Rule.
The opposition to Asquith in Parliament had now adopted the title the Unionist Party. It comprised of an assortment of parties but was dominated by the Conservative Party. They were naturally opposed to Home Rule. Before 1910, the Unionists had put their faith in the House of Lords rejecting any form of Home Rule Bill – as proved to be the case in 1886 and 1893. After the Parliament Act of 1911, they could no longer do this. The Unionists feared that any form of Home Rule would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. In this they had the full support of many.
Some Unionists like George Wyndham, believed that the country had every reason to use every means at its disposal to stop Home Rule in its tracks – including using the army to stop Asquith!
"(The Tories and the King) have the money, the Army and the Navy and the Territorials, all down to the Boy Scouts. Why then should they consent to a change in the constitution without fighting?" (Wyndham)
By 1911, the Unionists were led by Arthur Bonar Law who was against Home Rule. However, despite all the arguments for and against Home Rule, a Home Rule Bill was introduced into Parliament in April 1912. Its contents were similar to the ones of 1886 and 1893.
Still violently opposed to Home Rule in any shape or form, the Unionists armed themselves against its introduction and declared itself prepared to embark on Civil War to prevent it being enacted.
"However, all talk of Home Rule ended when World War One broke out. Redmond agreed that the issue should be postponed for the duration of the war. Many in Ireland agreed that this was the patriotic thing to do – even staunch supporters of Home Rule."
HOME RULE AND IRELAND
The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), and was eventually sabotaged by Lloyd George, who altered one of its main conditions, unilaterally and secretly changing the negotiated clause that partition should be introduced for six years, at which time it should become fully independent.
This was unacceptable to Redmond's Parliamentarians who described it an act of treachery, the Home Rule Movement collapsed and Ireland entered into a War of Independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:07 AM

Jim,
As for majorities - had the entire island of Ireland been given the vote on independence at the time, it would have voted overwhelmingly for Indendence,

Not true.
BBC history site on Easter Rising,

"Nationalists, who represented the majority of Ireland's population, wanted more independence from Britain. They campaigned for devolution for Ireland, and a minority wanted full independence. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgy8tyc

As for Ulster, that minority would have been even smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:13 AM

Jim, your last paste job about "Home Rule Movement" was written by a retired history teacher.
He states, "The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), "

He was wrong.
It was fully agreed, and would have been enacted but for the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:54 AM

"was written by a retired history teacher."
Oh sweet suffering Jesus - not again!!!!
By 1914 the faith of Irishmen in English parties and English pro¬mises was dead. The Home Rule Bill which John Redmond had wel¬comed with a warmth that cloaked anxiety as a 'great measure', was, it is true, placed on the Statute Book in October 1914, but accompanied by an Act suspending its operation till after the ending of the War and by an assurance of its amendment in respect of Ulster; that division of the nation which Redmond had denounced at Limerick in 1912 as 'an abomination and a blasphemy', had been the subject of negotiation in which Redmond, under pressure from his Liberal allies, agreed to the exclusion of Ulster for six years as the 'extremest limit of concession' without eliciting any favourable response from his Unionist oppo¬nents. It was a concession which the more advanced Nationalists were not prepared to make. 'So long as England is strong and Ireland is weak', was the comment of Sinn Fein, 'she may continue to oppress this country, but she shall not dismember it.' In the south there were men who had observed the Ulster rebellion, who had learnt from the organization of the Ulster Volunteers, who had watched the Fanny unload her cargo of arms at Larne. Like Sir Edward Carson—'the only Irish member of Parliament who has any backbone' observed Irish Freedom, the newspaper of the Irish Republican Brotherhood— they did not share John Redmond's belief in the wisdom and good faith of majorities at Westminster; like Bildad the Shuhite they answered and said 'how long will it be till ye make an end of words?'
The Irish Question Nicholas Mansergh Unwin Universdity Books 1965
Are you surprised that people regard you as they do Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 11:18 AM

How the **** could a Home Rule Bill have possibly been enacted without the "assurance of its amendment in respect of Ulster" that division of the nation" be discussed and agreed upon"?
What planet are these two living on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 11:48 AM

At the same time, by mid-1914, the Ulster leaders (Carson apart) had moved perceptibly towards demanding a way out for Ulster rather than an end to Home Rule for all Ireland. Politicians on both sides are on record as thinking even by late 1913 that county option, especially for the intricate cases of Fermanagh and Tyrone, would be so reasonable a solution that they would not dare to oppose it; therefore, they hoped the other side would continue to indulge in extravagant demands. Saving political face often appeared more important than hammering out a solution on its merits. By 1914 Bonar Law was still considering using the House of Lords to amend the Army Bill to save Ulster from 'coercion', and then provoke a first-rate constitutional crisis. But on more realistic levels, a six-county Ulster excluded from Home Rule was more and more clearly envisaged - though even this included areas of knife-edge majorities.
The Home Rule Bill as passed in May 1914 allowed opting out on a county basis for six years only; the Lords amended it to the exclusion of nine counties, for ever. A conference at Buckingham Palace, convened in July to work out an exclusion formula, brought the impasse no nearer resolution. The bill was placed on the statute book with the exclusion amendment left in suspension; while Asquith was seen by Unionist opinion as utterly unprincipled, for having forced through any measure of Home Rule at all. 'He has behaved like a cardsharper and should never be received into a gentleman's house again.'7 None the less, Partition had been, in principle, secured. As Michael Laffan has percipiently remarked, 'if war had not broken out and if Carson had led a rebellion in August or September 1914 his aim would not have been to preserve Antrim, Down, Derry and Armagh, for their exclusion had already been conceded. It would have been to impose exclusion on Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry City where Home Rule was desired by small but clear majorities' - a much less tenable endeavour.8 Like Asquith, he was saved from the logic of his position by the guns of August.
From - Modern Ireland 1600-1972 R. F. Foster 1988
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 12:57 PM

The Irish people have been struggling for independence for many centuries, 1798 being a major milestone, when it turned to Revolutionary France for support, all of the attempts ended in failure and resulted in Britain tightening its grip on Ireland.

Doesn't really match up, I don't think the "Irish people" gave a rats, Down through those centuries you had self-serving Irish Noblemen attempting to advance themselves, but please, please, please do not suggest they were doing anything for Ireland or its people. Hugh O'Neill was one of the worst. The Duke of Ormond was another.

As you say 1798 was a bit of a break with tradition, up until then it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt, in 1798 it was the French who did much like the Spaniards before them and exactly the same as the French had been doing in Scotland for centuries - Promising much and delivering little - and the Irish "revolutionaries" exactly like their Scottish counterparts were mug enough to believe them.

"Is it to be part of the policy and programme of our party that, if returned to power, it will introduce into the House of Commons a bill for Irish Home Rule? The answer, in my judgment, is No." - Herbert Asquith

What a great pity that you took that out of context and failed to give Asquith's reasons for stating that. For Asquith and the Liberals to stay in power for the Parliament we are talking about here he relied on forming coalitions, Irish Home Rule was not a very popular notion and had he stated he was going to introduce another Home Rule Bill then it would be highly unlikely that his Government would have lasted very long.

The support of the Irish Nationalists was essential to Asquith's government after the January 1910 election deprived him of the Liberal majority in the Commons. Keeping Ireland in the Union was then the declared intent of all the parties, and the Nationalists, as part of the majority that kept Asquith in office, were entitled to seek enactment of their plans for Home Rule.

