BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 05:37 AM

"Not true."
Read their proclomation
No intention of entering into another dialogue with you Keith - been here too often
I've shown you mine (evidence) - you show me yours
Jim Carroll

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

Jim,
The Unionists did not wan independence for any part of Ireland and they said so publicly

Not true.
The Unionist leadership in Parliament fully supported the Home Rule Bill, asking only for a temporary exemption for Northern counties.
It was the rising that spoiled everything. The Unionists could not be expected to join such a violent and unstable state.

for that single act of dishonesty in 1916
What??

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 04:39 AM

"Just a contingency that was never enacted."
But was always a possibility, as the extract shows, and, had Ireland remained subservient, it would most certainly have been - Britain was feeding young men into the war like a butcher feeds meat into a mincer.
Throughout the war, especially towards the end, Britain was thrashing around for fresh meat; there was no reason in the world to ignore the irish - why should they?
Ireland could never have survived that process and become a nation.
"but in fact it was all made up by you!"
Keep this up as long as you like Keith, but you have not given a shred of evidence to back your denials and you have not come up with a single authoritative figure who backs your argument.
The Unionists did not wan independence for any part of Ireland and they said so publicly - even the compromise of The Home Rule Bill was regarded cynically - Britain backed them, in the case of the Home Rule Bill by making partition permanent and we've all suffered, British and Irish, for that single act of dishonesty in 1916 - that is the legacy we were all left.
If it is "invention" you have yet to prove it; you have denied it, nothing more.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 16 - 03:04 PM

Whew - that was a close one!

Not really.
Just a contingency that was never enacted.
No Irish were conscripted and by then the Germans were in retreat and US troops pouring in.
And nothing whatever to do with the rising of 1916.

You said,
" Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists."

Joe said "this sounds credible to me," but in fact it was all made up by you!
It was not evidence but invention Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 02:36 PM

More denials eh what
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 01:47 PM

Conscription:
From 'A History of Modern Ireland Giovanni Costigan, 1959

"In June of that year, the French premier, Clemenceau, asked Lloyd George why the Irish had not yet been conscripted. To the astonishment of the bystanders, the latter dryly murmured: "Mr. Prime Minister, you evidently do not know the Irish. "
In July, 1918, the government announced that, apart from privileged categories such as priests and members of religious orders, all able-
bodied men in Ireland between the ages of eighteen and fifty, and incertain occupations up to fifty-five, would be drafted forthwith. In
Ireland the news was greeted with a storm of indignation. Nothing had so united the country since the time of O'Connell—and then the
North had opposed Catholic emancipation, whereas now even the North joined with the rest of the nation to oppose conscription. The
Home Rulers joined with Sinn Fein, Dillon and Healy with De Valera and Griffith, in opposing the measure. In protest Dillon withdrew the
Nationalists from parliament, while De Valera called the act "a declaration of war upon the Irish nation. " Public bodies proclaimed
their intention to defy the law. The bishops took the lead in resistance to the government: not since Catholic emancipation had the hierarchy
put itself at the head of a truly popular cause. Wrote Dr. O'Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick:
"It is very probable that these poor Connacht lads know nothing of the meaning of the war. Their blood is not stirred by memories of Kossovo, and they have no burning desire to die for Servia. They would much prefer to be allowed to till their own potato gardens in peace in Connemara.... Their crime is that they are not ready to die for England? Why should they? What have they or their fathers ever got from England that they should ever have died for her?...
It is England's war, not Ireland's."
Faced by almost unanimous opposition both in the North and in the South, conscription could not possibly be enforced. The act therefore was a dead letter. Once again, in its ignorance of Irish psychology the British government had misread the situation and committed an
egregious blunder. The impatience now shown toward Ireland by Lloyd George, who was heard to wish that "damned country were
put at the bottom of the sea, " is understandable.
The beneficiary of the government's mistake was Sinn Fein, which received a further impetus when in the summer of 1918 the Prime
Minister declared that he had discovered a "German plot" in Ireland and promptly arrested seventy-three Sinn Fein leaders, including De
Valera. No proof of such a plot was ever forthcoming."

Whew - that was a close one!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 16 - 01:39 PM

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 11:02 AM

With the Government of Ireland Act 1914 passed and Home Rule now a done deal once hostilities with Germany had been concluded what exactly was Redmond and those supporting Home Rule being coerced into?

They were't elected to bear arms - yet you have condemned the Rebels for doing so - whence the difference?

When did the Ulster Volunteer Force use its weapons? The Irish Volunteer Force and the Irish Citizen Army used theirs in an armed rebellion in time of war – see any difference there? If you cannot I am sure others can.

"Asquith confided to a friend 'there is no doubt if were to order a march upon Ulster that about half the officers in the Army would strike."

I do not believe that Asquith was speaking literally and yes he did get it wrong – as for this bit - so maybe he got it wrong and your source got it right - whoops - you didn't give a source, did you? - Unfortunately for you I did give you a source – Namely the text of the telegram sent to the War Office on the evening of the 20th March 1914, by Sir Arthur Paget, Commander-in-Chief of British Forces in Ireland.

"About half the British Officers stationed in Ireland were prepared to back the claims of the Unionists"
Again, a quote from Asquith - same book as previous quote

Now that may well be so but he is stating his own opinion not stating a fact. Nobody could have had any idea what the officers of the British Army would, or would not, do. No orders were ever issued to put it to the test. So mere conjecture on your part – NOT FACT.

I asked you, "How could a small number of Army Officers who had resigned their Commissions and left the Army mount a Military Coup? " – to which this rather odd statement came back as an answer:

Asquith again asaessing what would happen if the Home Rule Bill was pushed through - he was not just referring to the Curragh munineers, but those who he estimated might join them. "

Three points here:

1: An assessment of a hypothetical situation is not a fact.

2: As stated above Asquith, even as Prime Minister, was in no position to accurately predict what the officers of the British Army would, or would not, do.

3: There was no Mutiny.

On the Irish Citizen Army {Republican Citizens Army} – you stated that it was set up to defend the Irish people from the threat from the Unionists and The Easter Rising was seen as the only way to obtain Independence for Ireland in any shape or form.

Which of course it wasn't - The Irish Citizen Army (Irish: Arm Cathartha na hÉireann), or ICA, was a small group of trained trade union volunteers from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (ITGWU) established in Dublin for the defence of worker's demonstrations from the police. It was formed by James Larkin, James Connolly and Jack White on 23 November 1913 - numbering at most 300 men it could barely defend itself.

It was Redmonds Irish Volunteer Force that was raised to defend Home Rule aspirations. It was not specifically raised to defend anyone against Unionists.

The "WRONG – YOUR OPINION AGAIN – NOT FACT" applied to this statement of yours:

Far from being "unpopular", the Rising was in fact supported by many people throughout Ireland (with the exceptions listed above) and the War, far from being supported was, in fact "extremely unpopular" with the Irish people.


And I drew your attention to the fact that the numbers just do not support your contentions.

You say that the Rising was in fact supported by many people throughout Ireland - ~15,000 of whom only 1,250 to 1,500 turned up to fight. FACT

You say that the War, far from being supported was, in fact "extremely unpopular" with the Irish people. – I would say that all wars are unpopular but out of a population of just over 3 million people over 210,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight for the British Armed Forces in this extremely unpopular war. FACT

And as far as trawling through your tedious drivel goes I cannot for the life of me find any comment from Dangerfield that relates to the above.

You have been given the alttations to the Treaty exactly and how they were made - assuring one signatory that partition was permanent in writing and the other that it was temporary by phone.

Ehmmm NO for the umpteenth time I have been references to conversations about possible and proposed alterations to the 1914 Act, which by the way was not a Treaty, none of which were ever debated and no amendments to the 1914 Act were made subsequent to it receiving Royal Assent in September 1914.

