BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 04:49 AM

"I have told you very clearly what I support - the right of self-determination for all -"
And you have argued against it from day one - contradictory lip-service.
Did you not suggest that Ireland's history suggested that they had no grounds for claiming to be one nation?
Did you not suggest that the only reason they did claim independence in the first place was because they were conned into doing so by the French and Spanish?
Have you not argued for a partitioned Ireland from the beginning of this debate?
Have you not argued that it is OK that six counties of (IRELAND - THAT IS WHAT IT IS - ONE IDENTIFIABLE COUNTRY) should remain under British rule under a regime that even divided those six counties into two warring groups, giving one group rights and privileges by law and depriving the other group of those rights and privileges, leading to permanent division, conflict and bloodshed?
Methinks, the laddie doth protest too much!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 03:20 AM

"Now where is that post of mine in which I make the statement that I do not believe that Ireland is not entitled to independence?"

You've had it at least three times now - your are getting as stupidly, boringly repetitive as Keith.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that this is where I said that Ireland was not entitled to independence?

One more time -

NO NATION PARITIONED AGAINST THEIR WILL WITH PART STILL UNDER FOREIGN CONTROL CAN BE DESCRIBED AS "INDEPENDENT" - {John Redmond 1912}

Who is the THEIR in "against their will" Jim?

YOU SUPPORT THAT SITUATION AND DESCRIBE OPPOSITION TO PARTITION AS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN NORMAN TIMES - ERGO - YOU AR OPPOSED TO IRELAND BEING INDEPENDENT - YOU HAVE TOLD UD DO OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I have told you very clearly what I support - the right of self-determination for all - you on the other hand espouse views of a leadership that demands that people be coerced into doing things against THEIR will.

Before the Normans came to Ireland there was no such country as Ireland, no concept at all of nationhood, the island consisted of a number of small kingdoms and tribal groups who all looked to their own best interests. Where the realisation of this reality becomes important is when you have to counter claims that the partition of Ireland was wrong because Ireland had always been one country, one nation it hadn't, and for one group or another to push their case and their best interests ahead of everyone else's seems to me more a reversion to what existed before.

Look at the different groups that existed in Ireland in 1912:

The Constitutional Nationalists - by far the largest faction, predominantly Catholic, they were quite content with Home Rule, within the Empire, and saw it as a step towards independence later. This approach held out reasonable hopes of reaching an accommodation and finding common ground with the other groups.

The Republican Nationalists - the smallest of the four groups by a country mile who wanted complete independence and a total break from Britain and the Monarchy as soon as possible, preferably by armed struggle.

The Southern Unionists - the smaller of the Unionist groups, who wanted Ireland to remain as part of the Union, but who were prepared to consider Home Rule provided certain safeguards were in place to protect what they saw as their interests.

The Northern Unionists - the larger of the Unionist groups, who wanted no change at all. Who saw any threat to the current Union with Britain as being directly against their best interests and a threat to their way of life.

Oddly enough by July 1914 three of these groups had reached agreement in principle, the only group that hadn't was the smallest and least representative of the four groups - the Republican Nationalists - who when the war came decided that they would mount an armed insurrection with the help of the Germans. In all probability, left to run its course Home Rule would have come in 1919, by 1925 the temporary exclusion for Ulster would have ended and by 1931 Ireland would have been an independent sovereign state. Home Rule by this route therefore spelled the end for the Republican Nationalists - hence THEIR secret meeting at which the need for a rising was decided took place on the 4th September 1914, BEFORE the Third Irish Home Rule Bill got Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914.

The Constitutional Nationalists - who represented the vast bulk of the Catholic South were urged by their leaders to support the war effort against Germany as that would help their cause and hasten Home Rule

The Republican Nationalists - who represented a tiny fraction of the population planned in secret even from their own membership an armed rising and colluded with the Germans in order to make that possible. A committee of eleven men were responsible for this and in secret a smaller group actually steered it through to final execution.

Both Unionist groups supported the British war effort.

