BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 May 16 - 12:13 PM

Raggytash - 28 May 16 - 10:50 AM

1: "I am simply saying you know sweet FA about Irish history

Well he has shown he has a far, far better understanding of it than you Raggytash

2: you have no interest in Irish history you merely want to argue the toss about subjects you have no knowledge of, and I for one can't be arsed any more.

Don't tar others with the same brush you've self-admittedly tarred yourself with previously.

As stated previously on this thread no-one has produced more evidence to back his arguments that Keith A has. And neither Carroll or yourself have been able to pick a hole in anything he has posted, unfortunately for the pair of you history is the study of things that have actually happened, not things that might have happened, or things that you have supposed have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 12:20 PM

Addenda
He insists on having the last word anyway and now his mate has emerged I have little doubt that they will combine to attempt to kill this subject stone-dead.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 16 - 04:27 PM

OK. What do either of you know about the Rising in, let's say, County Mayo, County Galway or County Cork.

.............. I'll leave the rest of the country until you have at least demonstrated a modicum of knowledge about these three.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 May 16 - 06:17 PM

"As stated previously on this thread no-one has produced more evidence to back his arguments that Keith A has."

Why, that's very brave and valiant of you. It's certainly an advance on your usual lukewarm approach to Keith (because at least he doesn't argue with you, of course). Have you bothered to see what a complete twit he's made of himself in the Whither Labour thread? Nah, thought not! Your enemy's enemy may not be your friend. Not unless you enjoy being sorely embarrassed.

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

"Why, that's very brave and valiant of you."
What you appear not to understand Steve, is that, despite the actually stated ignorance of and disinterest in Irish history, this feller and his mate know more than the Irish nation, its experts, its historians, is writers down the ages.... the lot - all rolled into one dynamic duo.
We are dealing with supermen here - no evidence, no facts - all out of their own heads - 'The Almighty Johnsons' have nothing on this pair of geniuses - we need to treasure them, so please don't knock what you don't understand..
Moving on - how the achievements of Easter Week were recognised by the newly elected Irish Government following the War
Jim Carroll

"Why, that's very brave and valiant of you."
What you appear not to understand Steve, is that, despite the actually stated ignorance of and disinterest in Irish history, this feller knows more than the Irish nation, its experts, its historians, is writers down the ages - the lot - all rolled together.
We are dealing with supermen here - no evidence, no facts - all out of their own heads,
'The Mighty Johnsons' have nothing on this pair of geniuses - we need to treasure them, so please don't knock what you don't understand..

Moving on - how the achievements of Easter Week were recognised by the newly elected Irish Government following the War
Jim Carroll

From A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes, Jonathan Bardon (2008)

Episode 222
THE FIRST DÁIL
In a desperate attempt to find a way of implementing Home Rule while the Great War still raged, Prime Minister David Lloyd George called an Irish Convention. The conference, which met in Trinity College Dublin from the summer of 1917 to the spring of 1918, proved futile. The rising separatist party, Sinn Fein, refused to attend. In any case, northern and southern Unionists fell out. At a crucial meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1916 it had been agreed to seek partition of the six north-eastern counties. Unionists in the Ulster counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan accepted this majority decision with heavy hearts. According to one Unionist mp, 'Men not prone to emotion shed tears.'
Southern Unionists, not wanting to be cut off from the support of northern Protestants, campaigned vigorously to stop partition. They came close to clinch¬ing a deal with John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party. The Ulster Unionist mp Adam Duffin wrote in disgust to his wife on 28 November: 'The Southern Unionist lot... want to capitulate & make terms with the enemy lest a worse thing befall them. They are a cowardly crew & stupid to boot.'
Redmond died in March 1918, and when his successor, John Dillon, failed to hammer out an agreement, the Convention dissolved.
At that moment Field Marshal Ludendorff's stormtroopers dramatically broke through on the Western Front and surged towards Paris. By this time recruitment in Ireland had fallen to a trickle. A contemporary anti-recruiting song caught the prevailing sentiment:

Sergeant William Bailey's looking very blue,
Too-ra-loo-ra-loo-ra-loo-ra-loo ...
Some rebel youths with placards
Have called his army blackguards
And told the Irish boyhood what to do.
He's lost his occupation,
Let's sing in jubilation
For Sergeant William Bailey, too-ra-loo.

In 1916 Westminster had introduced conscription in Great Britain. Now it was about to be imposed in Ireland. Nationalists of every variety closed ranks to resist conscription. Dillon led his mps out of Westminster in protest. Catholic bishops described the Conscription Act as 'an oppressive and inhuman law which the Irish people have a right to resist by every means that are consonant with the law of God'. A general strike, highly effective in all parts of the country outside the north-east, paralysed transport.
In May 1918 the newly arrived viceroy, Lord French, announced the exis¬tence of a 'German Plot'. Police arrested seventy-three prominent Sinn F6iners. Knowing that it would only strengthen their cause, Sinn Fein activists still at large made no attempt to avoid arrest. In fact not a shred of solid evidence had been presented to show that Irish nationalists were conspiring with Imperial Germany.
Lloyd George gave up the unequal task, and, as Winston Churchill remarked, the government ended up with 'no law and no men'. Then, on the eleventh hour Of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the Great War ended. It is estimated that 28,000 Irishmen had given their lives in the Allied cause.
A long overdue general election followed in December 1918. For the first lime all men aged twenty-one and over had the vote. Women—provided they were aged over thirty and were householders or married to householders—also got the vote. At a stroke the Irish electorate had been tripled. The 1918 election, proved to be the most momentous of the twentieth century.
Sinn Fein had a spectacular triumph: it won 73 seats. The Irish Party lay in ruins: it won only six seats, and four of these had been the result of an elec¬toral pact with Sinn Fein in Ulster. Helped by a much-needed redistribution of seats, Irish Unionists raised their representation from 18 to 26. Lloyd George's wartime coalition swept the boards across the Irish Sea; and of great significance for the future of Ireland was that now more than half of all MPs were Conservatives.
Countess Constance Markievicz had the honour of being the first woman ever elected to the House of Commons. But she, like all the Sinn Fein MPs, abstained from Westminster. Instead they convened on 21 January 1919 in Dublin's Mansion House as 'Dáil Eireann', the Assembly of Ireland. Reporters outnumbered the elected representatives, since thirty-four Sinn Fein mps still languished in jail. At that historic meeting the Dail unanimously approved a Declaration of Independence:

Whereas the Irish people is by right a free people:
And whereas for seven hundred years the Irish people has ... repeatedly protested in arms against foreign usurpation:
And whereas English rule in this country is ... based upon fraud and maintained by military occupation against the declared will of the people:
And whereas the Irish Republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916, by the Irish Republican Army acting on behalf of the Irish people ...
Now, therefore, we, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish people, do, in the name of the Irish nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic....

Would the peacemakers in Paris also ratify the Irish Republic?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 16 - 05:48 AM

So there you have it - the first democratically elected Parliament in Ireland endorsed the Easter Week uprising as "acting on behalf of the Irish people"
Can't say fairer than that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 16 - 06:25 AM

I consider myself to have been suitably chided, Jim. 😳🔫

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 16 - 03:01 AM

So there you have it - the first democratically elected Parliament in Ireland endorsed the Easter Week uprising as "acting on behalf of the Irish people"
Can't say fairer than that.

Of course what that should read to put it into perspective is

So there you have it - After the election in 1918 the first democratically elected Parliament in Ireland consisting of a huge Republican Sinn Fein majority endorsed the Easter Week uprising of 1916 carried out by a fanatical minority Republican Group as "acting on behalf of the Irish people"

The fact that the majority of the people of Ireland in 1916 felt exactly the opposite ( One of Keith A's two points) isn't even mentioned and why should it - putting it in football terms which team would you expect Celtic Supporters to cheer for?

Would the peacemakers in Paris also ratify the Irish Republic?

No more than they would have ratified the existence of a German Alsace- Lorraine or a German Belgium.