The cabinet committee (not including Asquith) that in 1911 planned the Third Home Rule Bill opposed any special status for Protestant Ulster within majority-Catholic Ireland. Asquith later (in 1913) wrote to Churchill, stating that the prime minister had always believed and stated that the price of Home Rule should be a special status for Ulster. Nevertheless, the bill as introduced April 1912 contained no such provision.

This unamended Bill introduced in April 1912 received Royal Assent in September 1914 when it became the Government of Ireland Act 1914 which remained unaltered and unamended until it was repealed and replaced with the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

In the final paragraph of the post we get:

The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), and was eventually sabotaged by Lloyd George, who altered one of its main conditions, unilaterally and secretly changing the negotiated clause that partition should be introduced for six years, at which time it should become fully independent.

What Bill was put on ice? When was it put on ice? Immaterial whether of not it was fully agreed as a Bill it could never be enacted, as for something to be enacted it first must be an ACT, i.e. the Bill giving birth to it has to have been through the Commons and the Lords the prerequisite number of times amended as required and fully agreed before it gets Royal Assent which then makes the Bill an ACT.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 01:40 PM

All this is your opinion - all your own work - no links.
Why would I bother responding to something as ill-informed as that?
Want to challenge anything that resembles actual, verified evidence- no?
Thought not.
I deliberately missed out where Easter Week fits into all this - will do so when I get round to it.
" I'll take this of confirmation that you don't believe Ireland was entitled to Independence?
Thanks for that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 01:45 PM

Should read "Wasn't entitled," of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 03:15 PM

Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you.

"Nationalists, who represented the majority of Ireland's population, wanted more independence from Britain. They campaigned for devolution for Ireland, and a minority wanted full independence. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgy8tyc

The 1914 Home Rule Bill was fully agreed, and would have been enacted but for the war and but for the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 16 - 01:59 AM

Jim,because someone disagrees with you about the majority of support their was for independence, it does not follow that the poster does not feel that ireland was entitled to independence. I gave an example of how there were a considerable number in dublin[ in my opinion diffrent from the rest of ireland] who did not want independence.
however,my view is that it was a good thing that ireland got partial independence,but it would have been much better if the whole of the geographical island of ireland had got total independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 16 - 04:25 AM

Teribus says: The point I am trying make should be fairly obvious.

Well, gee, I tried to guess what your point was, and you said I was wrong. Humor me, and give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence.

You say that there was no Irish nation before the English took over, but then you acknowledge that there indeed was a High King. Seems to me that means there was at least some semblance of a federation of Irish kingdoms.

In addition, I think it's clear that there was a unified Irish identity, even though there were several kingdoms. They thought of themselves as the Irish people, whether or not they had a unified government.

-Joe-

P.S. Thank you for attributing the quote, Dick Miles. Between guessing where you get your quotes from, and guessing what Teribus thinks about things, I was thoroughly confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:31 AM

Joe, Jim falsely accused us of being against independence because we are against the rising.
That is where it came from. An invention.

There is no contradiction in being in favour of self determination but against the rising.
Independence was already assured and the rising achieved nothing.

What is the relevance of centuries old history to 20th Century events?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:44 AM

Well, gee, I tried to guess what your point was

Seems to me, Joe, his point is obfuscation.

Just one man's opinion, of course......

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:39 AM

joe, pay attention, jim accuses someone else of being against independence, a quite unnecesary and uncalled for comment.
here quote
Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 20 May 16 - 01:40 PM

All this is your opinion - all your own work - no links.
Why would I bother responding to something as ill-informed as that?
Want to challenge anything that resembles actual, verified evidence- no?
Thought not.
I deliberately missed out where Easter Week fits into all this - will do so when I get round to it.
" I'll take this of confirmation that you don't believe Ireland was entitled to Independence?
Thanks for that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 16 - 12:26 PM

One of the benefits of long-running arguments like this for me has always been that they force you to check things you think you know and have always taken for granted and bring them together into one big whole – it happened for me with the 'Famine' epics (same old two protagonists defending the same old Empire in exactly the same old way – "Britain didn't do nuffin'") .
It's been the case here as well – thanks again lads.
My forebears were Famine refugees so I grew up with some awareness, even knowledge of those events through listening to my parents and grandparents talking about it; it was part of my early education at home.
Likewise, members of my father's family were supporters of Ireland's fight for Independence; my father and his mates were active in dissuading men from joining the Black and Tans who were being sent to soften-up the Irish people during the run-up to the Treaty being signed – there's a book which touches on the campaign PINKMAN
My dad knew the man on whose reminiscences the book is based – I guess he isn't mentioned as the author was pro-treaty, 'Free Staters' and my family decidedly weren't.
None of this, of course, makes me 'right', or an expert, but it has given be a personal reason to take an interest, a 'ringside seat', sort of.
I've superficially known about these events since childhood and later I began to read them up, but there was so little specifically on Easter Week – this argument has been a great help in getting me join all the dots and make sense of what I have always believed to be a magnificent symbolic gesture by brave men and women but, as it turns out, was much, much more than that.
I'll try to put together what I believe about where Easter Week fits into all this later as I have tried to do with the situation which brought it about.
It's been interesting to see the somersaults, backtracking and evasions of our (two only again) defenders of the Imperial Faith – Keith, unable to find "real, living historians" to back his case, reduced to repeating things that have been shown not to be true and Teribus's contradictory "how dare you accuse me of suggesting that Ireland has no right to Independence" leading to "they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?" and finally and somewhat spectacularly, "They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place" so presumably they never, deep-down, wanted independence anyway - not exactly a confession, but as near to one as we can expect– love it, love it!!
"Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you."
'Course they didn't Keith, hold on to that thought if it comforts you.
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 – there are no accurate figures as to who supported what or why they did, only the behaviour of the Dublin women towards the rebels as they were being led out; there is not a shred of evidence to suggest any significant number supporting remaining within the Empire apart from the Unionists.
What is beyond any doubt is the fact that, shortly after the rising, when Britain's behaviour in secretly inserting permanent partition finally scuppered the move towards Home Rule, the overall mood became one of demanding full independence.
The call for full independence had certainly gone into a bit of a rest period prior to The Rising, but had not gone away, as many of the quotes I have put up have shown
All immaterial anyway; the demand for full independence was supported; even the Redmondites expected it to happen within six years of the war, but they were sold out by the people they had loyally supported and did not hesitate in declaring that fact; it was that betrayal that led to the destruction of the Home Rule Movement and eventually led to the Civil War and a repressive six-county State.
I intend to deal in full with what happened to the Catholics under the gerrymandered Six Counties later, when I've finished with Easter Week.
The brutality of post Easter Week was repeated later when the Brits sent in the Tans and Auxies to 'steer the Irish people onto the straight and narrow' when they forced through the Treaty
"jim accuses someone else of being against independence, a quite unnecesary and uncalled for comment."
If you read through what has been written you will see that Teribus has been asked on several occasions to explain how his 'before the Normans' doesn't show he is opposed to independence for Ireland - he hasn't responded to requests for an explanation and I doubt if he will explain how his 'Ireland had been conned by Spain and France into demanding independence' doesn't show the same thing – I have little doubt that this is his belief.
Perhaps you might explain it on his behalf!!
Your "running to teacher with stories" really is quite unnecessary - Joe's a bright feller - we had a word for people like you in junior school, which was about the last time I experienced your behaviour.
Keith (again)
"That is where it came from. An invention."
Isn't it about time you stopped flinging your accusations about - neither of you have ever explained your attitude and you, in particular have not explained how somebody who has expressed no interest and admitted having no knowledge in this subject can persist as long as you have - I can only presume an agenda.
Jim Carroll
Is anybody else having regular problems with logging into this site, or is it just the steam-driven West Clare Internet?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 21 May 16 - 06:07 PM

All this is your opinion - all your own work"

Nope not all is opinion quite a bit of fact in there too. I have already learned that there is no point in providing links for you as you do not open them and read what they contain. I normally do state where I get my information from and it normally is presented in context and in order, you do not even acknowledge it when a reference is given.