Now then a couple of questions for you:

When and where did I ever say that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence?

When and where did I ever say that I thought that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 12:32 PM

Can't see any point of continuing with any of this - you are not responding to the facts put up - on the contrary, you are claiming them as my opinions
You put no evidence up for any of your own opinions (you present nothing else) yet you deny anything that other people say - not even interestingly wrong.
I made the point that the agreement accepted by the parties was altered - you dismiss everything on the basis of semantics.
Ah well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 16 - 12:20 PM

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 11:20 AM

It amuses me no end to see the mountains of irrelevant trivia that you post about an Act passed in September 1914 - that remained unaltered until it was finally repealed, abandoned and replaced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

Anything to do with it {the 1914 Act} that was discussed between September 1914 and November 1920 is just so much meaningless froth.

Where you are in error is in stating that the 1914 Government of Ireland Act was altered after it had received Royal Assent - plain fact of the matter is that is wasn't. Now if you cannot accept that and stand by what you have said, instead of giving us reams of print to read just simply give the dates the 1914 Act was brought back before Parliament and the date that these alterations in the form of amendments were incorporated into a new Government of Ireland Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 11:20 AM

This is the entire page from Dangerfield's 'Damnable Question (p. 235) showing Lloyd George's two-faced double-dealing, the intransigence of the Ulster Unionists and what he thought of them.
Earlier, you put all this down to dishonest politicians – now you seem to be denying any of it happened.
Jim Carroll

Cecil, the Minister of Blockade — had assumed that he. had told the Irish leaders that his proposals had already been submitted to the Cabinet. He had of course done no such thing, he said: he had told the Irish leaders that his proposals had the Prime Minister's approval; that Lord Lansdowne had disapproved of them; that no other Cabinet minister, except Long, had seen them; and that it was quite on the cards that the Unionist members would reject them. In Ireland they were known, not as the Government proposals, but as "Lloyd George proposals, " which did not, mean, he hastened to add, that he would have to "stand by them at all hazards. " He ended with these words by way of postscript: "If the nationalists & Carson with his Ulsterites support the settlement Selborne and Cecil will rail in vain."45 This letter is full o£ interest: but more for what it concealed than for what it revealed. Lloyd George did not tell the Prime Minister that he had assured Mr. Dillon of their ability to carry his proposals through the Cabinet; he did not confess that he had told Mr. Long that the Nationalists and the Carsonites were very nearly in agreement, which — as we know now — they as-, suredly were not. Having informed the Prime Minister that he had no intention of standing by his proposals "at all hazards, " he wrote at once to John Dillon to say that he was "absolutely committed" to them. 46 It was like a juggling act, immensely skillful and quite meaningless: an act, moreover, which was about to collapse. Even while he was telling Dillon of his absolute commitment, he was obliged to inform him in the same letter that, according to Bonar Law, "the Southern Unionists were moving heaven and the other place" to thwart a settlement; that the Catholic bishops in Ulster were of a like mind; and that Home Rule might yet be defeated by combination of its open and secret enemies.         
Five days later, on 17 June, he told the same correspondent that the Union- ist members were in a state of mutiny: 47 and this was, in fact, the beginning of the end. The Milnerite Lord Selborne had already threatened resignation on 16 June, 48 a loss which might have been borne with equanimity: but on 20 June "they are all in it," Lloyd George told John Dillon, "except Balfour,
Bonar Law and F. E. [Smith]. Long has behaved in a specially treacherous manner. He has actually been engaged clandestinely in trying to undermine the influence of Carson, in Ulster by representing to the Ulster leaders, that they were induced to assent to the agreement by false pretenses.... It is quite on the cards that the Government will go to pieces on the question. "49 On 21 June Lord Lansdowne reminded the Cabinet that Mr. Asquith, on his return from Ireland, had stated explicitly: "The Home Rule Act, however amended, cannot come into operation until the end of the war."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 11:02 AM

"and they felt that they were being coerced into something that they did not want.
"As did the Rebels - whence the difference?
They were't elected to bear arms - yet you have condemned the Rebels for doing so - whence the difference?
"This is YOUR OPINION and about as factually wrong as you could get it."
No it is not - it is a direct quote from Asquith -
"Asquith confided to a friend 'there is no doubt if were to order a march upon Ulster that about half the officers in the Army would strike."
so maybe he got it wrong and your source got it right - whoops - you didn't give a source, did you?
"About half the British Officers stationed in Ireland were prepared to back the claims of the Unionists"
Again, a quote from Asquith - same book as previous quote
"who had resigned their Commissions and left the Army mount a Military Coup"
Asquith again asaessing what would happen if the Home Rule Bill was pushed through - he was not just referring to the Curragh munineers, but those who he estimated might join them.
"WRONG – The Irish Citizen Army:"
So?
"WRONG – YOUR OPINION AGAIN – NOT FACT"
Aainn - not my opinion but direct quote from Dangerfield - you've been given it.
You have been given the alttations to the Treaty exactly and how they were made - assuring one signatory that partition was permanent in writing and the other that it was temporary by phone.
Fuck this.
None of this is "my opinion"
I have provided scanned down quotes for every single statement I put up - you have proivided nothing other than denials for everything you have made - no links, no quotes - just denials.
You have the statements - if they are "wrong" then they are not mine and it is up to you to provide proof they are wrong - that really is how these things work.
You want to claim I made them up - please do.
I took great pains to put them together - you appear to pull your denials out of thin air
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF FOR ANY OF THIS - SO FAR, THE NEAREST YOU HAVE COME TO OFFERING ANYTHING OTHER THAN BLIMPISH OPINIONS IS A VAGUE GESTURE TOWARDS THE TREATY - NO INDICATION OF WHERE OR WHAT IT SAYS
As my old mum used to say, "You're all wind and pee, like the barber's cat"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 16 - 10:23 AM

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 06:14 AM

" The Ulster Unionists had no intention of honouring any treaty which included Independence for Ireland - they publicly stated that in their declaration."

Could you point anybody in the direction of any treaty that compelled the citizens of Northern Ireland to accept independence? I know of none, they made their declaration and signed their Covenant in 1912 when the Irish Home Rule Bill was still before Parliament

" Theirs were the first Arms to enter Ireland and be put in the hands of civilians."

Correct, the pro-unionists in the North were justifiably concerned that no-one in Parliament or anywhere else for that matter was taking their interests or concerns into account and they felt that they were being coerced into something that they did not want.

" About half the British Officers stationed in Ireland were prepared to back the claims of the Unionists - in essence a threat of Military Coup."

This is YOUR OPINION and about as factually wrong as you could get it.

"Half the British Officers stationed in Ireland" – Where on earth did you get that ill-informed twaddle from? All in all only 100 officers threatened to resign – if you are attempting to tell us that there were only 200 Army Officers stationed in Ireland then you are more of an ignoramus than I thought – 57 out of that 100 came from the 3rd Cavalry Brigade alone - My Source: The telegram sent by the Commander in Chief in Ireland to the War Office dated 20th March

prepared to back the claims of the Unionists

Again YOUR OPINION not fact, they were not prepared to "back" anything, what they threatened to do was resign. By the way how could a small number of Army Officers who had resigned their Commissions and left the Army mount a Military Coup? – IDIOT

British Army at the time numbered some 440,000 Officers, NCOs and other ranks – woudn't have had any trouble finding replacements for 100 officers.

The Republican Citizens Army was set up to defend the Irish people from the threat from the Unionists and The Easter Rising was seen as the only way to obtain Independence for Ireland in any shape or form.

WRONG – The Irish Citizen Army:

The Irish Citizen Army (Irish: Arm Cathartha na hÉireann), or ICA, was a small group of trained trade union volunteers from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (ITGWU) established in Dublin for the defence of worker's demonstrations from the police. It was formed by James Larkin, James Connolly and Jack White on 23 November 1913

At most they numbered less than 300 men.