In 1916 seven men from the Republican Nationalist group staged the Easter Rising and set it up to fail - Pearse's Blood Sacrifice. The rising and its aftermath over the following two years led to a radical change in what now was possible:

It basically killed off the Constitutional Nationalists hopes for the future along with those of the Southern Unionists. It hardened opposition among the Northern Unionists to any part of any independent Ireland.

When the war ended in Europe another began in Ireland, started on the 19th January 1919 by Sinn Fein who declared Ireland independent. The Unionists in the North took no part in this war and with the enactment of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act they got their own Parliament. Having started a war that they were unable to finish a truce was called and peace negotiations resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. This treaty finally ratified in December 1922 created the 32 county Irish Free State but the Treaty allowed six Northern counties of Ulster to opt out of the Irish Free State if they wished and gave them one month to do so - THEY exercised THEIR right to self-determination within 24 hours and they opted out of the Irish Free State and stated that they wished to remain as a self-governing part of the United Kingdom, which then became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So those in the South had exercised their right of self-determination without consulting anyone in January 1919 and those in the North did the same plainly informing everyone of their intentions in December 1922.

The following I cannot state any clearer - I have no problem with any of that at all, I have got no problem at all if at some future date the people of Northern Ireland exercise their right of self-determination and seek a union with the Republic of Ireland - but that is THEIR decision and THEIR decision alone - no-one has the right to coerce them into anything against THEIR will.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 03:30 PM

"You reveal yourself as a sectarian bigot Jim."
What's "sectarian" about recognizing political thuggery
You have the evidence for it, yet you refuse to comment - I suggest that those who support sectarian violence are the sectarians
I'n neither a Catholic nor a Protestant - religion being sold under any brand means nothing to me.
"Now that is one hell of a drop Jim - What happened to them?"
Probably all had their throats cut and dropped into the middle of Lough Derg - what's your theory?
You said Protestants were terrorised as were the Catholics in the North - WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS STATEMENT - I'VE GIVEN YOU MINE?
"Now where is that post of mine in which I make the statement that I do not believe saying that Ireland is not entitled to independence?"
You've had it at least three times now - your are getting as stupidly, boringly repetitive as Keith.
One more time - NO NATION PARITIONED AGAINST THEIR WILL WITH PART STILL UNDER FOREIGN CONTROL CAN BE DESCRIBED AS "INDEPENDENT" - YOU SUPPORT THAT SITUATION AND DESCRIBE OPPOSITION TO PARTITION AS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN NORMAN TIMES - ERGO - YOU AR OPPOSED TO IRELAND BEING INDEPENDENT - YOU HAVE TOLD UD DO OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Still waiting for some evidence of any of your pronouncements.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 01:07 PM

the bowler-ghatted, besashed thugs fwose main role has been to incite hatred.

You reveal yourself as a sectarian bigot Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 12:42 PM

Read some of your own links.

Protestant population in 1911 accounted for 13% of the population of your 26 counties

Protestant population in 2011 accounted for 3% of the population of the Irish Republic

Now that is one hell of a drop Jim - What happened to them?

Meanwhile up North

Catholic population in 1911 accounted for 35% of the population of the six counties of Northern Ireland. Population in 1911 ~1.25 million.

Catholic population in 2011 accounted for 42% of the population of the six counties of Northern Ireland. Population in 2011 ~1.85 million.

Now where is that post of mine in which I make the statement that I do not believe saying that Ireland is not entitled to independence?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 11:21 AM

You haven't forgotten that you were going to give me all those examples of the 'oppressed' Protestants in the 26 Counties, have you!!!
Or maybe you have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 11:17 AM

"all you are doing now is simply wriggling."
No I am not and now you are trying to resurrect something from the embers while at the same time avoiding all the main issues here.
It was quite obvious (except to those who would want to distort my point) that, from the beginning my objection was to Unionists, not to the population of the North in general, wherever they came from.
I pointed out earlier that, in my experience, the conflict was not between Catholics and Protestants (I am neither) but entirely due to the bowler-ghatted, besashed thugs fwose main role has been to incite hatred.
You, on the other hand, have shown no interest in the well-being of the Irish in general, but have thrown your full support behind militant, North Eastern Unionism (you can't even be bothered to respond to the fact that the North Eastern Unionists turned on those in the South just as viciously.
The Dog that Didn't Bark
Far from me wriggling, it is you who hasn't been able to exctract himself from your "Normans" stupidity are now trying to smear me with some of your own shit.
When Redmond's opposition to partition came up you immediately said that there was no reason to oppose it because of prehistoric Norman history.
No partitioned country partly answerable to another country can ever claim to be independent - ergo, you don't see why Ireland should be independent
Your exact words
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."