By the way does Mr Jonathan Bardon give a date for the "crucial meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1916 {where} it had been agreed to seek partition of the six north-eastern counties" - It wouldn't by any chance have taken place shortly AFTER the failed Easter Rising would it? I think that you will find it was which rather backs up the statements made that the failed rising hardened opinions and feelings on both sides and more or less guaranteed permanent partition. We all know that in July 1914 they were willing to try a temporary partition solution but by July 1916 the Unionists only wanted permanent partition, which because of Sinn Fein's stand, the war of independence and the ensuing civil war the Unionists got. Decades later after a host of unsuccessful attempts to coerce and terrorise the people of Northern Ireland into a Union they didn't want the Republican "men-of-the-gun" who supposedly modelled themselves on the "magnificent seven" of 1916 had to stand on the sidelines and see the Government of Ireland Act 1920 superseded by the April 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the abandonment by the Government of the Republic of Ireland of Articles 2 & 3 of their Constitution thereby further reinforcing the Permanent Partitioning of the Island which came about as a direct result of the events in Dublin one hundred years ago.

"Can't say fairer than that". Indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 03:56 AM

Still only opinions - ah well!!
Go buy a book - they're good for you, especially when all you can do is throw stones at the Irish, their history and their first democratically elected government.
A half decent "perspective would be for you to put up authoritative counter arguments, yet all you offer your your long-discredited Empire-Loyalist opinions
Do you have anything from researched sources, any counter-arguments from people who have actually researched these events - you continue to link nothing.
You have been given researched facts - dozens of them, and offer nothing in return - you're not even making an effort any more - just stabbing in the dark.
C'mon - make an effort and make life interesting.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 04:21 AM

"( One of Keith A's two points)"
Keith - like you - put nothing up to substantiate his opinions, that is what makes them infinitely ignoreable, especially as he is now reduced to repeating the same one - Norwegian Blue-like.
The Irish people made their opinions plain when they voted as they did - you have described their choice as "a fanatical minority Republican Group ", which sums up how much respect you have for the opinions of the Irish people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 16 - 05:43 AM

Jim, I have quoted historians to substantiate every assertion I have made.
Why not identify an unsubstantiated assertion of mine, or from T.
That would be easy if your claim was true.

Again Steve posts without making any comment on the rising, just a false and gratuitous personal attack on me.
Why is he not being deleted?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 16 - 07:23 AM

Jim, I have quoted historians

Live ones or dead ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 07:28 AM

For crying out loud Keith - you have substantiated none of the assertions you have made and have blatantly ignored requests to do.
Like Teribus - your assertions are your own - opinions backed with nothing - even your "real historians" have let you down.
If ou have any evidence of your opinions - back them up with documented facts (Jesuit lecturers of philosophy don't count)
I've put this up three times now (it refers to your ongoing repetition of what may have once been a mistake on your par but has now become a deliberate untruth.

"Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising."
It was never "discussede" after the Rising - Lloyd George had gone ahead with making partition permanent - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement
Redmond had made it cleared from the beginning that permanent partition was not on the table as far as his party was concerned - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"So no guarantee of permanent partition then"
Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?   
"NOT the same thing at all."
Certainly not the same he had told the Unionists if that's what you mean, though I'm sure you don't - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?"
Until you square thisw circle with evidence, your assertions are no more than dishonest repetition.
I have no intention of wasting time on a pair of anachronistic post Imperial loonies, but I would be grateful for any genuine information - I've shown you mine (which you have consistently ignored, ot in the case of your mate, ruled immaterial, - now - where's yours?
I have a great deal more here ready to post so, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen - some people take this subject seriously
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 08:06 AM

A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes Jonathan Bardon
Episode 226 PARTITION
Lberal though he was, David Lloyd George headed a coalition government in 1920 which was overwhelmingly Conservative. Several prominent members of his cabinet on the eve of the Great War had pledged themselves to 'use all means which may be found' to prevent the setting up of a Home Rule parliament. By now, it was true, these Conservatives were prepared to accept Home Rule, but only if loyal Ulster remained within the United Kingdom.
At a crucial meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1916 it had been agreed to seek partition of the six north-eastern counties. Since 1914 the bal¬ance of power had tilted away from Irish nationalists—especially because of, as Arthur Balfour, Lord President of the Council, put it, 'the blessed refusal of Sinn Feiners to take the Oath of Allegiance in 1918' The absence of 73 Sinn Fein MPS left only half a dozen demoralised Irish Party MPS in the Commons. And so Ulster Unionists essentially got the constitutional arrangement they desired.
In 1920 Ireland acquired a new frontier—through the decision of parliament, not by international accord. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 allowed the exact positioning of Germany's borders in Upper Silesia, Schleswig, Marienwerder and Allenstein to be agreed after holding 'plebiscites' or referendums. Should Westminster also apply American President Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination by holding a referendum in Ulster? The cabinet committee on Ireland hastily dismissed this proposition. Balfour argued that referendums were only suited to vanquished enemies: 'Ireland is not like a conquered state, which we can carve up as in central Europe.'
The British government, however, could not ignore the prevailing spirit of the times. This, in part, explains the complexity of the solution it offered. The bill for 'the Better Government of Ireland' proposed two Irish parliaments, one for the six north-eastern counties to be called Northern Ireland, and another for the remaining twenty-six counties to be known as Southern Ireland. Both parts of Ireland were to continue to send representatives to Westminster. Without taking the trouble to consult Irish nationalists on the matter, Lloyd George assumed that they would find two Home Rule parlia¬ments less objectionable than a straightforward exclusion of the north-east.
Ulster Unionists publicly declared they were making a 'supreme sacrifice' by accepting a Home Rule parliament in Belfast. Actually the whole arrangement suited them very nicely. Those in the six north-eastern counties had no wish to see the Ulster counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal included in Northern Ireland. If they had been so inclined, the Unionist majority would be perilously thin, as the Co. Down MP, Captain Charles Craig, bluntly told the House of Commons: 'A couple of members sick, or two or three members absent for some accidental reason, might in one evening hand over the entire Ulster parliament and the entire Ulster position.'
Unionists soon got to like the idea of having their own parliament in Belfast. After all, the Labour and Liberal parties might form a government one day and decide to end partition. Having a parliament in Belfast might offer a protection against such an awful eventuality. As Charles Craig pointed out, 'We believe that if either of those parties, or the two in combination, were once more in power our chances of remaining a part of the United Kingdom would be very small indeed.'
Did Northern Ireland have to engulf the entire counties of Antrim, Down, Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone and Fermanagh? Tyrone and Fermanagh then had nationalist majorities. In 1914 the Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Edward Carson, had argued that the four most Protestant counties, with a population greater than that of New Zealand, would make a perfectly viable unit. He kept quiet on that issue now. Poor Law Unions, rather than counties, could have been used as a better guide to drawing the frontier.
On 23 December 1920 the Government of Ireland Act entered the statute book. Northern Ireland came into being, with elections due on 24 May 1921. Carson privately hated partition and had no liking for devolution in Northern Ireland: 'You cannot knock parliaments up and down as you do a ball, and, once you have planted them there, you cannot get rid of them.' But Carson was not going to fall out with the Ulster Protestants now. Instead he pleaded ill-health and graciously handed the leadership over to his faithful lieutenant, Sir ]ames Craig. Craig threw himself enthusiastically into Northern Ireland's first election:
Rally round me that I may shatter our enemies and their hopes of a republic flag. The Union Jack must sweep the polls. Vote early, work late.
The Union Jack did sweep the polls. Forty Unionists returned; and only six Sinn Fein and six Nationalists. By then it had become starkly obvious that the Government of Ireland Act had not solved the Irish Question. The most intense violence for more than a century now convulsed the whole island.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 16 - 08:44 AM

Jim,
For crying out loud Keith - you have substantiated none of the assertions you have made and have blatantly ignored requests to do.
Like Teribus

So you keep saying Jim, but you never give an example!
Why not?
If it is true, state one.