Self-serving noblemen/chiefs? Not merely opinion by any stretch of the imagination examples of them litter the history of countries right across Europe - In Ireland they were no different.

For the catalogue of how France and Spain cynically used disaffected elements in both Scotland and Ireland read N.A.M. Rogers book "Sovereign of the Seas". Again not just opinion. These two super-powers any time they were involved in any conflict, normally with each other, that included either England or Great Britain, or whenever it was important for them to influence England or Great Britain they would try to divert attention away from Europe by instigating trouble at home for Britain. As stated previously they always promised much and delivered little, not always entirely their fault as to get any significant aid delivered they had to come by sea and to do that they had to get past Britain's Navy, which from 1690 onwards just got stronger and stronger. It was British Naval Intelligence that broke the German codes that alerted those in authority in London and in Dublin, unfortunately they did not act on what was proposed on the 22nd April, if they had the Rising would never have happened – again not opinion Jim, that was basically what the Royal Commission into the Rising stated.

Asquith's quote - you provided the link, you just omitted to put it in context, you looked at the words used, but not the meaning, you only looked at it subjectively from one perspective.

To support your claim that the 1914 Act, a Bill that you originally claimed had never been passed, was altered you scroll out yards of script from conversations that took place two or four years after the fact and somehow expect everybody to believe they had relevance back in 1914. You are incredibly ignorant of Parliamentary procedure and insist that things were done, in a manner that they could not possibly be have been done, when challenged you either ignore the discrepancies pointed out to you (That's just your opinion) or you rant. Plain fact of the matter is the 1914 Act was never amended and the work done on Asquith's Amending Bill in 1914 records that both Redmond and Carson had come to an agreement that neither liked but both hoped they could work round in the six year period they had agreed to. The Easter Rising threw all that out of the window because by July 1916 Carson and the Unionists position had hardened. Try and identify any other cause, anything else that had happened in Ireland to have brought that change about. Not just opinion Jim just read your own sources and then place events in chronological order.

By 1920 the Unionists were back onboard again the two self-ruling entities to be known as Northern and Southern Ireland was intended as a temporary arrangement, but while those in Ulster agreed to it, in the South Sinn Fein opted for the War of Independence. That sealed the deal as far as the Unionists were concerned and when de Valera would not even live up to what his own Parliament and his own plenipotentiaries had signed it was obvious that th e North would secede.

PS: With regard to this comment of yours:

"Want to challenge anything that resembles actual, verified evidence"

Offer up anything that remotely resembles "verified evidence" and I will give it a go, but I think that you will find that whatever "verified evidence" you find will support what Keith A and I have been saying.

To Joe Offer:

I see that you are obviously having trouble locating anything that I have posted that says clearly and unequivocally that "I didn't think that Ireland was entitled to independence" – You won't because that is something that Carroll made up – You can't find it and neither can he".

One of two things you can do now is be honest and actually admit that I have never stated anything like that or continue to dance on the head of a pin. But every time you wriggle I will ask you for proof.

Humor me, and give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence."

Already done but obviously you do not read anything I post, even when that post is directed specifically to you:

Teribus - 20 May 16 - 05:05 AM
As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL.

Now tell me how I can state that any clearer than I have above – please detail anything ambiguous about that statement – or are you as obtuse as Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 16 - 07:53 PM

"Nope not all is opinion quite a bit of fact in there too."
Doubt it - you would have linked us to it otherwise.
Where on earth did you get this nonsense of Ireland's pedigree as a nation being in question - The Normans, the Italians, the Spanish, Uncle Tom Cobley and all that shit - total new one on me.
Now that surely is all your own work or can you link us to tat one?
Please do - haven't had a really good Irish belly-laugh since 'The Ginger Man'!!
Won't hold my Breath though - I've given trying to find how your claimed support for Irish nationhood and Irish independence squares up.
Likewise how a State artificially created by a foreign power at gunpoint and made up of settlers who were forcibly implanted a few centuries earlier by that same power can possibly be regarded as valid - do tell?

Anyway - away from La-La Land and back to the real world.

The Home Rule Bill, after being solidly opposed was finally agreed on in principle only, at the Buckingham Palace meeting in July 1914, with the proviso that the question of partition would be decided later after further consultation with the Redmondites and the Unionists.
That was scuppered by Lloyd George, but not by him alone apparently.

From 'The Irish Question; 1840-1921, Nicholas Mansergh, (1965)'
"Irish Nationalist opinion credits neither Carson nor Craig with responsibility for Partition. That is attributed personally to Lloyd George and collectively to the British Government. They have created for the first time in history' protested Joe Devlin, leader of the Ulster Nationalists, 'two Irelands. Providence arranged the geography of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr Lloyd George) has changed it.'** But in respect of individuals there are in fact other British claimants to such responsibility. Chief among them stands the Canadian, Andrew Bonar Law. He declared that until War came in 1914 he had cared for only two things in politics, Ulster and Tariff Reform. 'Over Ulster', writes his biographer Robert Blake, 'his success was indisputable, and her survival as an autonomous province wholly independent of the Irish Republic is in no small measure the achievement of Bonar Law/ Blake recognises the greater popular appeal of Carson's theatrical leadership, and Craig's contribution in building up a solid backbone of indigenous resistance, but he nonetheless concludes that without the uncompromising support of Bonar Law, without his much criti¬cized decision to pledge the whole of the English Conservative Party the Ulster cause, it is very unlikely that Ulster would stand where ut stands today".
* * House of Commons Debates.

The position of the Unionists had not altered one iota, total opposition to Home Rule for the whole of Ireland up to the tentative agreement on the Home Rule Bill – which was to be put on 'the long finger' till after the war to dot the i's and cross the t's. and then implement it.

From The Making of Ireland, James Lydon, 1998
"Earlier, Asquith had informed Redmond that in proceeding with his gov¬ernment of Ireland bill the position of Ulster would have to be considered before it became operative. If necessary, parliament must be given the opportunity to introduce amending legislation. An amendment to the home rule bill was, in fact, moved by a Liberal MP in June 1912, that four counties (Armagh, Down. Derry and Antrim) should be excluded. It was defeated by 320 votes to 251. 'I have never heard that orange bitters will mix with Irish whiskey' was how the proposer put it in his speech to the house.
Much more seriously, the cabinet had already decided in February of that year that the government must make whatever concessions were necessary to Ulster if circumstances seemed to warrant them and had told Redmond of its decision. At the end of July a mass demonstration in London protested against home rule and Andrew Bonar Law, the Canadian-born leader, with Ulster ancestry, of the Conservative party, told the crowd that what he called 'a corrupt parliamentary bargain' must not be allowed to deprive the Protestants of Ulster of what he insisted was their 'birthright'. There were, he said, 'things stronger than parliamentary majorities' and if parliament forced through home rule 'I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster will go in which I should not be prepared to support them' and which would not be 'supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people'. He had, in fact, already publicly given a pledge to a mass meeting at Balmoral in early April that Ulster resistance to home rule would be supported by British unionists. More than 100,000 attended that meeting, the surest sign that the Protestants of Ulster, supported by unionists outside the province, would never accept home rule".