As opposed to :

The Irish Volunteers (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann), sometimes called the Irish Volunteer Force[1][2][3] or Irish Volunteer Army,[4][5][6] was a military organisation established in 1913 by Irish nationalists. It was ostensibly formed in response to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912, and its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland".

The IVF at their strongest numbered ~200,000 men. At the start of the First World War the Redmond faction numbering some ~180,000 decided to support Britain's war effort against Germany. The Rump 15,000 group elected armed struggle and fully intended mounting some form of rising while Great Britain was engaged in the conflict with Germany. Redmond's group were there to protect ambitions of Home Rule, Pearse's group were for armed insurrection and outright independence.

Neither the ICA or the IVF were set up to protect anybody from the Unionists.

But here's one for you:

Eoin MacNeill Leader of the IRB, Professor of Early and Medieval History at University College Dublin, was encouraged by The O'Rahilly, assistant editor and circulation manager of the Gaelic League newspaper An Claidheamh Soluis, and this resulted in the article entitled The North Began, giving the Irish Volunteers its public origins. On 1 November, MacNeill's article suggesting the formation of an Irish volunteer force was published. MacNeill wrote::

There is nothing to prevent the other twenty-eight counties from calling into existence citizen forces to hold Ireland "for the Empire". It was precisely with this object that the Volunteers of 1782 were enrolled, and they became the instrument of establishing Irish self-government.

Then back to the Act of Parliament that was never changed:

Lloyd George colluded with the Unionist leadership in secretly altering the Home Rule Bill bu changing an agreed period of temporary partition to a permanent state for Ireland.

WRONG – You are passing your opinion off as being fact again - here is the 1914 Home Rule Act - Goverment of Ireland Act 1914
Now show us where that Act was ALTERED after the 18th September 1914.
Show us where permanent partition is mentioned as being incorporated into the Act passed on 18th September 1914.

Far from being "unpopular", the Rising was in fact supported by many people throughout Ireland (with the exceptions listed above) and the War, far from being supported was, in fact "extremely unpopular" with the Irish people.

WRONG – YOUR OPINION AGAIN – NOT FACT
The numbers just do not support your contentions.
You say that the Rising was in fact supported by many people throughout Ireland - ~15,000 of whom only 1,250 to 1,500 turned up to fight. FACT
You say that the War, far from being supported was, in fact "extremely unpopular" with the Irish people. – I would say that all wars are unpopular but out of a population of just over 3 million people over 210,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight for the British Armed Forces in this extremely unpopular war. FACT

The violence and killing - I see is restricted on the Nationalist/Republican side to the Rising {1916} whereas that by those you define as "unelected" Ulster Unionists covers the period from the end of the war {What War – The First World War or the Irish War of independence?} to the 1950s.

Never mind I will give you the figures:

Easter Rising 1916 – 485 killed (Includes 260 civilians)

Irish War of Independence 1919 to 1921 – 2,014 killed (Includes ~750 civilians killed in the North and the South)

Irish Civil War 1922 to 1923 - ~4,000 killed (Number of civilians killed UNKOWN)

"Ho hum more uncorroborated denials
These are the fact as you have been presented - all from researched works"

Ho hum the garbage you presented as fact is no such thing – it represents your opinion masquerading as fact and it does not even withstand the most cursory examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 08:56 AM

And more.
"Why so few were prepared to fight once the rising had started if indeed it was the will of the "Irish People"
I never said it was "The will of the Irish people" - I said it became popular immediately it became known (except for those with relatives who had been conned into fighting in "a thoroughly unpopular war".
It would have been impossible for anybody to join in anyway - what with - hurley sticks and pikes?
They didn't know what was going on until it was underway and were totally unprepared for fighting - bit feeble, don't you think?
"At one time he [Lloyd George] "
Quoting llod George as a supporter of your argument is somewhat desperate, don't you thing - especially when his Government's conniving brought about "the war that would immediately follow" with their double-dealing with the Unionists.

A little more from the Pile
From 'The Damnable Question' George Dangerfield 1976
"This was simply not true, however, of Mr. Redmond and his colleagues. In the first week of March, and with the magical assistance of Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister persuaded Messrs. Redmond, Dillon and Devlin to accept a six years' exclusion from Home Rule of six of the nine Ulster counties.
The idea was not new. It had been raised by Mr. Churchill in 1912;16 it had been the subject of an amendment in the Commons early in 1913; it had appeared in the course of the abortive Asquith-Bonar Law discussions late in that year; in October and November Lloyd George had tried in vain to urge it on Mr. Redmond; and in late December and in January, Carson had told Asquith that nothing but exclusion would do.17
Why then had Redmond given way, in March 1914, to proposals he had sternly rejected in the previous November? The answer can only be the "Leviathan interview": the interview when Asquith exploded his "bomb" and Redmond — as Miss Stanley was told — "shivered visibly."18 The interview had had, as Mr. Asquith put it, its "salutary" effect; it had forced the Irish leaders into making concessions in the hopes of placating the Opposition and the Orange Unionists. These concessions were little short of calami- tous. To agree to special conditions for Ulster under an all-Ireland Parliament in Dublin was one thing: to accept the exclusion of six Ulster counties from the control of that Parliament, even on a temporary basis, was quite another. It made a rent in the ideal of the "seamless garment" — it was the first Nationalist obeisance to that principle of Partition which afterwards became a great stumbling block to peace in Ireland.
When Mr. Asquith presented the six years' exclusion plan to Parliament on 9 March, Sir Edward Carson contemptuously dismissed it as a "sentence of death with a stay of execution of six years."19 In Ireland, Sinn Fein and Irish Freedom condemned it out of hand, and Cardinal Logue confessed that he found it hard to consider becoming, even temporarily, a virtual foreigner in his cathedral city of Armagh. The Irish Party's reluctant sacrifice of principle to expedience had been made, therefore, and it had been made in vain: the damage to its reputation had been incalculable. In short, the Unionist leaders had used the Army Annual Bill plot to bring about, they hoped, a dissolution of Parliament and the end of Home Rule: the Liberal leaders had used it for precisely the opposite reasons. Caught in this crossfire, this curious form of interparty collusion with regard to Irish interests, Mr. Redmond had become the most prominent casualty. The other, to be sure, was the Liberal Government, whose weakness had now been exposed to the whole political world."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 07:14 AM

Bit More
The "The Men of the Gun" you refer to must be the Unionists who were first and most heavily armed before another gun entered into Ireland
for use in political struggle.
Collins was the first to condemn the fact that the Treaty had been forced through under threat of war.
He was also under threat himself - of having his affair made public, so anything he had to say must be regarded in this light.
Of all os the signatories, he was the most reluctant - when signing, he said, "I am signing my own death warrant".
Now - how about to real facts instead of made-uup ones?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Peter Beresford Ellis's work. Both North and South had birth pains in the South a totally unnecessary Civil War broke out"
Ellis'd description referred to pogroms against Catholics whch took place before the Treaty was signed and before the Civil War broke out and that took place in the South.
As the Thames Television book goes to great length to describe, those pogroms went on to the end of the 1950s in the north - the boycott of Catholic labour was a permanent feature of life there and violent Anti-Catholic riots were annual events.
The secret changing of the treaty from temporary to permanent invalidate the Treaty and brought down the Pro Home Rule group in Parliament - it was the end of any support Britain had in Ireland apart from the Unionists.
Jim Carroll