Rag,
OK. What do either of you know about the Rising in, let's say, County Mayo, County Galway or County Cork.

Can you find one single erroneous statement about them from us, or one single true one from yourself or Jim?

Of course not.
Just false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 May 16 - 08:50 AM

Read a book yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 16 - 09:02 AM

Found a single historical error in any of my posts yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 May 16 - 09:16 AM

There speaks a man who exults in his own ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 09:21 AM

"Found a single historical error in any of my posts yet?"
You've just been asked five questions which directly contradict everything you have ever said - by ignoring them you are being doshonest
By repeating your question. you are inviting conclusions that you are not only dishonest, but just here to troll a thread you have no interest in (as you have already explained)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 16 - 09:31 AM

What 5 questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 16 - 10:10 AM

For crying out loud Keith - you have substantiated none of the assertions you have made and have blatantly ignored requests to do.
Like Teribus - your assertions are your own - opinions backed with nothing - even your "real historians" have let you down.

Then here is a very simple exercise for you and your pals Jim - name one thing that either Keith A or I have said that did not happen in Fact.

My bet is on we'll a load of bluster and rant but nothing of actual significance.

Did you look up Bardon to find out when that "critical meeting" of the Ulster Unionist Council took place yet Carroll? Bet you haven't because if you do you will be placed in the uncomfortable position of realising that it was the Easter Rising of 1916 that hardened the position of the Unionists and virtually guaranteed that Ireland would be partitioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 10:24 AM

"What 5 questions?"
I've just repeated them for the third or fourth time - do you'thing were'
You assked where you had been proved wrong - have ignored all the other nonsense you have spouted and have concentrated on your repetition of the Home Rule enactment lie . here are about half of the examples - happy to put up the rest.
Please link your reply to real information to show it is more than opinion

"But for the rising, it would have been enacted unchanged after the armistice."   - how?

"But for the Germans invading Belgium it would have been enacted at once.
How?

"The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), " How?

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

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

"The rising destroyed the unity that had been achieved, and the rising alone prevented the Bill from being enacted." What unity and how would it have been enacted?

"Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted. What about the two directly contradictory stances of the two parties?

"Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted."

"he Unionists wanted no part of such an unstable and violent state."
The Unionists were first to arm, the only ones to ever threaten Civil War if they didn't get their way ands the Northern and Southern Unionists were diametrically opposed to each other - how is that not "an unstable and violent state."?

Just sorting out some more real history for you to ignore
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 10:41 AM

Teribus - repy as to Keith
Where's your proof of anything you have ever said here?
As I thought - all your own work !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 11:57 AM

"You have failed to challenge a single point that I have made."

"Jim, I have quoted historians to substantiate every assertion I have made."
Where?

"The initial agreement was for a peaceful transition to independence.
Unity and consensus was finally achieved."
How?

"Home rule had already been agreed."
When?

"Yes there was. The bill had passed."
Ibid

"It is true that I read what historians say about history.
They do the research and write the books.
You are deluded if you believe that you know better."
A blatant lie by your own admission of note ever having read a book and not being interested enough to do so.

"There was plenty of well paid civilian war work available."
Utter Crap

On the Curragh Mutiny
"They merely considered exercising their perfect right to quit."
So a serving officer in the army has a perfect right to refuse orders – do I have that right?

"The bill had been passed, and enactment only postponed because of the world war that was raging and going badly."

"By the historians Greg? "
What historians?

"The heavy civilian casualties resulted from the rebels choosing to fight from heavily populated and overcrowded residential areas like North King Street.
They also put children in harms way by using them as couriers."
Statistically incorrect

"Not true Jim. There is no evidence of indiscriminate fire that I can find. You clearly know of none either."
Long provided

"If you have any evidence of indiscriminate British fire, produce it."
Ibid

"You have given no eye witness report of indiscriminate fire."
Half a dozen accounts to date

"The rising was deeply unpopular and unwanted, as I have shown."
That's why the people voted the way they did n the first democratic election, of course!!

"Had they just been locked up they would have continued to be seen as a contemptible joke.
The rising would have been forgotten, and a transition to full home rule would have been peacefully achieved and not one day later."
Utter and well-proved nonsense.

"The occupation was not seen as "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."
There was no popular movement against it.
The Irish people were happy with the peaceful progress to home rule."
Lovely summary of 800 years of Irish history - pissed ourselves laughing in Dublin over that one!!!

"They did have every right to, (oppose the occupation of Ireland) but they did not oppose it."
Pissed ourselves laughing about that one too!!

More later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 16 - 01:41 PM

"Jim, I have quoted historians to substantiate every assertion I have made."
Where?

Throughout the thread.
Search for http because most of the links are me linking to essays by historians.

"The initial agreement was for a peaceful transition to independence.
Unity and consensus was finally achieved."
How?

By the various Home Rule Bills, culminating in the one of 1914.

"Home rule had already been agreed."
When?

1914

"Yes there was. The bill had passed."
Ibid

1914

"But for the rising, it would have been enacted unchanged after the armistice."   - how?

Because the 1914 Bill had been passed into law and would have3 been enacted on the armistice.

"But for the Germans invading Belgium it would have been enacted at once.
How?

Because the Bill would have been enacted at once had we not gone to war.

"The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), " How?

it was fully agreed, by a large majority and all sides in Ireland.


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

because the Bill had been passed but had to await the armistice.

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

Because Parliamentary Acts have to be enacted once passed.
The war only delayed it. The rising destroyed the unity and consensus that had finally been achieved in 1914.

"The rising destroyed the unity that had been achieved, and the rising alone prevented the Bill from being enacted." What unity and how would it have been enacted?

The unity of the Irish factions achieved in 1914, and the Act was only awaiting the armistice to be enacted.

"Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted. What about the two directly contradictory stances of the two parties?

They were overcome in 1914.

"Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted."

"he Unionists wanted no part of such an unstable and violent state."
The Unionists were first to arm, the only ones to ever threaten Civil War if they didn't get their way ands the Northern and Southern Unionists were diametrically opposed to each other - how is that not "an unstable and violent state."?

The Unionionists accepted Home Rule with a temporary partition, and that was acceptable to the Nationalists.
The Rising changed all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 May 16 - 01:59 PM

Jim Carroll - 30 May 16 - 10:24 AM

Having read that post of yours Jim I'll ask "What 5 questions?"

What you have detailed in that post was one question and you have offered one opinion.

Home Rule BILL had been to the Lords for the third and final time. Because of the Parliament Act 1911 the Lords had now run out of road and there was absolutely nothing they, the Conservative Opposition or the Unionists could do to stop it getting Royal Assent and becoming Law.

In April 1914 the temporary Partition Amendment was floated and a "trial period" of six years was arrived at. At this stage they did not know whether the area to be given this exclusion from direct rule from Dublin was going to be nine, six or four counties.

Through the summer discussions were held with Redmond and with Carson, neither side wanted this arrangement but eventually by the 8th July 1914, the Government, the Nationalists, the Unionists, the Conservatives and the Lords realised that what was proposed was the only way forward. Now had the German Kaiser not been so keen to start a war in Europe the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 would have been enacted the same day it received Royal Assent, the size of Ulster would have been agreed upon, Home Rule on Dominion Status would have been granted and then there would have been six years for the Dublin Government to convince the Unionists in the North that they had nothing to worry about - After all it was only the Unionists that wanted reassurance on this. Unfortunately the Kaiser couldn't wait and he went ahead with his scheme and all through that July things heated up until Germany finally invaded Luxembourg and Belgium and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declared war on Germany.

Now having far bigger fish to fry the Imperial Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland turned it's attention to a war it had to fight and politically the first casualty was Asquith's Amending Bill for the 1912 Home Rule Bill. When the Home Rule Bill of 1912 became the Government of Ireland Act 1914 on the 18th September 1914 its implementation was immediately suspended along with another Act until after hostilities had ended.