The Unionists were fully armed and drilled and they had the promise of non-intervention from officers of the British Army, and the full support of Conservatives in Parliament.
It can't be emphasized enough that the Unionists were the first to import arms into Ireland for political purposes, and were fully prepared to use them to prevent Independence, even to the point of starting a Civil War.
So far, we've had only the Rebels as being baddies, prepared to take up arms – they had to run to catch up with the Ulstermen.
The Repbublicans were fully aware of the threat from the Northern fanatics and the support they were getting from Britain, and they were extremely dubious of even the Home Rule Bill, with all its limitations, being honoured.
They would have been of their chumps not to prepare to defend the country.

From 'A History of Ireland in 250 episodes. Jonathon Bardon 2008
"The Republican Brotherhood, almost defunct at the beginning of the century, recruited a new generation of activists. The Irish Party leader, John Redmond suspected that republican militants were in control of the Irish Volunteers. He insisted on taking over control of the Volunteers in June 1914, but the IRB were not so easily pushed aside.
If the UVF could arm themselves without retribution, then why not the Irish Volunteers? Erskine Childers, a former clerk of the House of Commons who had written the first modern thriller, The Riddle of the Sands, passionate!' supported Home Rule. An expert sailor, he and the journalist Darrell Figgis took the yacht Asgard to Hamburg. There he bought a consignment of 1,500 Mauser rifles; almost antiques, these single-shot weapons, loaded with black powder cartridges, were nevertheless deadly.
On 26 July 1914, in a blaze of publicity, the Asgard steered into Howth harbour, just north of Dublin. Some Volunteers openly shouldered rifles on the road. Soldiers made ineffective attempts to disarm them.
Returning to Dublin, the troops responded to taunts and stones from a hostile crowd at Bachelor's Walk by opening fire. Four people were killed and thirty-eight wounded. The impression that nationalists and unionists were being treated differently had been viciously reinforced.
Meanwhile Prime Minister Herbert Asquith faced a bewildering array of problems: suffragettes on hunger strike in prison; a threatened general strike- and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. But Ireland, Asquith was certain, was the most intractable problem.
Asquith might refer to his own 'masterly inactivity' and the merits of his policy of 'wait and see', but actually he did not know what to do. Then King George v stepped in. He called an all-party conference on Asquith's Home Rule Bill at Buckingham Palace on 21 July. In his opening address he said:
"For months we have watched with deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland ... and today the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsi¬ble and sober-minded of my people.... To me it is unthinkable ... that we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues apparently so capable of adjustment... if handled in a spirit of generous compromise."
According to Winston Churchill, the conference 'toiled round the muddy byways of Fermanagh and Tyrone', but there was no spirit of generous compromise, and the talks broke down. Sir Edward Carson certainly thought that civil war was unavoidable: 'I see no hopes of peace. I see nothing at present but darkness and shadows.... We shall have once more to assert the manhood
of our race.'"

You will note that the Bachelors Walk Massacre (four killed, 38 wounded) came about by troops opening fire on demonstrators in support of the arms being shipped in - so much for the Rebels having no support.
The Rebels had no alternative to do what they did if Ireland was to get independence and retain it's Parliamentary freedom, and what better time to do it while there was a war on?
Apart from this, had they not armed themselves, The Unionists would have been able to march in unopposed had the Home Rule decision not gone their way – supported by officers in the British Army and the Conservatives in the Government.
And to add to this, the W.W.1 Sword of Damocles was hanging over the heads of Ireland's youth.
They were Patriotic Heroes, not "murderers" and that is what they are known as in Ireland today and have now been celebrated as such since the beginning of the year.
If either of you two Imperialist reminiscers are going to respond to this – I would prefer accredited facts – rather than the old usual denials – it really does make these things much more interesting.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 16 - 08:52 PM

Teribus quotes Joe Offer: Humor me, and give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence."

Teribus responds: Already done but obviously you do not read anything I post, even when that post is directed specifically to you

I've tried, Teribus, I really have. There are a LOT of words in this thread, but I have tried to sort through most of them to find out what you really think. All I can find, is statements from you that say you already said what you think - and THAT you have repeated over and over. I find those statements quite easily, so obviously I have been reading what you post.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:27 AM

give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence - Question to me from Joe Offer.

My reply:

Teribus - 20 May 16 - 05:05 AM
As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL.

Now tell me where it was I said any of the following:

That I "don't think that Ireland was entitled to independence" - written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit

"they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?" - written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit

""They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place" - written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:40 AM

Taking this as the subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
Here is how much of this post is relevant
From: Jim Carroll - 21 May 16 - 12:26 PM

One of the benefits of long-running arguments like this for me has always been that they force you to check things you think you know and have always taken for granted and bring them together into one big whole.

You mean irrelevant factoids such as you were wrong about the Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 being defeated and thrown out – When in actual fact it passed as an Act in 1914 When it received Royal Assent - Not thrown out or defeated at all.

You mean irrelevant factoids such as the Home Rule Act was never altered.

You mean irrelevant factoids like conscription never existed in 1914 – therefore it could never, ever have been a consideration with regard to what directed the IRB to mount an armed rebellion and collude with the enemy as they undoubtedly did - both decisions taken in September 1914, so what happened after that is irrelevant the decision had already been taken to collude with the enemy and resort to violence - an undemocratic decision taken by seven men.

You mean irrelevant factoids like the Military Council set up by Connelly and Pearse to purposely by-pass and highjack the Irish Volunteers deliberately keeping the Executive Council and leaders of that organisation in the dark.

You mean irrelevant factoids like seven men who had absolutely no mandate at all completely and deliberately set out to destroyed any chance of any peaceful resolution of differences between the North and the South and in so doing destroyed any chance of a united independent Ireland. They are further away from that today than they were on August 4th 1914.

None of this, of course, makes me 'right', or an expert, but it has given be a personal reason to take an interest, a 'ringside seat', sort of.

of that subjective twaddle is relevant but it does explain you biased, bigoted views and explains your rampant anglophobia.
"Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you."
True statement if you examine facts – then compare them to the Jim Carroll version and presentation of events.
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 - But OK for you to do that as self-appointed spokesperson for the Irish People of 1916.
What is beyond any doubt is the fact that, shortly after the rising, when Britain's behaviour in secretly inserting permanent partition finally scuppered the move towards Home Rule, the overall mood became one of demanding full independence.

Only problem with that Jim was the 1920 Act mentioned a temporary not a permanent partition. Fact look it up – As you wouldn't believe me if I said so.

The call for full independence had certainly gone into a bit of a rest period prior to The Rising, but had not gone away, as many of the quotes I have put up have shown

Gone into a bit of a rest because the bulk of the people were content with Home Rule first independence later, the rising kicked that into touch.

the demand for full independence was supported - By a tiny minority

What " led to the Civil War was de Valera not accepting and following the democratic process – ten years later he admitted that the Free Staters in 1922 had been right – another inconvenient irrelevant factoid.