.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 06:14 AM

Ho hum more uncorroborated denials
These are the fact as you have been presented - all from researched works
The Ulster Unionists had no intention of honouring any treaty which included Independence for Ireland - they publicly stated that in their declaration.
Theirs were the first Arms to enter Ireland and be put in the hands of civilians.
About half the British Officers stationed in Ireland were prepared to back the claims of the Unionists - in essence a threat of Military Coup.
The Republican Citizens Army was set up to defend the Irish people from the threat from the Unionists and The Easter Rising was seen as the only way to obtain Independence for Ireland in any shape or form.
Lloyd George colluded with the Unionist leadership in secretly altering the Home Rule Bill bu changing an agreed period of temporary partition to a permanent state for Ireland.
Far from being "unpopular", the Rising was in fact supported by many people throughout Ireland (with the exceptions listed above) and the War, far from being supported was, in fact "extremely unpopular" with the Irish people.
The violence and killing by "unelected" Ulster Unionists far exceeded that which took place during the Rising and continued throughout the period from the end of the war to the 1922 treaty being agreed - the pogroms of Catholics in the six counties continued right through to the end of the 1950s backed by the Authorities and, the R.U.C. and in the full knowledge of Britain.
All this is listed and linked to its source and all those sources, mainly from British researchers are unchallenged by anybody (other than you pair.
You have denied everything and have linked to nothing - your statements are nothing but your own efforts at rewriting Irish history.
It's a beautiful day here but, if I do get time out from the garden I will scoop up more facts for you to deny from my pile - Wouldn't like to see you get bored, after all - "idle hands" and all that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 16 - 04:56 AM

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 01:40 AM

1: "One minute it's temporary, next minute it's permanent"

Incorrect - As is established by reading the three relevant Acts:

1914 Home Rule Act that never came into force
Government of Ireland Act 1920 that established the two entities of Northern and Southern Ireland and only mentions TEMPORARY partition
Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 that details North's option to opt out of an Independent Ireland if wished to do so.

At no point at all in any of the three Acts is permanent partition specifically mentioned.

2: If you agree that no amendments were ever put before Parliament, then it remained on the Statute books UNALTERED - i.e. NO CHANGES WERE EVER MADE - moot point really as the Act never came into force.

"opening up discussions" and "conducting negotiations" would not change the 1914 Act. Had anything come from these discussions and negotiations then the detail would have had to have been written up as an Amendment and debated in Parliament and voted on before the Act could be changed.

3: The assertion that Lloyd George wrote a letter "assuring Carson in writing that the exclusion of the six counties was permanent. is incorrect. The letter written to Sir Edward Carson by Lloyd George in June 1916 assured Carson that the North could never be forced into being part of a self-governing Ireland - which is a different thing entirely.

But I can see where the confusion comes from as in June and July of 1916 A DRAFT proposal had been drawn up in Cabinet:

"A modified Act of 1914 as "Headings of a settlement as to the Government of Ireland" had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June.[15] The formula then had two amendments enforced on 19 July by Unionists – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. This was informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916 to Redmond, who accused the government of treachery. The government bowed to the combined opposition of UNIONISTS WHO NEVER HAD FAVOURED PARTITION, and the Irish party. ON 27TH JULY THE SCHEME FINALLY COLLAPSED."   

4: The Irish Civil War came about because of what doctored former agreement? The Irish Civil War came about because de Valera refused to accept democratic process.

But here was his take on it at the time, which he did not make public:

Éamon de Valera, had drafted his own preferred text of the treaty in December 1921, known as "Document No. 2". An "Addendum North East Ulster" indicates his acceptance of the 1920 partition for the time being, and of the rest of Treaty text as signed in regard to Northern Ireland:


That whilst refusing to admit the right of any part of Ireland to be excluded from the supreme authority of the Parliament of Ireland, or that the relations between the Parliament of Ireland and any subordinate legislature in Ireland can be a matter for treaty with a Government outside Ireland, nevertheless, in sincere regard for internal peace, and in order to make manifest our desire not to bring force or coercion to bear upon any substantial part of the province of Ulster, whose inhabitants may now be unwilling to accept the national authority, we are prepared to grant to that portion of Ulster which is defined as Northern Ireland in the British Government of Ireland Act of 1920, privileges and safeguards not less substantial than those provided for in the 'Articles of Agreement for a Treaty' between Great Britain and Ireland signed in London on 6 December 1921.

What Michael Collins thought of the Anglo-Irish Treaty at the time:

the treaty would give "the freedom to achieve freedom".

De Valera himself acknowledged the accuracy of this claim ten years later in 1932 - pity about that because if he had stated that in 1922 the Civil War would never have happened.

5: As to the Anglo-Irish Treaty being forced on Ireland under the threat of War Here is what Michael Collins said about that:

"The Path to Freedom Notes by General Michael Collins", August 1922; Collins did not state that the remark was made solely to Barton, implying that the whole Irish delegation had heard it: "The threat of `immediate and terrible war' did not matter overmuch to me. The position appeared to be then exactly as it appears now. The British would not, I think, have declared terrible and immediate war upon us."

But the "immediate and terrible war" being referred to could also have meant a civil war in Ireland between North and South, de Valera certainly was awake to that probability hence his reference to INTERNAL PEACE in his secret "Document No. 2".

There is no mention of this remark as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations. Barton himself noted that:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement."

And that is true, a truce in the Irish War of Independence had been inforce since June 1921, the negotiations being conducted by the Irish plenipotentiaries and the British Government were focused upon agreeing a Peace Treaty, it must have been clearly understood by all in Great Britain and in Ireland that if agreement wasn't reached then hostilities would resume.

The Treaty came into force and the Irish Free State was declared on the 6th December 1921 and on the following day, the 7th December 1921, Northern Ireland exercised its right under the Treaty to cede from the Irish Free State and remain as an autonomous self-governing part of the United Kingdom. "The Men of the Gun" didn't accept though did they?

6: Apologies but with regard to the implementation of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, and what I said about it - I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Peter Beresford Ellis's work. Both North and South had birth pains in the South a totally unnecessary Civil War broke out that killed thousands and severely destroyed the economy of the new state.

7: As for the rest, please do keep your pile of books handy, because everything that you have put up so far has not explained any of the following:

(a) Why Pearse and Connolly had to keep their Rising secret from the Supreme Governing Council of the IVF and IRB - [Answer: Because they knew that their "Rising" would be cancelled].
(b) Why the orders were given to stand down were given to the entire movement that Easter in 1916 - [Answer: Because Pearse set the Rising up to deliberately fail - He believed that the "Movement" required what he called a "Blood Sacrifice"]
(c) Why so few were prepared to fight once the rising had started if indeed it was the will of the "Irish People"
(d) Why so few took part in the War of Independence - 15,000 out of a population of over 3 million.
(e) Why there was no great surge in IRA numbers when the Civil War broke out.

Since 1914 the people of Ireland in the main have always seemed to have demonstrated that their preferred means of finding a solution to any problem has been by discussion, not by violence, it was unfortunate that it took until 1998, 84 years, before the people of Ireland got a referendum that let their voice be heard. Those who have elected to take up the gun and the bomb have never had any mandate from "the people of Ireland".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 01:50 AM

PS
In Black, White and Red
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 16 - 01:40 AM

"One minute, six years of permanent - next minute it's permanent"
Should have read "One minute it's temporary, next minute it's permanent"

Before I had read this, I had a quick sprint around my bookshelves and selected some a pile of books I have read down the years which cover this period of Irish history – I was intending to make a wide selection, but as it happens, when I read this nonsense, I find that all the points here were pretty well covered.

"No amendments were ever put before Parliament"
Correct – the changes were made with the two leaders separately, without Lloyd George informing either side what he had agreed with the other.
From 'The Troubles" (P 77) accompanying book to Thames Television's series on the conflict (1980)
"After Asquith had visited Ireland in mid-May, 1916 he instructed Lloyd George to open up discussions again. Lloyd George conducted separate negotiations with the Unionists and Nationalists, assuring Carson in writing that the exclusion of the six counties was permanent, and Redmond, verbally, that it was temporary. When this duplicity came out into the open, Redmond was forced to withdraw from the negotiations and was effectively discredited as a Nationalist leader. The initiative further moved to the Republicans."