Once Hostilities did end because of various things that had happened in Ireland (1916 Rising & the starting of a war of independence) it was obvious to all that agreements previously reached were no longer acceptable to either the Republican Sinn Feiners who simply refused to meet and the Unionists who were now set on Permanent Partition wanting no part of an independent Republican Ireland, a stance that they had decided upon immediately after, and as a direct result of the 1916 Rising. So the 1914 Act was now no good so it was repealed by the Westminster Parliament and replaced with the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 which was enacted. The Largely (Almost entirely) Sinn Fein Government of their self declared Republic over in Dublin paid no attention to this 1920 Act at all and carried on with their War of Independence while up in the now decided six county Northern Ireland they were given Home Rule as outlined in the 1920 Act and they were to be excluded from direct rule from Dublin as a temporary measure for six years (At no time at all between 1912 and 1921, despite everything Jim Carroll has said was Ulster or the Unionists EVER offered Permanent Partition - and to-date he has not offered up one shred of evidence to back up any claim that they were).

The War of Independence sort of lapsed into a stalemate mainly due to lack of interest, the "Republicans" could only interest less than 0.5% of the Irish population in fighting it (So great was the support) and the "Brits" who had been trying their best to get shot of the place for almost 10 years just couldn't be arsed about it. So a truce was called in June 1921 and this truce resulted in Peace Talks that were held in London. The British side honoured their assurance to the Unionists that they would not be forced into any sort of United Independent Ireland against their will and written into the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 was a clause that allowed Northern Ireland (Created by the 1920 Act) to opt out. The 32 county Irish Free State was created and came into existence on the 6th December 1921 and almost immediately on the 7th December 1921 the Parliament of the six counties that formed Northern Ireland exercised its rights under the Anglo-Irish Treaty and seceded from the Irish Free State to re-unite itself with the United Kingdom to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 16 - 02:50 PM

"Having read that post of yours Jim I'll ask "What 5 questions?""
Mind your own business - I wandn't addressing you and why the **** should I anser your questions anyway - you never respond to my postings.
Pompous prat
The rest of it - been there, done that - now your as repetitively boring as your mate.
Still not a link in sight - all personal Empire Loyalist opinion.
"Search for http because most of the links are me linking to essays by historians."
You point them out - I'm not doing your work for you
You have been unable to find a single historian to back your case - not one.
You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other with one threatening Civil War, could possibly have been implemented
Nor have you givenen us evidence that The Easter Rising had any effect on this - just your permanently repeated nonsense.
The rest of your responses are equally nonsense - for example
"They were overcome in 1914."
No they ****** weren't - one side wanted temporary partition - the other refused - how was that "settled"?
Utterly stupid.
Yo asked for examples of you being proved wrone - you've now got about half of them
You, like your mate rely on your statements being accepted withut question and you totally refuse to respond to evidence that has been put up.
You're not even good for a laugh any more - just repetitively boring.
You want to make a point - bring your evidence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 02:37 AM

Jim Carroll - 30 May 16 - 02:50 PM

1: "Having read that post of yours Jim I'll ask "What 5 questions?""
Mind your own business - I wandn't addressing you and why the **** should I anser your questions anyway - you never respond to my postings.

But James my favourite little Anglophobe you didn't ask 5 questions did you, you rather boringly asked the same single question four times and you supposed 5th question was not a question at all but a comment, ill-informed, incorrect and totally lacking perspective, but still a comment based on your opinion not on historical fact.

My posting history will reveal that I do respond to your postings, mostly to point out the glaring errors in fact, reasoning and logic that are contained in them

2: Pompous prat

Oooooh, that wasn't very nice was it. Not within the new spirit of things at all.

3: The rest of it - been there, done that - now your as repetitively boring as your mate.
Still not a link in sight - all personal Empire Loyalist opinion.

Unfortunately James you haven't, what you have done is to attempt to counter fact with opinion, opinion that is not even original, i.e. not your own. Not surprising really as you do not seem to be able to distinguish between the two, or pick up the difference between someone speaking figuratively or factually.

I've tried posting links in refutation of the ludicrous things you post, but that has proved a pointless exercise. Even with a link clearly evident in my post, and extract from it in the text and a source clearly given you deny that they are there (Number of examples of that in this thread alone)

4: You have been unable to find a single historian to back your case - not one.

Oh I think Keith A has found far more than one, and most of the long screeds you scan, copy and paste tend to back up what he says rather than support your idiotic contentions.

5: You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other with one threatening Civil War, could possibly have been implemented

Well yes Jim both of us have, repeatedly, it's just that you refuse point blank to accept what is simple recorded fact that in July 1914 as Europe went into meltdown the Liberal Government of Herbert Asquith, The Irish Parliamentary Party of John Redmond, the Lords, the Conservative Opposition under Bonar Law and both Unionist factions were agreed on how to proceed. Nothing that you post will alter that because the statement above is factually correct – was all the fine detail worked out? No it was not, but that was not the purpose of the Bill all that served to do was declare the intention as stipulated in the agreed text of the Act. A temporary exclusion from direct rule from Dublin for the first six years of Home Rule being granted was the accepted arrangement on partition, the number of counties involved remained to be determined.

As for threatening Civil War, the Ulster Unionists only had one red line issue and that had been very clearly stated right from the start – They would only take up arms against the BRITISH GOVERNMENT if they were ever coerced into joining an independent united Ireland against their will – it was their leaders who took part in the discussions related to the proposals put forward in Asquith's Amending Bill and they did so with the backing of their membership, the six year temporary exclusion was agreed to on the 8th July 1914 and guess what Mr Carroll?:

- There was no Civil war (No link required to support that fact)
- The Unionist Movement did not split (No link required to support that fact)
- The Ulster Volunteer Force did not split (No link required to support that fact)
- With the advent of war, the UVF volunteered almost to a man to fight the Germans

Wasn't the same on the Nationalist/Republican side though was it Jim?

- The movement split 92.5% for Redmond and 7.5% for Pearse
- The IRB decided to stage an armed insurrection and collude with the enemy

6: Nor have you givenen us evidence that The Easter Rising had any effect on this - just your permanently repeated nonsense.

The evidence has been presented Jim. You've even posted it repeatedly yourself.

1914 agreement in principle reached Home Rule Bill becomes Home Rule Act, Redmond and Carson are willing albeit reluctantly to a temporary exclusion for a six year period.

No change at all until at Easter in 1916 the rising takes place and by mid-May it has been supressed.

Now according to your Jonathan Bardon the United Unionist Council hold a crucial meeting (Your Mr Bardon lists the events in chronological order, he does not jump about like you Jim, possibly because he is a historian and knows how important it is to get things in the right order – he mentions the year 1916, he mentions the Rising and then he mentions the "crucial meeting") And then when Lloyd George is sent to Dublin by Asquith in an attempt to get the Home Rule Act implemented we find that the ground has shifted and on the 9th July 1916 the Unionists in the North are wanting Permanent Partition, the Unionists in the South are still OK with a temporary arrangement. Hate to point this out to you Jim but that change in attitude and the timing of it screams like a neon sign that the Easter Rising most definitely did have an effect on the attitude of the Unionists in Ulster. Deny it all you want but up until the Easter Rising what had been accepted in 1914 stood, after the Easter Rising it didn't.

7: Yo asked for examples of you being proved wrone - you've now got about half of them
You, like your mate rely on your statements being accepted withut question and you totally refuse to respond to evidence that has been put up.