"you will see that Teribus has been asked on several occasions to explain how his 'before the Normans' doesn't show he is opposed to independence for Ireland - he hasn't responded to requests for an explanation and I doubt if he will explain how his 'Ireland had been conned by Spain and France into demanding independence' doesn't show the same thing – I have little doubt that this is his belief."

So pure supposition on your part Nothing factual about it at all.

Teribus's contradictory "how dare you accuse me of suggesting that Ireland has no right to Independence" leading to "they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?"

OK then Joe when have I ever said that – OR this:

""They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place"

More Jim Carroll Made-Up-Shit"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:53 AM

Joe, we keep telling you that we support independence but not the rising.
What is there not to understand about that??

Jim, if I am repeating things that are untrue, identify one.

Also Jim,
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 -

No. They have teams of historians, and you will find no historian who claims anything but a minority support for the rising.
Sinn Fein campaigned for full independence but got few votes and went broke for lack of support.
All the elected leaders supported the 1914 Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"Joe, we keep telling you that we support independence but not the rising."
And we keep telling you that The British destroyed ny chance of Independence by its support of an aggressive armed group of extremists which succeeded in turning the wished of the Irish people to a demand for Irish Independence.
Your continuing ignoring of that fact is not only an insult to the wishes of the Irish people then, but an indication that you both have no interest in Ireland gaining freedom unless it was that demanded by a long-dead Empire.

"More Jim Carroll Made-Up-Shit""
"As to the various "Irish Rebellions" down through those 800 years if you look into them you will find that they were mainly instigated either by Spain or France who promised much but delivered little"
"For the catalogue of how France and Spain cynically used disaffected elements in both Scotland and Ireland"
"it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt,"
Don't you think it rather stupid to describe as "made up shit" something that is readily available on this thread - in multiple examples?
Every single statement I have put up I have taken from accredited and identified sources, everything you have claimed has been concocted with no attempt to identify, using your, "Let's Re-write Irish History' manual.
If nothing else, your refusal to invalidate anything - anything at all - you have claimed is indicative that it is pure invention on your part.
This has now become an exercise in moving away from the actual facts of the argument and arguing about arguments.
"As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL"
Political lip-service when it is contradicted by everything you say, sort of like "Some of my best friends are black....."
Respond toi what YOU have said, not what you claim to believe.
You have questioned the validity of Ireland as a united nation by travelling back thought time to the Normans, you have suggested that Ireland has been conned by France and Spain into demanding Independence in the first place, you have suggested that the Uprising which was followed by a War of Independence was not supported by the Irish people, and your friend has suggested that the present celebrations talking place in Ireland is down to the Ish love of celebration, respective of the cause.
Keith's actual pearls of wisdom - "I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate."   
You have about as much respect for national Insependence as did your Empire before you.
Back up your case with facts - not empty rhetoric.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:45 AM

"Jim, if I am repeating things that are untrue, identify one."
Now you really do have to be joking
Every time you have written that Ireland would have become independent if it hadn't been for the uprising, you have repeated a lie.
You have been given masses of evidence that this was not the case, you have not countered that with anything whatever of your own, yet you have continued to repeat it as if you were saying it for the first tome
It is not true, it has been proven to be false with accredited facts, you have totally failed to come up with an accredited fact - not one singe "real historian", yet you continue to repeat it.
That is just one of many of your 'cracked record impressions'.
If thete are no responses from this pair, I will continue with my assesment of the period, moving on to the enforced Treaty and probably finishing with the effect that that Treaty had on the Catholic minority of the six counties - that shoul;d sort out the rest of the week.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 05:08 AM

"Every single statement I have put up I have taken from accredited and identified sources"

And nearly all of them are writers expressing their OPINIONS - not necessarily quoting or detailing facts:

They have created for the first time in history' protested Joe Devlin, leader of the Ulster Nationalists, 'two Irelands. Providence arranged the geography of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr Lloyd George) has changed it. - Joe Devlin's Opinion.

Chief among them stands the Canadian, Andrew Bonar Law. He declared that until War came in 1914 he had cared for only two things in politics, Ulster and Tariff Reform. 'Over Ulster', writes his biographer Robert Blake, 'his success was indisputable, and her survival as an autonomous province wholly independent of the Irish Republic is in no small measure the achievement of Bonar Law/ Blake recognises the greater popular appeal of Carson's theatrical leadership, and Craig's contribution in building up a solid backbone of indigenous resistance, but he nonetheless concludes that without the uncompromising support of Bonar Law, without his much criticized decision to pledge the whole of the English Conservative Party the Ulster cause, it is very unlikely that Ulster would stand where ut stands today". - The OPINION of Robert Blake

Those are examples of OPINIONS here are examples of FACTS

1: The Irish Volunteers split into two groups in 1914 a Redmondite Faction and a pro-IRB Pearse Faction. The split was roughly 92.5% Redmondites and only about 7.5% supporting Pearce - It was this latter group who were responsible for planning and carrying out the Easter Rising of 1916.

2: In September 1914 the Supreme Council of the IRB decided that they would mount an armed insurrection in Ireland during the course of the Great Britain's war with Germany and that they would seek German assistance to do it.

3: It is a fact that the Third Irish Home Rule Bill was passed by the Westminster Parliament and that it was passed without any Amending Clauses. For it to have done that it is a fact that there had to have been agreement on it.

4: It is a fact that Connelly and Pearse set up the Military Council of the Irish Volunteers to isolate the Executive Council of that organisation and its Leaders.

5: It is a fact that this Military Council plotted their rising in secret and deliberately mislead the rest of the membership of the Irish Volunteers and its leaders - When the Executive heard of the rising on or about the 21st/22nd April they immediately countermanded the orders given.

6: After the rising had been suppressed an attempt was made to enact the Third Irish Home Rule Act - negotiations came to nothing because in the wake of the rising pro-unionist views had hardened. Nothing apart from the rising had happened in Ireland between 8th July 1914 when there was reluctant agreement to a temporary arrangement and July 1916 when Lloyd George entered into discussions with both John Redmond and Sir Edward Carson - this time Carson sought firm assurance that Ulster could not be forced into all Ireland Government against the wishes of the people of Ulster.

7: The decision by the IRB/Pearse faction of the Irish Volunteers to resort to armed struggle was taken in September 1914 therefore conscription (March 1916 which excluded conscription in Irleand) or even the prospect of conscription (April 1918) could not in any way, shape, or form be a relevant reason for, or cause of the events that occurred in Dublin that Easter week-end in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"And nearly all of them are writers expressing their OPINIONS -
One again , a total distortion of what I have put up,
The overwhenlming number are either direct quotes or linked to statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, The Proclomation and cabinet notes.... and others involved at the time.
In return you have offered totally zero - the nearest t you cone to a piece of documented evidence is a vague wave (with identification) of a manual or law book - about as valid as "everybody believes...."
Your dishonesty is now palpable.
The OPINION of Robert Blake
Who was Bonar Law's biographer - are you suggesting he made it up - without having read it even? You're getting better even than Keith at this style of arguing.
That is one singlle quote from a larger selection of many such
selections.
"here are examples of FACTS"
Where is your proof they are facts - have you linked us to your sources - NO YOU HAVEN'T - you never do
Have you responded to requests to do so - NO YOU HAVEN'T - you never do
Where is your evidence that all of these are not just conjured up out of your head?
Your no 7 piece of nonsense is typical of the crassness of your argument
Conscription was always an issue in Ireland - enforced conscription was first introduced in Britain in January 1916 - three months before the Rising - it was inevitable that, should it be deemed necessary, it would be introduced into Ireland - the possibility of Conscription threatened the existence of Ireland as a nation - you have been given the facts surrounding bringing in conscription - including the cabinet debate.
This piece of knitting seems to have become completely unravelled - I can't remember an argument we have had that has ever reached such a stage of completion as this one.
I assume that you haven't responded to your Spain, France, Norman allegations we have to conclude that, despite your protests, you believe that not only is Ireland not entitled to independence but she has never really wanted and has been conned by foreigners into asking fr it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:47 AM

You are still trying to divert this argument away from the actual subject on to an argument about argumnets - your stance it to reject documented facts and opinions based on those facts and have us accept your unqualified opinions without makin any effort to peroduce facts to back them up.
Time to move on, I think.