"Due to the Irish Civil War"
Which came about because of the doctored former agreement had been forced on Ireland under the threat of War – at least one of the signatories, Michael Collins, had been blackmailed into signing by Lloyd George under threat of exposure of his clandestine affair (which would have ruined him in the eyes of Catholic Ireland, as had happened when the same dirty tricks campaign had been used on Charles Stewart Parnell)

"The only place where the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was implemented was in Ulster, the Nationalists basically ignored it. The 1920 Act set up TEMPORARY Home Rule in both the North and the South"
From 'A History of the Irish Working Class Peter Beresford Ellis, (pp 26-261) 1972
"In the north-east of Ulster the pogroms continued. On May 31 alone over eighty Catholic families were rendered homeless, eight people were killed and again thousands fled south where relief work was hastily organised. Between June 21, 1920, and June 18, 1922, the total casualties were 428 killed, 1,766 wounded, 8,750 Catholics driven from their jobs and 23,000 Catholics rendered homeless. The pogroms were conducted by Ulster B Special Constabulary and Orange mobs. Troops stationed in the Six Counties were ordered not to interfere. The northern statelet was having a painful birth. To protect itself it had organised, in addition to what it termed the Royal Ulster Constabulary, three classes of special police. The A Specials were full time auxiliary policemen; the B specials were part-time; and the C Specials were older men called out in dire emergency.
Recruiting was through the Orange Lodges and so the Specials were Protestant elite."

"The totally unrepresentative "Men of the Gun" from 1916 set the precedent for claiming a mandate that did not exist then insisting that violence was the only way to attain an independent united Ireland."
From 'The Troubles' Thames Television
"The curt rejection of the proposal angered members of the Cabinet, who were also alarmed by intelligence reports of arms and ammunition being hoarded in the north. So, in the spring of 1914, plans were drawn up to increase and re-organise the military presence in Ulster. This involved some risk, since many of the officer class were Anglo-Irish Protestants, and many more had Unionist sympathies. Armies, after all, tend to be conservative.
In anticipation of orders, and amid confusion about their nature, 52 officers at the Curragh Camp near Dublin proffered their resignations rather than face the prospect of having to subdue their kith and kin. The plans were hastily withdrawn. This was not a mutiny, the officers had not refused orders, but it was clear that the army was not reliable, and that the Liberals no longer had the option of coercion. Asquith confided to a friend 'there is no doubt if were to order a march upon Ulster that about half the officers in the Army would strike.'
A month later, on the night of 24-25 April, a brilliantly executed gun-running operation landed 20,000 rifles and 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition at the ports of Larne, Bangor and Donaghadee on the north-east coast of Ulster. The British could do nothing. Within twenty-four hours, the Ulster Volunteer Force no longer drilled with wooden rifles. To the South, at least, it had become clear what Bonar Law had meant when in supporting the Unionists, .he said, 'there are things stronger than parliamentary majorities'. The Nationalists concluded that force could only be answered with force. In November 1913, they formed their own 'People's Army', the Irish Volunteers (see page 73). In July 1914, arms (1,500) Mauser rifles and 45,000 rounds of ammunition) were landed in daylight at Howth near Dublin. There were now three armies in Ireland — British, Unionist and Nationalist."

Also from 'The Troubles'
Thus, a Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 would be bound to become law in three years' time, that is in 1914.
It was in this context that the Ulster Unionists began to organise their fiercest resistance to the Home Rule Bill. Sir Edward Carson, a successful Dublin lawyer, was appointed to lead them. Rarely has a more suitable man been found for a job. His brilliant and lucid oratory, his uncompromising forthright air, his theatrical sense and his drive and energy all mark him out as the most powerful champion Ulster Unionism has ever found. There followed a series of well-orchestrated mass meetings addressed by Carson, his deputy in Ulster, James Craig, and his allies from the conservative wing of English politics.
On 28 September 1912, having whipped up excitement to fever pitch, Carson led a vast multitude of Ulstermen in signing the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant. 218, 000 men and 229, 000 women signed this Covenant stating that:
Being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we ... do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant throughout this our time of threatened calamity to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland.
With Ulster Unionism clearly tangled up in English politics, it was obvious that a major confrontation was coming. The situation became even more menacing when, in January 1913, the Ulster Volunteer Force began drilling throughout the North.
The illustrations on these pages show something of the colour and of the appeal of Ulster Unionism in these years leading up to 1914. Most of them were produced as postcards to spread the word as widely as possible. The photograph shows Sir Edward Carson signing the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant on 28 September 1912.

On the "support" for WW1 in Ireland - from F. S. L. Lyon's 'Ireland Since the Famine',   
"Both men were in fact involved in the same dilemma, or rather in two different aspects of the same dilemma. Dillon could not support the government in suppressing extremist organisations, or even newspapers, for no nationalist, however wedded to constitutional methods he might be, could ever act with the British against his fellow-countrymen. At the same time he knew very well that these particular fellow-countrymen were bent on the destruction of the English connection and the Irish party alike, and the more licence they were given the greater threat to the parliamentarians they would become, particularly as the latter were already gravely handicapped by Redmond's continued support for a thoroughly unpopular war.

On the claimed opposition of the Irish people to the Rising ftom 'The Damnable Question' George Dangerfield (1976)
Before any executions had taken place, John Redmond had told the House of Commons that "the overwhelming mass of the Irish people looked upon the Rising "with feelings of detestation and horror. "1 This was undoubtedly true of conservative middle-class nationalism. In a public statement to the press on the next day, 28 April, he spoke of his "horror, discouragement even despair [on hearing of] this insane movement. " This was his honest belief.
Honesty is the best policy, as we all know, although the annals of politics are not the most convincing witness to this. It would have been prudent, perhaps, in Redmond's case, if he had moderated his language until more was known of the feelings of the Irish people.

I think that just about covers everything, but just in case, I'll keep the pile handy – plenty more where that came from.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 08:35 PM

Jim Carroll - 14 May 16 - 05:53 PM

"What problem do I have with that?"
What the hell's got got to do with you?

You mean apart from the fact that YOU asked ME what problem I had?

One minute, six years of permanent - next minute it's permanent

Does that make any sense to anyone?

But presuming this incoherent rant is about discussions about a suggested amendment to the 1914 Act that never came into force.

No amendments were ever put before Parliament
The 1914 Home Rule Act was repealed and superseded by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, which only referred to TEMPORARY partition.

Due to the Irish Civil War the only place where the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was implemented was in Ulster, the Nationalists basically ignored it. The 1920 Act set up TEMPORARY Home Rule in both the North and the South, The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 that was ratified by Parliament and by the Dial that created the Irish Free State gave the North the facility to opt out of being part of an independent Ireland, they were given one month to exercise that option - and that is exactly what they did and the six counties in the North remained as part of the United Kingdom.

That't where a century of violence came from - not the ****** Rising

The totally unrepresentative "Men of the Gun" from 1916 set the precedent for claiming a mandate that did not exist then insisting that violence was the only way to attain an independent united Ireland.

The refusal by de Valera to accept the democratic process threw the South into a totally unnecessary and destructive civil war - de Valera's own solution granted the North the right to opt out - so partition couldn't have had anything to do with it.

The illegal territorial claim by the Republic to the North gave latter day "Men of the Gun" an excuse without mandate to go forth to pointlessly bomb, maim and kill their fellow Irishmen to no obvious effect. This was thankfully ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement:

Under the agreement, the British and Irish governments committed to organising referendums on 22 May 1998, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic respectively. The Northern Ireland referendum was to approve the Agreement reached in the multi-party talks. The Republic of Ireland referendum was to approve the British-Irish Agreement and to facilitate the amendment of the Constitution of Ireland in accordance with the Agreement.