You to-date have proved nothing of the sort, if you like I will detail the number of things that you have got wrong on this thread alone (The list is long and the errors demonstrable). IF our statements are wrong then check them and refute them (Most of the links you supply actually back our statements up rather than refute them). So far you have offered no evidence at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 02:55 AM

Here's your first one Jim:

1: Jim Carroll - 16 Apr 16 - 12:48 PM

Any violence that took place following Easter Week and independence can be laid at the door of the British forcing through partition

WRONG –

What is wrong with that statement is that the British Government of the day put through a Home Rule Act covering the whole of Ireland in 1914 with agreement reached on a temporary partitioning for six years. In 1920 they enacted a Home Rule Act for both Northern and Southern Ireland with a temporary partition for a six year period. The Sinn Fein Government in Dublin rejected this and fought a war of independence. This fight ended in a stalemate resulting in a Truce in June 1921 after which peace negotiations took place in which the WHOLE OF IRELAND, as the Irish Free State, was granted independence with the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty on the 6th December 1921. On the 7th December 1921 under the terms of that Treaty (Signed and ratified by the Irish Government) the Parliament of Northern Ireland exercised their right and seceded from the Irish Free State.

Pray tell where in that process did the British force through anything?

The Unionists in Ulster certainly did as was their right if you actually believe in the right to self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 03:48 AM

"But James "
Why "Jim Carroll" - try not to talk down, you're really not tall enough.
You really don't know how your ever-emerging name-calling rudeness is a sign of your insecurity, do you?
I don't hate Britain, only those who defend the appalling behaviour of its politicians - go to the top of that particulaar class.
As I said, it's none of your business how many questions I asked, they weren't addressed to you.
Pomposity - I prefer to tell what I see - enough of it in your present posting to confirm my impressions.
You have given no facts, only your own unqualified opinions - I have backed everything I have claimed with researched information and have identified my sources - you have consistently refused or ignored requests to do so, as you are now doing..
"Oh I think Keith A has found far more than one,"
Let's see what he comes up with and what they had to say - admittedly, he did find a Jesuit lecturer in philosophy, and following last nights television programme on Yeats, he might have added Bob Geldof (a sadly mixed programme of beautiful poetry and crass political analysis).
If my offerings refute my claims, why not point out where they do - you haven't so far?
The British forced through (under threat of war) a bill which divided Ireland - one which left 26 independent, as per the wishes of the overall majority of the Irish people, the other six remaining under British rule, led by a fanatical leadership that mounted a reign of terror on a third of the population which lasted for half a century and was only brought to an end by years of bloody conflict in Ireland and on mainland Britain - that conflict rumbles on and in my opinion, will continue to do so until the dividing line is removed -
God knows, the consequences of partitioning countries have raised their ugly heads often enough for our 'Great and Good' to have learned their lesson - obviously not, in the case of Britian.
Now - if you have nothing more than 'all wind and pee, like the barber's cat' to offer, I'll see what more there is to put up.
Have a good day now, d'you hear!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 16 - 04:28 AM

Jim, the are 43 http in my posts (out of 56).

You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other

They were not diametrically opposed.
Agreement was reached.
Read about the passage of the Act Jim.

Nor have you givenen us evidence that The Easter Rising had any effect on this -

Does it need explanation?
Do you think the Unionists welcomed it? Do you imagine that their position would remain unchanged after that?
Do not be so silly and ignorant Jim!

No they ****** weren't - one side wanted temporary partition -

Yes they did, and the Nationalists agreed to that compromise. They voted for the Bill and it was passed into law.

the other refused - how was that "settled"?

They did not refuse. Again, read about the passage of the Act Jim.

Yo asked for examples of you being proved wrone - you've now got about half of them

What I stated were facts. You have not read or understood the passage of the 1914 Act. It was you who have got it all wrong.

Wiki,
" In 1914 after the third reading, the Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Been there - done that Keith, and you've been given the documented and attributed information - where's yours?
No historians, no links - thanks for the confirmation.
Teribus one last point
"The IRB decided to stage an armed insurrection and collude with the enemy"
This sums up your smeary campaign against the Irish people.
The Rebels did not "collude with the enemy" - if they did - how did they.
Did they spread German propaganda ?
No they did not.
Did they allow Germany to use Ireland as a backdoor to Britain?
No they did not.
Did they in any way attempt to further the ggerman cause in Ireland?
No they did not.
They thanked Germany for the guns - nothing more.
This smear was used against those who opposed British rule on several occasions, notbly in 1918.
In May 1918 the newly arrived viceroy, Lord French, announced the existence of a 'German Plot'. Police arrested seventy-three prominent Sinn Féiners. Knowing that it would only strengthen their cause, Sinn Fein activists still at large made no attempt to avoid arrest. In fact not a shred of solid evidence had been presented to show that Irish nationalists were conspiring with Imperial Germany."
The attempts at smear ended in disaster.
A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes, Jonathan Bardon
The Rebels made their position on the War quite clear "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland'
The fact that you continue to use this as you have done other smears is fairly evident of your total inability to produce facts to back your opinions, which is why you never link us to anything.
If the Rebels supported Germany then the wartime British government during WW2 were all Stalinists.
I used to have a family photograph of me as a child at a victory street party in Liverpool, taken next to a propaganda poster blessing "good old Uncle Joe" for helping defeat Fascism.
You pair really need to clean up your various acts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Been there - done that Keith, and you've been given the documented and attributed information - where's yours?
No historians, no links - thanks for the confirmation.
Teribus one last point
"The IRB decided to stage an armed insurrection and collude with the enemy"
This sums up your smeary campaign against the Irish people.
The Rebels did not "collude with the enemy" - if they did - how did they.
Did they spread German propaganda ?
No they did not.
Did they allow Germany to use Ireland as a backdoor to Britain?
No they did not.
Did they in any way attempt to further the ggerman cause in Ireland?
No they did not.
They thanked Germany for the guns - nothing more.
This smear was used against those who opposed British rule on several occasions, notbly in 1918.
In May 1918 the newly arrived viceroy, Lord French, announced the existence of a 'German Plot'. Police arrested seventy-three prominent Sinn Féiners. Knowing that it would only strengthen their cause, Sinn Fein activists still at large made no attempt to avoid arrest. In fact not a shred of solid evidence had been presented to show that Irish nationalists were conspiring with Imperial Germany."
The attempts at smear ended in disaster.
A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes, Jonathan Bardon
The Rebels made their position on the War quite clear "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland'
The fact that you continue to use this as you have done other smears is fairly evident of your total inability to produce facts to back your opinions, which is why you never link us to anything.
If the Rebels supported Germany then the wartime British government during WW2 were all Stalinists.
I used to have a family photograph of me as a child at a victory street party in Liverpool, taken next to a propaganda poster blessing "good old Uncle Joe" for helping defeat Fascism.
You pair really need to clean up your various acts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 05:48 AM

But James

What name is on your Birth Certificate?

You have given no facts, only your own unqualified opinions - I have backed everything I have claimed with researched information and have identified my sources - you have consistently refused or ignored requests to do so, as you are now doing."

You see Jim that is your trouble you do not know what a fact is and what opinion is.

The First World War is a fact, I do not need to substantiate that, I do not require any link to prove that it happened. Likewise the Third Irish Home Rule Bill of 1912 became the Government of Ireland Act 1914 on the 18th September 1914 that too is a fact, it is a simple matter of record, anyone wishing to dispute that can look it up, I see no reason why I should provide the link to do so. As you yourself said I am not prepared to do your homework for you.

What you have posted are passages from books that tend to support what both Keith A and I have said (By the way Jim on name calling. You notice that Keith A of Hertford does not object whenever anyone refers to him as Keith, or Keith A. I notice that Raggytash only ever objects to either Keith A or myself calling him Raggy but it would appear to be OK for you to do so)

People generally do not qualify their opinions, making them unqualified opinions I suppose. Or are you back at your "pecking order thing" and saying that I am unqualified to have or express an opinion? It would appear that I have a far better grasp of both the time and the events than you do - here for example is a classic:

"The British forced through (under threat of war) a bill which divided Ireland"

Let us just stick to facts Jim:

Who was it started the Irish War of Independence on the 21st January 1919?

Was there a truce called on 11th July 1921?

What is a Truce?

Who was it attended Peace Talks that resulted from the Truce of July 1921?