How the Risinfg was conducted.
From The Making of Ireland James Lydon
"Far from being a military shambles and the misconceived plot of poets and idealists intent on a blood-sacrifice, the organization of the rising in Dublin was praised subsequently by the British. The Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police said that the military articles published in The Irish Volunteer before the rising were worthy of praise and that the conduct of the rising itself was 'all done very well'. No less a person than General Maxwell reported to the war office in London that 'the fighting qualities so far displayed by the rebels gives evidence of better training and discipline than they have been credited with'. A member of the royal commission set up to investigate the rising, Sir Mackenzie Chalmers, was convinced by the evidence that it was 'exceedingly well arranged'; and Sir Mathew Nathan, a former soldier who became Under Secretary for Ireland, told the commission that 'the conduct of the insurrection showed greater organizing power and more military skill than had been attributed to the Volunteers'.
The original plans had been carefully worked out, but had to be modified when the German arms failed to be delivered and when MacNeill's influence caused most of the intending participants to withdraw, so that only about 1,800 in all came out in Dublin. By the time that Pearse, Connolly and the other leaders occupied their carefully chosen garrisons in Dublin, the most they could hope for was to hold out for a week or so and forcibly bring the notion of a sovereign Irish republic before the eyes of the world. Their strategy was original, unlike that normally practised by revolutionaries. Wimborne, the lord lieutenant, commented afterwards: 'There was no conflict in the streets. The ordinary tactics of revolutionaries, which I imagine to be barricades and so on, were not resorted to ... at the very start they took to the houses and house-tops'.
Even had larger numbers of Volunteers joined in, the lack of arms would have been a disaster. On St Patrick's Day, when a grand Volunteer parade was held, the police carefully counted all those on parade, which came to 4,555; but only 1,817 of these were armed, half with old rifles and the rest with shot¬guns. Outside Dublin the rising took place only in a few scattered places in counties Galway, Wexford and Dublin, and there, too, the lack of arms was a disaster. In Galway, for example, where Liam Mellows had been promised 3,000 German rifles from the Aud, the 1,400 Volunteers who joined the rising (more than fought in Dublin) had, according to a police report, only seven rifles, 86 shotguns and seven revolvers. No wonder Liam Mellows said later: 'I had to send many of them home. I never knew the blackness of despair until then'.
Under those circumstances, then, what was achieved was beyond what poets and academics might be expected to achieve. There is no doubt that Patrick Pearse was consumed with the notion of being a new Cu Chulainn, prepared to sacrifice himself for Ireland. But he was also the author of The Murder Machine, an important work on education, and the founder of St Enda's, a school under lay management, where his theories were put into practice. He was not just a visionary, but a capable editor, teacher and organizer who gave the British government a fright and nearly caused a crisis in the middle of the war."
Some "shambles", some "contemptible joke"

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 08:36 AM

"Where is your proof they are facts"

You mean apart from the fact that those things actually happened Jim - or are you going to deny that those things happened?

After all you did say that the Home Rule Bill was never passed by the Westminster Parliament didn't you? That it was defeated and thrown out by the Lords and the Tories - those were your facts and they have been conclusively proved wrong.

You also stated categorically as a fact that those responsible for the 1916 Easter Rising never colluded with the Germans - that too has been proven wrong. I could go on but won't apart from this one:

enforced conscription was first introduced in Britain in January 1916 - three months before the Rising - it was inevitable that, should it be deemed necessary, it would be introduced into Ireland

1: The Military Service BILL 1916 was introduced to Parliament on the 27th January 1916 it became the Military Service Act 1916 on 2nd March, 1916 and became Law THEN - Not in January _ you see Jim those are the facts of the matter - not your ill-informed ramblings - see here - Military Service Act 1916

2: From the above Act - who it applied to:

Every British male subject who

- on 15 August 1915 was ordinarily resident in Great Britain*** and who had attained the age of 19 but was not yet 41 and
- on 2 November 1915 was unmarried or a widower without dependent children

unless he met certain exceptions or had met the age of 41 before the appointed date, was deemed to have enlisted for general service with the colours or in the reserve and was forthwith transferred to the reserve. He now came under the controls specified in the Army Act. This was as of Thursday 2 March 1916.

Provision was made under Section 20 of the Reserve Forces Act 1882, for information being obtained from the man with regard to his preference for service in the Navy. The Admiralty had the first right of call on men who expressed this preference.

Men were encouraged to voluntarily enlist under the Group System (Derby Scheme) before the Act came into place.

Schedule of Exceptions (i.e. categories of men who were not deemed to have enlisted)

1. Men ordinarily resident in the Dominions abroad, or resident in Britain only for the purpose of their education or some other special purpose.

2. Existing members of the regular or reserve forces or of the Territorial Force who are liable for foreign service or who are, in the opinion of the Army Council, not suitable for foreign service.

3. Men serving in the Navy or Royal Marines or who are recommended for exception by the Admiralty.

4. Men in Holy Orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination.

5. Men who had served with the military or Navy and been discharged on grounds of ill-health or termination of service.

6. Men who hold a certificate of exemption or who have offered themselves for enlistment since 4 August 1914 but been rejected."

*** - ordinarily resident in Great Britain, i.e. Mainland Britain - NOT Great Britain & Ireland.

3: The decision to mount an armed rising was taken when by the IRB? Here I'll give you a hint:

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. - Source: "The Easter Rebellion" by Max Caulfield, page 18

So if they had already decided to rebel on the 5th September 1914 just WTF had the introduction of a Military Service Act that only applied to mainland Britain in 1916 have to do with it? Reasonable question based on Facts.