The result of these referendums was a large majority in both parts of Ireland in favour of the Agreement. In the Republic, 56% of the electorate voted, with 94% of the votes in favour of the amendment to the Constitution. The turnout in Northern Ireland was 81%, with 71% of the votes in favour of the Agreement.

In the Republic, the electorate voted upon the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of Ireland. This amendment both permitted the state to comply with the Belfast Agreement and provided for the removal of the 'territorial claim' contained in Articles 2 and 3.

In black and white

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 05:53 PM

"What problem do I have with that?"
What the hell's got got to do with you?
It was the Irish people who were betrayed - not you.
One minute, six years of permanent - next minute it's permanent
That't where a century of violence came from - not the ****** Rising
In black and white
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 04:54 PM

I would prefer to quote the entire sentence:

Although the British Government of the day had, since 1914, desired home rule for the whole of Ireland, the British Parliament BELIEVED that it could not possibly grant complete independence to all of Ireland in 1921 without provoking huge sectarian violence between overwhelmingly Protestant Irish Unionists and overwhelmingly Catholic Irish Nationalists.

They are looking hypothetically at what might happen. The probability of it happening must have been seen as being high.

Now looking at this piece of nonsense:

So it was the British in collusion with The Unionists who provoked the violence

Sort of begs the question What violence are you wittering on about?

1916 Rising was instigated by seven men - their choice entirely - no Unionist involvement.
1919 The War of Independence - no Unionist involvement.
1922 Irish Civil War - no British or Unionist involvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 04:37 PM

Britain secretly alteres the siggnged Bill and his ally in Parliement, Redmond, dscribed it as "a betrayal" - what problem do you have with that fact Teribus?

What problem do I have with that?

The Bill you refer to became and ACT when it received Royal Assent in 1914. As such it could only be altered if an amendment was put before Parliament for discussion, and that never happened. There were two attempts to enact and put the 1914 Home Rule Act into force during the war and what you are latching onto are the discussions that occurred in that process - these discussions came to nothing and no amendments were put before Parliament.

The end of the war, in November 1918, was followed in Ireland by the December 1918 general election, the majority of seats being won by the republican separatist Sinn Féin party, then in January 1919 by the Irish War of Independence, so that the Act was never implemented. The future of Home Rule was determined by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It established Northern Ireland, with a functional government, and Southern Ireland, whose governmental institutions never fully functioned. Southern Ireland, following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, became the Irish Free State.

The 1914 Home Rule Act was repealed unaltered by any amendment without having ever been implemented when it was superseded by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 03:44 PM

"that it could not possibly grant complete independence to all of Ireland in 1921 without provoking huge sectarian violence between overwhelmingly Protestant Irish Unionists and overwhelmingly Catholic Irish Nationalists"
So it was the British in collusion with The Unionists who provoked the violence
Bit late to be changing sides, don't you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 03:39 PM

As Keith has said he hasn't read a book on the subject and refuses to do so because he is not interested, I thought I'd put this up to save him the trouble.
"Britain tore up NOTHING"
Britain secretly alteres the siggnged Bill and his ally in Parliement, Redmond, dscribed it as "a betrayal" - what problem do you have with that fact Teribus?
Jim Carroll

This was the situation regarding the Home Rule Bill in 1914 (even before it had secretly been altered) – from Nicholas Mansergh's The Irish Question 1914-1921 Unwing University Books 1965

"By 1914 the faith of Irishmen in English parties and English promises was dead. The Home Rule Bill which John Redmond had welcomed 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 concessions without eliciting any favourable response from his Unionist opponents. 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? '

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 03:37 PM

At the time in 1922 Michael Collins had argued that the treaty would give "the freedom to achieve freedom". De Valera himself acknowledged the accuracy of this claim both in his actions in the 1930s but also in words he used to describe his opponents and their securing of independence during the 1920s. "They were magnificent", he told his son in 1932, just after he had entered government and read the files left by Cosgrave's Cumann na nGaedheal Executive Council.

Although the British Government of the day had, since 1914, desired home rule for the whole of Ireland, the British Parliament believed that it could not possibly grant complete independence to all of Ireland in 1921 without provoking huge sectarian violence between overwhelmingly Protestant Irish Unionists and overwhelmingly Catholic Irish Nationalists. At the time, although there were Unionists throughout the country, they were concentrated in the north-east and their parliament first sat on 7 June 1921. An uprising by them against home rule would have been an insurrection against the "mother county" as well as a civil war in Ireland. (See Ulster Volunteers). Dominion status for 26 counties, with partition for the six counties that the Unionists felt they could comfortably control, seemed the best compromise possible at the time.

In fact, what Ireland received in dominion status, on par with that enjoyed by Canada, New Zealand and Australia, was far more than the Home Rule Act 1914, and certainly a considerable advance on the home rule once offered to Charles Stewart Parnell in the nineteenth century albeit at the cost of the permanent exclusion of Northern Ireland. Even de Valera's proposals made in secret during the Treaty Debates differed very little in essential matters from the accepted text, and were far short of the autonomous 32-county republic that he publicly claimed to pursue.

Anglo-Irish Treaty

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 03:05 PM

Joe Offer - 14 May 16 - 01:49 PM

You ask for refutation:

1: Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence

Home Rule was a stepping stone in the Home Rule Bill of 1914 which for it to be enacted required that:
(a) The Great War to come to an end
(b) Both pro-union and nationalist parties in Ireland enter into a dialogue that would lead to a mutually acceptable compromise.

As there was no such compromise reached it was proposed under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that Ireland be temporarily partitioned with each entity being given Home Rule - again this stage was seen as a stepping stone towards unification and independence.

2: it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.

First of all from what has been written no-one can have any idea what the IT was that was supposed to have been signed, but by process of elimination the only thing that could have been signed by any Irish delegation would be the Anglo-Irish Treaty (6th December 1921) Neither the Home Rule Bill 1914 or the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 which were Westminster Bills would be signed by anybody other than the King when giving it Royal Assent.

No "secret alterations" were made to either:

(a) Third Home Rule Act 1914
(b) Government of Ireland Act 1920
(c) Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921

So as far as "secret alterations" go Jim Carroll is havering. None of the above had any reference to anything other than temporary partition in (a) and (b) above. The Anglo-Irish Treaty Articles contained an article that provided Northern Ireland with the facility to opt out of any independent Ireland and remain as part of the United Kingdom. That article was on the table from the start.

3: Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.