What would have happened had the Peace Talks failed. Would hostilities have resumed? Or would there have been peace? If hostilities had resumed would that have been a resumption of the War of Independence declared by the Irish Republicans in 1919?

Here by the way Jim is your second one:

2: Jim Carroll - 17 Apr 16 - 05:06 AM

If you read your history, you will find the the Home Rule Bill was defeated yet again and in Jully, 1914, King George took it on himself to call a meeting of all the Irish Parliamentarians at Buckingham Palace to see if an alternative should be reached - There was no guarantee that the conclusions would be adhered to.

WRONG –

The Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 went through its third reading in the summer of 1914 and because of the Parliament Act of 1911 could not be vetoed by the Lords and so became Law on the 18th September 1914 when the Government of Ireland Act 1914 received Royal Assent.

No attempts were made to push through the Home Rule Bill following the end of the War

WRONG –

As promised in 1914 it was Parliaments first order of business after hostilities with Germany had been concluded – the 1914 Act was repealed and a new Act the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Jim Carroll - 23 Apr 16 - 06:25 AM

"The Irish did not "collude" with the Germans - they took the weapons that the Germans offered - no collusion - no offer of support for Germany."

WRONG:
-        4th September 1914 meeting of the IRB where they decided to stage an insurrection in Ireland while Great Britain was at war with Germany and seek German assistance to mount that insurrection. (Source: Max Caulfield, "The Easter Rebellion", page 18)

-        German declaration of November 1914

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


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

Sources referred to:
23 = Jeff Dudgeon. "Casement's War". Drb.ie. Retrieved 30 January 2016.
24 = The Continental Times, 20 November 1914

-        Casement sent to Germany to request help in terms of advisors, troops and weapons

-        Plunkett sent to Germany to assist Casement in 1915

Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.

Source:
McNally and Dennis, Easter Rising 1916: Birth of the Irish Republic, p. 30


-        Aud arms shipment and the return of Casement by German Submarine in April 1916


-        Proclamation of 1916 referring to Germany as "Our Gallant Allies in Europe".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:27 AM

For crying out loud - if you have no intention of substantiating your facts it would help your not prolonging your embarrassment by just saying so
You still offer no substantiation to what you claim - I do not dispute any known facts - only your own 'makie-ups', and until you attempt to substantiate them they remain what they are - made up.
Your ongoing arrogance in expecting we should believe from you what nobody else, anywhere, is claiming makes miy case for me - why should anybody believe a pair of serial Empire apologists who refuse to offer evidence for their claims - who on earth do you think you are?
As I've said many times. I've shown you mine, now you show us yours - unless you have nothing to show, of course.

This is a summary of the ideals the New Nationalist leadership espoused when it first took offive in 1918

(i)        that the people of Ireland comprised one nation;
(ii)         that Britain had partitioned Ireland solely from self- interest;
(iii)         that an independent, politically 're-united' Ireland was inevitable;
(iv)         that even if Britain had to coerce the Ulster unionists into unity — as she was, in honour, if necessary, bound to do — the resulting united Ireland would be economically prosperous and politically stable;
(v)         that if Britain unilaterally broke the link with Northern Ireland, the Ulster unionists would be obliged to accept an accommodation with the south;
(vi)         that Britain had the necessary resources — military and/or economic and/or political — to coerce the unionists into accepting a united Ireland.
From DeValera and The Ulster Question John Bowman (1989)
"What name is on your Birth Certificate?"
What's yours?
Whoops, sorry - I forgot, you prefer to hide your identity.
Your prerogative, of course!
Mind your own business (again)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:41 AM

No historians, no links - thanks for the confirmation

If Wiki not good enough, here is the BBC History site.

"While Arthur Griffith, the leader of Sinn Féin, initially denounced the 1912 Bill as a 'grotesque abortion' of the national demand, he quickly rallied and called on separatists to make preparations for becoming the principal party of opposition in the Irish parliament.

John Redmond envisioned a rural and traditional society in which peasant virtues were safeguarded against urban and modern worldliness.

But many proved less optimistic. One advanced nationalist, who later fought during the 1916 Easter Rising, recalled: 'It did really look as though some Bill would actually become law. Those of us who thought Home Rule utterly inadequate were a very small minority.'"

"According to recent research, the ultimate failure of Home Rule involved the 'loss' to Ireland of a generation of Catholic university graduates who eagerly looked forward to self-government and the role they would play as statesmen, civil servants, and intellectuals.

In fact, such optimism (leavened by self-interest) was evident in a wide range of spheres.

In August 1914, for example, the annual meeting of the Irish Association of Gas Managers was told that devolution was 'bound to come' and that the 'prospects of the gas industry under Home Rule' were extremely promising.

Others anticipated a cultural and architectural renaissance in Dublin, with Home Rule informing, for example, debates on the housing of Hugh Lane's art collection through to the suitability of the old parliament in College Green as a modern European legislature."

"In the same week as the Government of Ireland Bill was introduced at Westminster in April 1912, the trade journal for Irish bakers, Master Baker, led with the editorial 'Decline in Hot Cross Buns'.

Only Unionists would find out if the reality of Home Rule measured up to their predictions.

Clearly not everyone was preoccupied with Home Rule. Nonetheless, many groups, organisations, and individuals were. Not only because of party and religious affiliations, but also because they interpreted it through their own experiences and expectations.

Of course, the Irish War of Independence (1916-1921) forced the great majority of Irish people to imagine their future in the light of very different circumstances."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:45 AM

"4th September 1914 meeting of the IRB where they decided to stage an insurrection in Ireland while Great Britain was at war with Germany and seek German assistance to mount that insurrection. (Source: Max Caulfield, "The Easter Rebellion", page 18)"

How does that translate as offering support for Germany, seeking assistance for your own ends is not offering support in the way I understand the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:55 AM

"If Wiki not good enough, here is the BBC History site."
Thanks again for confirming that you lied whan you said you had produced them.
None of you 'afterthoughts alter the fact that the Home Ruule Bill cound not be enacted without antagonising one side or the other - it's forced enactment containing the unagreed inclusion of permanent partition, by the British at the beheest of the Unionists brought about the end of the Rhizome Rule Movement, leaving six counties in the hands of Unionist sectarian thugs..
If you have any problems with that, please state them and stop repeating the untrue clams that the Bill was agreed and would have been enacted - it wasn't and it couldn't.
Put up or go away.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:34 AM

the Bill was agreed

It was [passed with a majority of 77.

and would have been enacted

Royal Ascent is the final rubber stamp. It would have had to be enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:46 AM

Raggytash - 31 May 16 - 06:45 AM

"4th September 1914 meeting of the IRB where they decided to stage an insurrection in Ireland while Great Britain was at war with Germany and seek German assistance to mount that insurrection. (Source: Max Caulfield, "The Easter Rebellion", page 18)"

How does that translate as offering support for Germany, seeking assistance for your own ends is not offering support in the way I understand the English language.

Good heavens Raggy are you really that dense?

Try this and see if it makes any sense to you:

In August 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, Casement and John Devoy arranged a meeting in New York with the western hemisphere's top-ranking German diplomat, Count Bernstorff, to propose a mutually beneficial plan: if Germany would sell guns to the Irish revolutionary and provide military leaders, the Irish would revolt against England, diverting troops and attention from the war on Germany. Bernstorff appeared sympathetic.