Jim Carroll - 22 May 16 - 06:47 AM

Now who was it that laughed when I pointed out that the Irish Volunteers who fought that Easter were well trained and drilled, and that the soldiers sent against them had only just finished their basic training - that was you wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 08:52 AM

"or are you going to deny that those things happened?"
Are you goiing to prove they actually happened - not up to me to make your argument for you.
"2nd March, 1916 a"
It was arrived at in January - doesn't matter when it came into law but it was still in force before the Rising so you are splitting hairs again
The threat of conscription was a factor involving every country under the influence of Britain from August 1914.
Did not Military Service Bill cease to exist in 1918, when Britain tried to enforce conscription - odd that!!
You have had copies of the debate attempting to involve Ireland in the war
Had the Easter Rising not happened and the brutish behaviour of Britain sickened the Irish people as a whole compulsory conscription would have been introduced.
We really are done with this it's done and dusted.
You are still attempting to isolate these arguments to ones that have been long settled - if you have any proof to the contrary, put it up.
Thank you for silently confirming your opposition to Ireland gaining Independence - "that'll do nicely", as the credit-card ad puts it.
Onwards and upwards
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 09:02 AM

"Now who was it that laughed when I pointed out that the Irish Volunteers who fought that Easter were well trained and drilled,"
They were neither trained nor disciplined beyond the level I have described.
The Dublin Police Chief says "gives evidence of better training and discipline than they have been credited with'" but nobody suggests they were any more than I have described - it was his opinion (which you have written off as irrelevant in a previous post regarding Bonar Law's biographer) based on nothing more than a personal impression
The rebels were not trained - they had no arms to have been - there really is no dispute anywhere about this fact.
They certainly were disciplined and they were dedicated and that's about the level of their training.
As I said, onwards and upward.
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 May 16 - 10:38 AM

"1: The Military Service BILL 1916 was introduced to Parliament on the 27th January 1916 it became the Military Service Act 1916 on 2nd March, 1916 and became Law THEN - Not in January _ you see Jim those are the facts of the matter - not your ill-informed ramblings - see here - Military Service Act 1916"

Please account for the recruitment figures below:

                   Volunteers Conscripts Total
January 1916       49,411    16,554    65,965
February 1916       18,738    79,891    98,629
March 1916          15,876    113,617   129,493
April 1916          15,119    91,789    106,908

Can you suggest why, before the act was passed, some 210,000 men had been conscripted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:07 AM

Now let me get this right. Anyone who writes a biography writes indisputable fact - your take on the Blake chap who wrote about Bonar Law.

So does that mean that what Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote about Patrick Pearse is indisputable fact? Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish. Are these all indisputable facts Jim? Or are they just her opinions.

Ruth Dudley Edwards - Ireland grows up

The threat of conscription was a factor involving every country under the influence of Britain from August 1914."

Please find and provide a link to the Military Service Act 1914, one must have existed if conscription was a factor. I can direct you to one for Australia which they themselves cobbled together in 1911. But those conscripts could only be called upon to defend Australia itself.

No conscription anywhere in Britain or in the British Empire in 1914
No conscription anywhere in Britain or in the British Empire in 1915
Conscription on the mainland of Great Britain from March 1916, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1916
Conscription in Great Britain in 1917, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1917
Conscription in Great Britain in 1918, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1918

Give me the name of anyone conscripted in Ireland between August 1914 and November 1918.

Had the Easter Rising not happened and the brutish behaviour of Britain sickened the Irish people as a whole compulsory conscription would have been introduced. - Pure speculation on your part - merely your opinion - NOT FACT.

By the way Jim you do not need guns to drill, you do not need guns to train.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:29 AM

Raggytash - 22 May 16 - 10:38 AM

Trust you enjoyed your break.

Ever heard of the Derby Scheme launched in the Autumn of 1915? It was an exercise carried out to see if conscription was necessary.

A National Register was compiled from July 1915

The Military Service Bill introduced in 27th January 1916 became the Military Service Act 2nd March 1916.

Those listed as being conscripts in your table prior to March came from the Derby Scheme those after were conscripts under the Act.

215,000 men enlisted while the scheme was on and another 2,185,000 attested for deferred enlistment. - so numbers seem to match

Call up under the Derby Scheme began: Groups 2 to 5 were called up in the last two weeks of January 1916, and Groups 6 to 13 in February. The last single groups other than the 18 year-olds were called up in March. This last batch were called up in parallel to the first men to be summoned under conscription under the Military Service Act. Attestation under the scheme ceased on 1 March 1916. - Source: Derby Scheme The Long, Long Trail

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:42 AM

"By the way Jim you do not need guns to drill, you do not need guns to train."
If you are going to oppose the army of the greatest power in the world you do.
You should know that with all your (claimed) military experience
" I'd have thought that "latent" is the key word there
"Ruth Dudley Edwards (born 24 May 1944, in Dublin, Ireland) is an Irish, self professed revisionist historian,[1][2][3] crime novelist, journalist and broadcaster, in both Ireland and the United Kingdom. She is, amongst other positions, a columnist with the Irish Sunday Independent."
In contrast a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blake,_Baron_Blake">Robert Blake
Tell me again about what you told Joe about taking his information from novels?
I ask again - was The Military service act not operable in 1918 when Britain attempted to enforce conscription on Ireland
A reminder
"Mr Bonar Law: How would you justify to the House of Commons delaying conscription? You can say, as the Prime Minister has just said, that time is required for machinery,"
or "Mr Herbert Fisher: Are you definitely satisfied that there is a military advantage in applying conscription to Ireland? I feel absolutely with you as to the bad effect on English public opinion of continuing to exempt Ireland; but we should look at it as a cold military proposition. English public opinion is sound. Our artisans will do their duty. You have to decide whether it is worth your while to enforce conscription in Ireland and thereby perhaps obtain disaffected elements for your army.
Lord Derby: They will be distributed through the army.
The Prime Minister: That is the one consideration that chiefly worried me. Is it worth while in a military sense? You will get 50, 000 at any rate, at a minimum, who will fight. These five divisions will be made up of excellent material, of young men up to twenty-five, at a time when we are taking old men.
Mr Churchill: I have not met one soldier in France who does not think we shall get good fighting material"
or
"Mr Churchill: The two measures should be regarded as independent, and be simultaneously introduced. I do not see the
advantage of delaying the application of the Military Service Act to Ireland. The dual policy should be loyally followed. I would press forward on the two roads. There is a great deal to be said against any delay in action once conscription is announced."

Try (19 May 16 - 12:49 PM)
Tell me why, if conscription was out of the question for Ireland, Britain attempted tyo push it through in 1918?
This is bloody insane.
You've has all this - it's done and dusted - Ireland lived under the threat of enforced conscription throughout the war and if that had happened it would have made the country unviable.
Haven't you learned how stupid it is to quote rulebooks that were persistently ignored whenever the authorities found them inconvenient.
I really don't know what you expect by persisting with this farce - you're already up to your arse in wreckage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:45 AM

I fecked up the
ROBERT BLAKE
link
yer 'tis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 02:03 PM

"If you are going to oppose the army of the greatest power in the world you do."

Ehmmm Jim the year is 1916 - what else was going on that year?

Another fact for you, but I know that you will say that its wrong, in 1914 of all the major combatant powers involved Great Britain had the smallest army in the conflict - one-tenth the size of those of either France or Germany, by 1916 it had been fighting the largest and most powerful army in the world for two years. Maybe that would explain why the troops sent to Dublin were raw untested recruits straight out of training.

Yes this Ruth Dudley Edwards:

Dudley Edwards was born and brought up in Dublin and educated at University College Dublin (UCD), Girton College, Cambridge, and Wolfson College, Cambridge. Her father was the Irish historian Professor Robert Dudley Edwards. Her brother Owen Dudley Edwards is a historian at Edinburgh University. In 1965, she married a fellow UCD graduate, the journalist Patrick Cosgrave.