Britain tore up NOTHING

Anybody wishing to check the accuracy of what I have written above please consult the online texts of:

Home Rule Act 1914
Government of Ireland Act 1920
Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 03:01 PM

"All sides agreed the bill."
On the understanding it was a transitional measure - the British, in collusion with the Unionists, secretly changed it thereby nullifying it.
What agrrements can be changed secretly without forming all the perties?
What problem do you have with this Keith?
"If all had gone smoothly, a united Ireland would have emerged."
No it wouldn't - the Unionists had made it clear that they would never work with a United Ireland as far back as The Curragh Mutiny
With Irish Home Rule due to become law in 1914, the British Cabinet contemplated some kind of military action against the Ulster Volunteers who threatened to rebel against it. Many officers, especially those with Irish Protestant connections, of whom the most prominent was Hubert Gough, threatened to resign rather than obey, privately encouraged from London by senior officers including Henry Wilson. - that was why Britain secretly changed the agreement - what problem do you have with this Keith.
"Then came the civil war."
The Civil War was brought about by a Partitioned Ireland being forced on The Republic
"Still waiting Jom"
And I'm still waiting for you to address fellow members of this thread in the manner you have been asked to by one of forum officers - I'm making an effort to be polite, for the sake of reasonable discussion, I suggest you fight your superiority complex and do the same.
If I demanded (in the arrogant way you are) responses to all the points I have put to you, we may as well have packed up and gone home at the time of the famine discussion.
If you can't be polite, please be quiet.
This gets more and more bizarrely unpleasant the longer it is dragged out.
Is there and adjudicator in the house?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 May 16 - 02:32 PM

joe,
the six counties in the north did not want independence, and they are part of the geographical island known as ireland, this was because ulster was a plantation of scottish protestants.
the area that was not ulster, was called the irish free state.
so dominion status was achieved until 1937 when de velera embarked on a trade warin 1937.
Joe, under home rule ireland enjoyed greater economic prosperity than they did when de velera abandoned home rule and embarked in a trade war with the uk in 1937, i have spoken to many irish farmers about this period when de velera declared independence, and they all said that they had to sell their cattle for virtually nothing,causing massive rural hardship, that was not the fault of home rule but the fault of de veleras ridiculous economic war with the uk
republic ofireland joined europe in 1972, rep of ireland unknowingly abandoned independence in 1972, why did they sell out the ideals of the easter rising of 1916? the fact of the matter is that there were considerable shortcomings in DE VELERAS ECONoMIC Policies, when he abolished the irish free state
the agreement was signed by BOTH sides and michael collins[ who was a soldier not a diplomat] was sent over along with others by that weasel de velera to sign it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 02:16 PM

It is just assertions, not evidence Joe.
"Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence ."

All sides agreed the bill.
There was no outcry against the bill.
It was democracy in action.

- it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.

The temporary partition was accepted by all parties.
If all had gone smoothly, a united Ireland would have emerged.
The rising destroyed that dream.

The Unionists would never risk being part of such a volatile unstable state.
Then came the civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:49 PM

Keith Says: Joe,
Please remind us what was the "credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule."

Jim Carroll says: Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.

This sounds credible to me, Keith. What evidence do you have to refute it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:49 PM

Still waiting Jom

When and where did I ever say that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence?

When and where did I ever say that I thought that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires?

The actual, truthful answer to both those questions is NEVER, but Jom-the-infallible says that I did - all he has to do is show us all when and where by posting quotes from past posts of mine - if he cannot do that then once again he has made a complete and utter prat of himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:35 PM

if you are going to use any, name use the one I have chosen

But Jom it was YOU yourself that called yourself J-O-M, I have simply used it ever since.

Home rule, which you have based your entire case on - is not independence, it was based on Ireland remaining within the Empire
You:
"Ireland in being given Home Rule as envisioned was being offered Dominion Status as enjoyed by Australia, South Africa and Canada"

Are you honestly trying to tell us all that Australia and Canada are NOT fully independent sovereign states?

Let me see now Ireland declared itself a Republic in 1949, the Dominions became fully independent sovereign states with the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 May 16 - 01:09 PM

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM

Thanks for that T
One of the most memorable parts of Coffey's book is the description of the survivors of the uprising being brought out of the GPO and being set on by Dublin 'Shawlies' demanding, "why aren't you supporting our lads in the trenches".
It took the brutality of unnecessary, hastily carried out executions to turn what was widely regarded as a somewhat eccentric incident into a revolution.
Jim Carroll
This rather ILLUSTRATES THAT SUPPORT FOR THE EASTER RISING WAS NOT UNIVERSAL

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 12:30 PM

Home Rule was what the people wanted in 1916, and it was always going to be a first step towards full independence.
The Rising just created violent divisions and years of bloodshed.
Without it there would have been a peaceful transition to Home Rule and Independence, very likely of a united Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 12:04 PM

Home rule, which you have based your entire case on - is not independence, it was based on Ireland remaining within the Empire
You:
"Ireland in being given Home Rule as envisioned was being offered Dominion Status as enjoyed by Australia, South Africa and Canada"
Keith isn't interested enough in Ireland for me to give a toss one way or another what he thinks, or in his case doesn't think.   
"TERRIBUS's"
Still trying to score points from typos and mis-spellings then - now why am I not surprised- what else have you?
J-I-M Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 11:27 AM

Oh from the same post I got this which I think is hilarious:

I sign on as Jim Carroll - if you are going to use any, name use the one I have chosen - new rules, remember.

I have responded to every single one of your and TERRIBUS's points

From that I take it that those new rules don't apply to you then Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 11:18 AM

I have responded to every single one of your and Terribus's points


No Carroll you have not, what you have done is attribute to us points of view, opinions and statements that we have never made, and addressed THEM

Want a couple of examples of this Jim Carroll "made-up-shit"?

I get the message, you don't think Ireland was entitled to independence, you think the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires.

Show us where either Keith or myself have ever stated that we don't think Ireland was entitled to independence - As far as I am aware I have never ever stated anything even remotely close to that.

Likewise show us where either Keith or myself have ever stated that we thought or believed that the world was a better place when it was divided up into Empires. - As far as I am aware I have never ever stated anything even remotely close to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 16 - 10:48 AM

Oh yes you are [taking sides] Joe and that has been shown quite clearly

Indeed- he's on the side of reality and fact- a difficult place to be when dealing with Keith & Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 10:48 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 16 - 08:24 AM

"You've been kicked back on every argument you've put up here"

- Only when you are putting words in peoples mouths Carroll.


1: The devastation in Dublin was all the fault of the rebels,

Well yes it was. Had there been no Easter Rising in 1916, nobody would have been killed in Dublin, no looting would have occurred, no fires would have been started, there would have been no artillery fire. People make choices, in this case seven men did, and they must bear the responsibility for what resulted from their chosen course of action.

2: Ireland would have been given independence,

No, in 1914 Ireland was guaranteed Home Rule as soon as the war against Germany was over. Home Rule would have been a stepping stone to Independence.

3: the people supported the war,

Well I'd say that the numbers speak for themselves wouldn't you? 1,250 turned out for your rebellion out of a population of around 3 million. Now that number might have been as high as 15,000 had it not been for the fact that the men who did turn out were lied to and mislead by their leaders who ordered the other 13,750 to stand down and do nothing, thereby guaranteeing that the rebellion would fail. The Irish Volunteers in 1914 numbered around 200,000 strong but when war was declared in 1914 the Redmond faction of the Irish Volunteers that supported the war and serving in the British Army split leaving somewhere between 13,500 and 15,000 that backed armed struggle. As it turned out ~210,000 Irishmen volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces, now if their families backed their decision then one hell of a proportion of the Irish population supported the war - far more than ever supported Connolly and Pearse

4: 4000 untrained British troops against highly-trained Rebels who had been training for "at least three years"

Where and when did I say that the troops sent to Dublin were untrained? What I did say was that they had just completed their training. Where did I say that the rebels were highly trained? All I said was that they had been drilling for three years - but there again you tend to be not very good at reading, but very good at making up shit.

5: pro-Imperial rebels fighting for Germany

Again where have I said that they were pro-Imperial? Or that they were fighting for Germany? It is undeniable that in their Proclamation Germany is described by the leaders as a "Gallant Ally". An ally = a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose - Their common purpose? To fight the British. By raising a rebellion in Ireland, British troops would have to be diverted from fighting in France, therefore by raising a rebellion in Ireland those rebels are effectively supporting and aiding the German war effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 06:33 AM

There is nothing in the article to support that assertion, and you have not produced any other articles.