Of course Great Britain could have sent the WRI or the Boy Scouts, but do you know what I find amazingly strange are people such as yourself and Carroll who bang on about the wicked Imperialistic Brits the howls of outrage

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:58 AM

But that didn't happen did it. Purely a figment of your jingoistic mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 08:47 AM

"Royal Ascent is the final rubber stamp. It would have had to be enacted."
From A History of Ireland Edmund Curtis 1950
An amendment by Carson to the Bill proposed the exclusion from its scope of the province of Ulster. The Irish leader could only reject such an amendment, as he was bound to do, because 'for us Ireland is one entity'.
In January 1913 the Bill passed the Commons but it was rejected by the House of Lords, so that under the Parlia¬ment Bill it could not pass automatically till 1914. The Ulster Covenanters were already arming and drilling openly under a provisional government, and a British soldier, General Richardson, was found to command their army of 100,000 men. On the other side in October 1913 a National Volunteer force was organized in Dublin under Eoin MacNeill, Pearse and others. So was a 'Citizen army' of the Irish Labour party, led by James Connolly. The condition of the poor, and the low wages paid in the Irish capital, shocked all fair-minded men, but a General strike organized in 1912 by James Larkin had been defeated by the employers, a disastrous victory it was to prove. Though at first dummy rifles, in North and South, made the marchings of the respective Volunteers a little ridiculous, there was no doubt of their determination. The Unionists got real arms from abroad, and it looked as if Home Rule would bring about a civil war which would involve Great Britain, the first since 1642. In March 1914, the refusal of General Gough and other officers in command of the British forces at the Curragh to obey government orders to move against Ulster showed how high up the resistance to an Act of Parliament might go. Reluctantly Redmond advised his supporters to join the National Volunteers, but it was clear that between his moderate wing and the extreme one led by Pearse and others of the Irish Republican Army co-operation would not last long.

IRELAND AND THE GREAT WAR
The outbreak of the Great War in August 1914 altered the whole face of things. The unexpected event in world politics did happen. The Home Rule Bill received the royal assent but it was not to be put into force till the war was over; and Ireland remained under the Union till the world conflict ended. Some 100,000 Irishmen altogether served in the British ranks, though Conscription was not, and indeed could not be, enforced due to opposition. To outward seeming Ireland was for the Allies, but as often before in her history, the apparent stream of things hardly represented the secret stream beneath
A European war in which Great Britain is engaged has always made Ireland a danger-spot, for its people, whatever they feel for the Monarchy, have little enthusiasm for Imperial expansion, and there were always those wishful to seize the opportunity to 'fight the old fight again'. The menace of conscription created great excitement, and Redmond's efforts to enlist Ireland's manhood as a separate unit under the Irish flag by their failure showed how little he could do with the Coalition government. .A rising was planned by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and on Easter Monday 1916 the Post Office and other buildings in Dublin were seized by about 1,000 men, and Pearse for the Volunteers and Connolly for the Citizen army proclaimed the Irish Republic. A large British force was landed and after a bombardment of four days the main body of the rebels surrendered. General Maxwell under martial law executed Pearse and fourteen others of the leaders; among the commanders who escaped the death penalty Eamon De Valera was to be the most prominent. The Rebellion, though a small affair and soon over, served its purpose as a blood sacrifice in a country which had become apathetic about Nationalism, and Pearse and the others took their place on the accepted roll of 'the dead who died for Ireland'.
While thousands of suspects were interned and popular opinion rapidly became Sinn Féin, the Coalition government could not give Redmond that firm offer of Home Rule for the whole country which he needed to maintain his hold on Ireland, and Sinn Féin came out as a political force by winning an election in Roscommon in February 1917.

THE TRIUMPH OF SINN FÉIN
When the Great War ended in October 1918 it was certain that Sinn Féin would claim the rights of a nation for Ireland at a time when the Allies were setting so many free. The initial step was to act as one. In January 1919 the deputies elected to Dáil Éireann ('the Assembly of Ireland') met as a parliament and proclaimed Saorstát Éireann (the 'Republic' or, more correctly, the 'Free State' of Ireland). Neither Nationalists nor Unionists attended, and it was left for Sinn Féin to win and to command the victory.
A General Election in England following the close of the War returned again a Coalition government of which Mr. Lloyd George became Premier, and in so far as Home Rule for the majority was achievable all British parties were now in agreement. The English Conservatives abandoned their resistance of before the War, for too many promises had been made to go back upon, and the shock of the world-conflict had brought old-fashioned Conservatism to an end. But, while to deny Home Rule as it was on the Statute book was impossible, to force it on Ulster was no longer to be thought of.
There - let that be an end to this dishonest nonsense.
"Good heavens Raggy are you really that dense?"
Still talking down to people from the hole youi have dug for yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 08:49 AM

This is a summary of the ideals the New Nationalist leadership espoused when it first took offive in 1918

(i)       that the people of Ireland comprised one nation;
(ii)       that Britain had partitioned Ireland solely from self- interest;
(iii)         that an independent, politically 're-united' Ireland was inevitable;
(iv)         that even if Britain had to coerce the Ulster unionists into unity — as she was, in honour, if necessary, bound to do — the resulting united Ireland would be economically prosperous and politically stable;
(v)         that if Britain unilaterally broke the link with Northern Ireland, the Ulster unionists would be obliged to accept an accommodation with the south;

From DeValera and The Ulster Question John Bowman (1989)

Ah the above was what Eamon de Valera thought was it?

To quote Mandy Rice-Davis - Well he would say that wouldn't he.

(i)       that the people of Ireland comprised one nation;

Tell me Jim did Dev ask the Unionists in Ulster about that? Or was he just making a rather rash and ill-informed assumption?

(ii)       that Britain had partitioned Ireland solely from self- interest;

Is this the 1920 Act that created Northern and Southern Ireland? I rather think that that was done to prevent a Civil War so not solely for Great Britain's self interest. Even then the 1920 Act only stated temporary Partition - but Dev realised and knew that. Sinn Fein down in Dublin just ignored the whole thing and in any case they'd started their war of independence by then Dev didn't do any fighting though - having stoked the flames he sat it out and let others do his fighting and dying for him - same as he did in Bolands Mills during Easter Week.

(iii)         that an independent, politically 're-united' Ireland was inevitable;

WELL that one didn't pan out did it? 100 years on it is further away now than it ever was. And the Republic has abandoned Dev's cherished constitutional territorial claims on the North and its population.

In July 1916 Lloyd George gave Carson the assurance that the people of Ulster could not be forced into an independent united Ireland without their consent - Or in other words Jim the Good Friday Agreement 1998.

(iv)         that even if Britain had to coerce the Ulster unionists into unity — as she was, in honour, if necessary, bound to do — the resulting united Ireland would be economically prosperous and politically stable;

Good heavens what a complete and utter gobshite this man was. If he didn't think it right and proper that Britain should coerce Ireland into a union what on earth makes him think that it is right for Britain to coerce anybody else into doing anything against their will? Not a great believer in self-determination was he this de Valera character. The economical stability under Dev's guiding hand was a bit of a disaster (Not to mention £7 Billion bail-outs from Britain) and as for the politically stable bit, that only applied as everybody saw with the civil war thing provided that everything went the way Dev wanted it to - otherwise the "MEN WITH THE GUNS" were sent out to "influence" things.

(v)         that if Britain unilaterally broke the link with Northern Ireland, the Ulster unionists would be obliged to accept an accommodation with the south;

Oh no they wouldn't, why should they be obliged to accept anything. They could have declared themselves a tax haven and had their own Las Vegas in the hills of whatever - very hypocritical of Dev to suggest that - he wouldn't have accepted it so why you should the Unionists in the North.

(vi)         that Britain had the necessary resources — military and/or economic and/or political — to coerce the unionists into accepting a united Ireland.

Why should Britain do that? Why should Britain coerce people who want to be part of the United Kingdom into leaving it? If Britain had done what Dev wanted in (v) above the Unionists might have resisted union with the south by waging a Civil War - A civil war that Dev's Irish Republic could not in a month of Sundays hope to win - A Civil War that would have destroyed Ireland. Mind you true to form Dev always liked others to fight his battles for him.