Her Non-Fiction Works:

Her non-fiction books include An Atlas of Irish History, Patrick Pearse (National University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research), James Connolly, Victor Gollancz: A Biography (winner of the James Tait Black Memorial Prize), The Pursuit of Reason: The Economist 1843–1993, The Faithful Tribe: An Intimate Portrait of the Loyal Institutions (shortlisted for Channel 4/The House Politico's Book of the Year) and Newspapermen: Hugh Cudlipp, Cecil King and the glory days of Fleet Street. Her Patrick Pearse: The Triumph of Failure (winner of the National University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research), first published in 1977, was reissued in 2006 by Irish Academic Press. In 2009 she published Aftermath: The Omagh Bombings and the Families' Pursuit of Justice a book about the civil case that was won on 8 June 2009 against the Omagh bombers. The Faithful Tribe was criticised by Ulster Protestant journalist Susan McKay as "sentimental and blinkered",[5] but the New Statesman contributor Stephen Howe described it as "engrossing and illuminating"[6] and Irish Independent journalist John A. Murphy described it as "enormously readable, entertaining and informative".[7] In 2016 she published The Seven: The Lives and Legacies of the Founding Fathers of the Irish Republic (Oneworld), a re-examination of the Easter Rising, addressing the fundamental questions and myths surrounding Ireland's founding fathers."

Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:10 PM

"Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession."
Now you really are joking.
Having dismissed statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes.... as "opinions" you are now defending your use of a self-confessed "revisionist historian" a tabloid journalist cum-thriller writer as some sort of expert - do you know what "revisionist" means?.
This lady described the leader of the Rising as a "Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish".
Look as I might, I can't see a mention of her being qualified in any way as a psychoanalyst, which would be necessary for anybody to make such a statement (apart from a tabloid journalist of course!).
I feel a touch of the Victor Meldrews coming on - "I don't ****** beleeeeeeve it".
At a time when the Easter Week Heroes are being lauded to the skies by the Irish press, media, historians, educationalists... and the Irish people in general, this tabloid journalist has decided (with no corroborating evidence), that the leader was a latent homosexual/pedophile - you may describe her as "respected" - I suggest she if looking for a story - it's called "headline hunting" in the trade.
You are doing exactly what Keith has become noted for - you are making rules as to which piece of information is permissible and which is not, and using whoever you wish to try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It really is not your day, is it?

Back to the real world.

The logic of the Rising
From Ireland's Civil War Carlton Younger (1968)
To call Pearse and his comrades a minority is not quite the truth. They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow. The people wanted change, release from the ubiquitous Dublin Castle and the right to govern themselves, but majorities invariably want change to be gradual, want to keep grasping familiar props with one hand while they reach for the unfamiliar with the other. Tradesmen and shopkeepers like to see new customers on their thresholds before they relinquish their old ones. So the majority of the Irish still believed in Redmond's national¬ism, not seeing that this was outmoded, that Home Rule was obsolescent before it was even implemented, that new young leaders were breaking new ground and seeing ahead of them, far away as yet, and beyond innumerable barriers, a promised land.
The Easter Rising of 1916 was not a matter of impatience, of reluctance to wait until the end of the war for Home Rule. In 1912 even Pearse had thought the Bill acceptable, but the desire for independence had mounted, outstripping the lab¬orious passage of the Bill. Its provisions of a bi-cameral Par¬liament in Dublin with little more power than a County Council no longer went far enough, but it might have been tolerated as a stepping stone to complete independence had the threatened amendment on partition not cracked the stone in two. Even as it stood, Pearse and his friends were sure that England would leave the legislation to moulder rather than engage in fresh struggles with the intransigent Orangemen.
The Rising was a travesty of what it might have been but, perhaps because it was a travesty, triumph flowed from it. Skilled professional revolutionaries would never have won the hearts of the people, and, without their faith, their conviction, there could have been no effective fight for freedom in the subsequent years. It was the ardour, the dedication, the heroism of the young rebels in the face of inevitable disaster, and finally the cold, professional savagery with which they were met, that won them their day. For the people saw at last that all the complexities of past years were meaningless, that the issue was as clear and as substantial as Waterford glass. That was the real consequence of the Rising."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:42 PM

I'm not really contributing to this thread, but I wonder if someone can tell me how you'd know that someone was a "latent paedophile." Think about it. Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:47 AM

Especially after a century.
Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?
I believe the same was suggested of Lewis Carroll.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 01:09 PM

Before this becomes too much of an issue, perhaps it's best to deal with it now.
Pearse's "latent homosexuality" is based on a poem he wrote in 1909, which describing the writer kissing boy.
It's an old controversy which has never been resolved, the arguments being that he was writing in the third person or that it was a misinterpretation from the translated Irish:

"I think someone was fairly on the money when they pointed out that the English language has dealt with so many matters, that it has developed a fair body of innuendo, double-speak and implication over its existence. That's not that same for Irish however, with terms like teaghmháil, which is what Pearse uses and is translated to touch, being a fairly straight forward, non-controversial word, which means physical contact and never intends anything sensual or sexual. Likewise, with the word 'mischief', which has many other connotations than the míghníomh (negative or bad deed) used in original. No one will do this poem justice, unless he can give it due consideration in Irish.
It boils down to how one interprets the poem.The mistranslation of one word can change the entire meaning of the poem.
The word 'i dteagmháil' is often used in irish as something entirely different to 'touching',for example,and can not be put down to 'physical contact',

Quote Originally Posted by Riadach View Post
I think someone was fairly on the money when they pointed out that the English language has dealt with so many matters, that it has developed a fair body of innuendo, double-speak and implication over its existence. That's not that same for Irish however, with terms like teaghmháil, which is what Pearse uses and is translated to touch, being a fairly straight forward, non-controversial word, which means physical contact and never intends anything sensual or sexual. Likewise, with the word 'mischief', which has many other connotations than the míghníomh (negative or bad deed) used in original. No one will do this poem justice, unless he can give it due consideration in Irish.
It boils down to how one interprets the poem.The mistranslation of one word can change the entire meaning of the poem.
The word 'i dteagmháil' is often used in irish as something entirely different to 'touching',for example,and can not be put down to 'physical contact',

Béidh mé ag dul i dteagmháil leat-I'll be having a word with you.

Whatever the case, there has never been any suggestion that Pearse acted on the 'inclination' if it existed at all.
Not surprisingly, it has re-surfaced during the centenary year and has been grasped by the few dissident voices as proof positive that Pearse fancied boys.
Had there been any truth in the suggestion, the Brits would, no doubt, have used it to denigrate Pearse as they did Casement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 May 16 - 02:18 PM

A few years back, I heard this song about the Rising by Mudcatter Brendan Devereux, and recorded it with his permission. It pays tribute to ancestors of his who fought in the Rising, and recently Brendan had the honor of playing it at the commemoration ceremonies at Liberty Hall.

Liberty Hall

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 16 - 03:41 PM

"Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?"

Ah you mean like Sir Max Hastings and Tim Pat Coogan - must remember that.

Ruth Dudley Edwards on the other hand:

Education:
University College,Dublin; Girton and Wolfson Colleges Cambridge University.
                
Professional qualifications:        
B.A., M.A., D.Litt(National University of Ireland.
Honorary D.Litt        from Queen's University        Belfast        (2011)

Awards:
National University of Ireland Travelling Studenship Prize 1968
Prize for Irish Historical Research (1978 - For Patrick Pearse)
Tait Black Memorial Prize 1988 - for Victor Gollancz)                                                                                
Employment:
Tutor in History (University College, Dublin)        1964-5;
Lecturer in History and        English        (Further Education institutions        in Cambridge) 1965-67.

She certainly has the tickets punched of the cabal of seven who led 1,800 people to war ensuring that none of them had a clue as to what they were doing, and who were even more clueless as to what they were going to after the event.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 16 - 04:36 PM

Of course what they did achieve was partition which id further away now than it was in 1914

1000 up.