He says it is "indisputable" that the rising "increased divisions."
That is what destroyed all hope of a united independent Ireland, and led to all the bloody years of conflict that followed.

he (Coogan)remains one of the most respected historians in Ireland
I see no evidence of that among other Irish historians who dismiss his work with contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 05:56 AM

"There is nothing in the article to support that assertion."
Read the article and read the rest of his articles (as I now have - those on line anyway)
His whole work is dedicated to how the ideals of Easter Week have been betrayed by what has happened to the Republic since - as is Tim Pat Coogan's book.
His criticism of Coogan was not on what he had to say but on what he regarded as shoddy workmanship on dates and note-keeping, as were the criticisms of the other three historians - as amatuish as Coogan can be at times on technicalities, he remains one of the most respected historians in Ireland - though you can never know that as you have bnever read anything of substance on Ireland and you have said you have no interest in doing so - who are we to contradict you?   
You really have not got your head around the fact that, unless you read the writings of the historians you persist in hiding behind enough to understand what they are actually saying, they will continue to blow up in your face, as has Kineally, Max Hastings and now Ferriter..... and virtually every other historian you have used in this way
"Please remind us what was the "credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule."
Home Rule kept Ireland within the Empire while historically, Ireland wanted Independence - it was signed on the basis that Ireland would be partitioned temporarily, but was made invalid, even to its loyal Irish supporters, by Britain secretly altering it to permanent partition.
Britain tore up the signed agreement and replaced it with one bulldozed through by the Northern Unionists.
What problem do you have with this Keith - is it wrong - have I made it up - did this not happen - what?
You have had credible evidence in the form of Lloyd George's confessions that it had been done - what more "credible evidence" do you need other than that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 16 - 05:13 AM

Jim,
And he's quite right - some do - he doesn't and he "really knows Irish history."

There is nothing in the article to support that assertion.
He neither challenges that view nor states his own.

Joe,
Please remind us what was the "credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 16 - 04:03 AM

"Really? How?"
It's been explained enough, here and within the links you've been given, how.
You've given us your attitude of the Empire, a benevolent motherly power for the good of the world - those living under it thought differently - Easter Week and its aftermath showed it was possible to stand up to Empires.
You've been kicked back on every argument you've put up here - the devastation in Dublin was all the fault of the rebels, Ireland would have been given independence, the people supported the war, 4000 untrained British troops against highly-trained Rebels who had been training for "at least three years" (still chortling over that one), pro-Imperial rebels fighting for Germany.....each time you've moved on to another.
You refuse to respond to the illegally carried our, rigged trials (backed up by British Legal condemnation), the fitting up of Tom Kent, the fact that, if Ireland had remained subservient it would have been forced to participate in a bloodbath which would have virtually depopulated the country of young men and, following the earlier culling of the Irish a little over half a century earlier, would have made the the place untenable as a nation.
Ireland was partitioned by Britain colluding with the Unionists - they had conceded to the Curragh Mutineers by doing nothing, they altered the Home Rule Bill which guaranteed permanent partition and which made the agreed one null and void and which moved Ireland on from agreeing to remain as part of the Empire under that system to demands for Independence proper.
Britain's dishonest behaviour even disillusioned the supporters of Home Rule - the Redmondites, who dismissed any further negotiations as "betrayal".
It wasn't the massacre of the leaders that turned the tables on the British - why should the Irish worry about the death of a few rebels when their children were being slaughtered in Europe in their thousands -
It was the crude display of brutality by the British which made it clear that Ireland would never become free without a fight - that was underlined when the thuggish Tans were sent in to beat Ireland into making a deal which suited Britain and the Unionists - Imperialism with the mask off.
Ireland had been fighting for independence from Britain for centuries, the 19th century was made up of an ongoing series of disturbances, disputes, uprisings which lapsed during the five years of the famine but intensified following the mass evictions.
The land disputes lasted officially till 1911, but continued in the harder-hit areas right up to Independence and beyond.
During the first decade and a half of the 20th century, Dublin was among the most impoverished cities in the Western World Poverty in Dublin and the countryside had never fully recovered from the Famine - over half a century of continuing active repression and poverty.
And the Irish people were faithful supporters of and willing to die for an Empire which imposed this situation on them...... you are making a joke!!!
Ireland wanted separation from this shithole - some (like the Redmondites) may have adopted the attitude that it could be achieved when the war was all over, but the Republicans knew that would never happen and Britain's ongoing dishonest conniving over the Home Rule Bill proved them right.
Eventually, Britain forced through a Treaty at gunpoint, under the threat, accept or war, that Treaty has led to bloodshed and unrest from then till now.
The same dirty tricks were used against Collins as were used previously against Parnell over his affair with Kitty O'Shea and against Casement and his homosexuality - early 20th century Britain could leave today's honey-trappers and sexual blackmailers standing.
Easter Week inspired national liberation fighters and revolutionaries throughout the Imperial world.   
You want to discuss something - why not try the facts - and why not try providing some of your own?
It really does help to sort things out in your own head instead of picking on inconsequential bits and pieces which fall apart in our hands.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 08:19 PM



Oh yes you are Joe and that has been shown quite clearly - stories learned on your grandmothers knee. Your comments regarding the British are stereotypical, ill-informed and inaccurate - you refuse point blank to look at the broader picture that you think you advocate being trapped as you are from looking at it from one perspective. You haven't even considered the times these events happened in and what was going on in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:22 PM

Those "clowns" still managed to kick the arse of the most powerful Empire on the planet though

Really? How?

To any sentient human being from the introduction of the first Irish Home Rule Bill in 1886 it was bloody obvious to all but a few in Ireland that Great Britain wanted shot of Ireland. Instead of working with what was desired they decided after some totally perverse fashion that this had to be fought for.

What those clowns of 1916 managed to achieve was the certainty that Ireland would be partitioned. They secured the political position that 100 years after their stupid and pointless rebellion that a united Ireland is as far away today as it was 100 years ago - well done boys, "Glory-oh, glory-oh, to those bold Fenian men" indeed.

Take a look back on threads on Ireland on this forum from about ten years ago - take a look at how many were confidently predicting that by the 100th anniversary of 1916 Ireland would be a united country. Why isn't it? Look to the events of Easter 1916 and the lessons learned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:17 PM

"It's downright juvenile, and it really makes you name-callers look stupid"
Couldn't agree more Joe and I get pissed off with myself when I indulge.
Promise to make an effort - hope I'm not alone.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 16 - 02:58 PM

I've said before that I will remove off-topic messages from this thread, in my attempt to preserve the discussion of the actual subject. I have removed a number of recent off-topic messages. I'm not taking sides here. I'm just trying to allow for discussion of the actual topic. But do stop the name-calling, willya? It's downright juvenile, and it really makes you name-callers look stupid.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:55 PM

"Others see the 1916 Rising as a bloody act by a few unelected individuals."
And he's quite right - some do - he doesn't and he "really knows Irish history."
Some people think it's a shame the Empire collapsed – some people would like to see dog-fighting come back – or hanging or corporal punishment – or even burning witches (they really knew how to put on a good show in those days)
The vast majority in Ireland at the present time say just the opposite.
Instead of looking for historians, why not just respond to the facts
He also said, "The Rising has been claimed by many as the founding act of a democratic Irish state. The rebels were determined that decisions affecting Ireland would be taken in Ireland, not in the British parliament in London."
He also said, "The Rising destroyed the Home Rule project. For 40 years, a group of Irish politicians had campaigned for an arrangement that would keep Ireland inside the British Empire, but would allow some decisions be taken by Irish members of an Irish home rule parliament.
The Rising killed off this idea. After 1916, people called for recognition of the Republic that had been declared during the Rising", and "What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active.
The 1916 Rising came to be seen as the first stage in a war of independence that resulted in the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and, ultimately, the formal declaration of an Irish Republic in 1949."
You praised this feller to the skies when you thought he was agreeing with you - What's your point.
Why just select the bits you like – are historians reliable only when they agree with you?
So far you have failed to produce one single historian who does.
Jim Carroll