Not exactly a very deep political thinker was Dev - and besides Jim just because he said it doesn't make what he said fact - they are at best only his opinions and I couldn't care less who wrote them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 16 - 09:14 AM

"he sat it out and let others do his fighting and dying for him - same as he did in Bolands Mills during Easter Week"

If this is meant as a criticism of de Valera can the same not be said of Haig but on a much greater scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 09:56 AM

"Ah the above was what Eamon de Valera thought was it?"
Who said it was?
I said they were the ideals of the new leadership - why pin it on personalities?
In fact, much of it was based on Parnell's dream of 'Home Rule'
"Tell me Jim did Dev ask the Unionists in Ulster about that"
Why should he ask an armed minority bunch of right-wing English extremists who have threatened Civil War if their demands were not met anything?
"the "MEN WITH THE GUNS" were sent out to "influence" things."
Do you mean the "men with the guns in the North or the men with guns in the South?
As the ones in the North were the first to arm and the only ones to threaten civil war if their demands were not met, it must be accepted that the "men with guns" in the South aremed themselves to protect Ireland from sectarian thugs.
" I rather think that that was done to prevent a Civil War"
No it wasn't - the British Government did nothing to contain the behaviour of the Unionist thugs, and did not even act when British officers threatened not to protect Britain against those thugs.
"In July 1916 Lloyd George gave Carson the assurance that the people of Ulster could not be forced into an independent united Ireland without their consent"
That's what I said they appeased the thugs at the expense of the wishes of the majority of Irish people
"Oh no they wouldn't, why should they be obliged to accept anything"
Because they were a minority bunch of extremists who were out to prevent independence at all costs and, when forced into a corner, reluctantly agreed on 9 counties, got their calculators out and gerrymandered it so six to give themselves a majority vote.
The proof of the Unionist pudding was in the eating when it launched a half-century reign of terror on one third of the six counties
Would you support giving independence to The Home Counties, especially if it was under teh control of armed thugs?
Are you saying you actually support these people - we really need to know?
"Why should Britain do that?"
Why - because they were responsible for how they left Ireland, Unionism was an right-wing British creation (today's Conservatives still officially calling themselves "The \Conservative and Unionist Party" despite threats of Civil War, and open persecution of large numbers of British citizens.
What Raggy just said several million times over.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 02:17 AM

Two further points.
"John Devoy"
Devoy was an Irish exile living in New York, a newspaper editor and fund-raiser.
He conspired with Casement to raise money to obtain weapons for the Rising, nothing more – he wasn't a policy-maker and neither he nor Casement had a voice in the Rebellion.
At no time were either of them part of the planning of the Rising, so whatever opinions they had of Germany were theirs, not the Rebel leaders - neither were spokesmen for the Rising.
At no time has it been shown that the Rebels ever colluded with "the enemy" or showed any sign of active support, apart from accepting weapons, despite efforts to show otherwise and such claims have long been rejected as contemporary attempts to smear the Rising.
"The enemy"
Germany was not Ireland's "enemy" as far as the rebels were concerned they had made it clear that they did not take sides in the war, as far as they were concerned it was a struggle for power between Empires, one of which Ireland had fought for centuries to free herself from.
The Rebels fought under Connolly's slogan, "we serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland".
The British authorities worked hard at trying to prove the Rebels sided with Germany, they found nothing, it was an attempt so smear then as it is now.
You want to prove it – do so with something more than archaic accusations   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 03:59 AM

Onwards and upwards
Jim Carroll

This is a summing up of the Unionist's historical attitude to a United Ireland from interviews and articles on a United Ireland.
It puts their stance in a nutshell, and compares the situation at the time of the interviews with that existing around World War One.
As it was then, so it is now and ever shall be – from the horse's mouths.
Jim Carroll

From Padraig O'Malley's 'The Uncivil Wars' (1983)
The failure of the British Army and the RUC to protect the Protestant community gives Loyalists a right to take matters into their own hands.

Ian Paisley:
"The Chief Constable had better know and Mrs. Thatcher had better know and James Prior had better know that the Protestants of Ulster have no intention no matter what Mr. Girvan says — or eleven Presbyterians or umpteen ex-moderators or umpteen ex-Methodist presidents, and the whole galaxy of gartered bishops and archbishops of the Church of Ireland — he better know this, that the ordinary Ulster man is not going to surrender to the IRA or be betrayed into a united Ireland or put his neck under the jackboot of popery. He better learn that, and this is war, and so be it.
"If the Crown in Parliament decreed to put Ulster into a united Ireland, we would be disloyal to Her Majesty if we did not resist such a surrender to our enemies."

Loyalty to Britain is seen as the only way to preclude incorpora¬tion into the Catholic-dominated Republic. But it is a conditional loyalty and does not necessarily indicate support for maintaining the U.K. link."
The attitude is almost prenationalistic — a contractarian conception of obligation going back to feudal times. Subjects owe a conditional allegiance to their ruler. But when the ruler fails to live up to his obligations, the subjects are entitled to look after their own interests, even to the extent of taking up arms against the ruler to bring him back to his senses. It is the message of 1912.

Jim Allister, Press Officer for the DUP:
""If Britain decided tomorrow to expel us, she should remember what happened in 1912 when Britain sought to expel the whole of Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland not only said, "We don't wish to go, they said, "We won't go." And it paid off. So there's a message there: that the people of Northern Ireland have it within their power to say "We won't go." And they took action in 1912-that reversed the British government's attitude."

In 1912, nothing, it appeared, could stop the Third Home Rule Bill from becoming law. But Ulster Protestants would not have it; the Ulster Covenant was the signal of their resolve to resist. Nearly half a million men and women signed a declaration to use "all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. The Ulster Volunteer Force was formed to give efficacy to the oath. Almost a hundred thousand volunteers enrolled. The army was disciplined, professional, and well-armed. The unwillingness of the British Army to move against the Volunteers precipitated the "Curragh mutiny" in 1914. The Home Rule crisis, it seemed was veering out of control. Ulster could not, would not, be coerced into a united Ireland. Only the outbreak of World War forestalled what appeared to be inevitable — either a constitutional crisis or a clash between the British Army and the Ulster militia. Home Rule was put on the shelf for the duration of hostilities. And there it stayed."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 07:14 AM

Jim,
There - let that be an end to this dishonest nonsense.

There was nothing in you vast paste job that contradicted anything I have said!
Not even the red bits.

You said this,
"You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other with one threatening Civil War, could possibly have been implemented"

I can not explain "how" but I can show that it was agreed and passed, and that means it would have been implemented.

History Ireland,
"An uneasy consensus was reached in order to concentrate on the war effort, and eventually the Home Rule bill was placed on the statute book in September, but with the proviso that its legal effect, as well as an Ulster provision, would follow the war's conclusion."
http://www.historyireland.com/revolutionary-period-1912-23/the-search-for-statutory-ulster/


You do know what consensus means?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 07:54 AM

"There was nothing in you vast paste job that contradicted anything I have said!"
Yes there is Keith - and the fact that you have refused to show how the two contradicting views on partition could possibly have been resolved shows that you are well aware of that.
You have produced no information yourself and now you appear to be complaining about the amount that has been put up to counteract your unqualified claims - you really do have no case - only denial.
"You do know what consensus means?"
Yes - it is what has been arrived at by everybody other than you pair.
What exactly are you claiming was "consensus" on partition? Read your own ****** cut-'n-paste
"and eventually the Home Rule bill was placed on the statute book in September"
And???????
What was placed on the statute book brought the Home Rule crashing down bin flames
Why?????
Because the parliamentarians would not accept permanent partition and the Unionists would accept nothing else.
What is so difficult to understand about that - the two sides wanted opposite things
How on earth could agreement have been reached in those circumstances?
Do you know what "stalemate" means?
The enforced partition led to the Irish War of Independence amd when it was enforced again when the treaty was bullied through a few years later, the 26 counties embarked on a year-long Civil War.
If you take the trouble to read tour own link you will find that it shows clearly that, given prevailing opposite views on partition, no settlement would have been possible - it was a stalemate From day one - Redmond said no permanent partition, the Unionists said no united Ireland.
What on earth is difficult to understand about that, unless yo think it is not true.
Square the ***** circle - it is simple dishonesty to to go on making your claims
Jim Carroll