"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms. The USA at that time was and still is a Federal Union of individual sovereign states, the Dominion of Canada a Confederation of Provinces and Australia a Commonwealth of States."
Being very much in the minority in Ireland, they have as much right to a Protestant state than did the Confederacy in the U.S.
As I said - partition - no independence.
Now how about stopping "wriggling" and respond to the 'democratic' six Counties.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 09:57 AM

Re the Blow-In newcomers Jim - all you are doing now is simply wriggling.

But please how come - by my supposed reckoning - they "can have no claim to a recognised presence in Ireland - certainly no claim to a Protestant State."

Now would that be "My Reckoning" as per the Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" that claimed that either myself or Keith A had said that Ireland was not entitled to independence? Remember Jim you have still to find that post - not been having much luck have you - mind you neither did Joe Offer.

Any right of self-determination is universal it can never be selectively applied.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 09:08 AM

"RThe Protestants are 'Blow-in newcomers' in both cases and, by your reckoning, can have no claim to a recognised presence in Ireland -"
As I clearly pointed out, I was comparing your dismissing Irish nationhood re The Romans (or was it the Normans) with the situation of the Plantations. - if your dismissal works for one, it works for both.
I was merely underlining the idiocy of your idiotic claim.
I pointed out a long time ago that Catholics and Protestants invariablye get on well until you 'Billy-Boys' come along trying to incite them into killing each other.
In fact, the shenanigans of Craig, Carson and the other political thugs created a massive rift, not so much between Catholics and Protestants. but between the Northern and Southern Unionists, who ended up spitting feathers at each other, the South claiming they had been betrayed by the North.
If anything could have kept Ireland within the bounds of the Empire a little longer and made the transition peaceful, it was the fact that the Southern Unionists supported Redmond's call for temporary partition while, on the other hand, the Bully/Billy Boys would have none of it and were prepared to actually invade what was then a part of Britain if their demands were not met.
'Patriots' eh - who needs them?
Anyway - I'll let you get on with explaining away the gerrymandering, vote rigging and oppressive sectarianism of the people whose banner you appear to be carrying.
Forgot to mention.
"eh Carroll? "
I love it when you talk dirty - always a sign of another arrow striking home.
Keep it up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 08:10 AM

"None of which matters a damn though as the opinions of de Valera and Paisley "
I have no time for either - as I said, the quote wasn't DeValera's but a lot more convenient to ignore that fact.
Cartainly Paisley's statement is important as he epitomised Unionism.
No - to all - see how it worked out for Catholics in my last posting
Once again you make statements based entirely on your re-invention of Irish history - no quotes even, no links - no verification.
You appear to be blowing for tugs, as they used to say on the docks before your lot closed them.
How about responding to the Unionists take on equality and democracy that you appear to find so attractive.
Have a good day now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 04:06 AM

"Ah Jim so you still think of those living in the North albeit that they have been there for about 500 years a bunch of "Blow-In Newcomers"

Who said that? Asks Jim furiously then declaring:

Putting words into people's moths to make an unmakable case again.


Who said that Jim? - YOU DID - and here it is:


Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 04:01 AM

The religio/political divides in Ulster are the result of settlers being deliberately planted there in the 1600s (how long is that after "The Normans?" and today's situation in The Six Counties is a result of the British Government enforcing a division in the 1920s - the Protestants are 'Blow-in newcomers' in both cases and, by your reckoning, can have no claim to a recognised presence in Ireland - certainly no claim to a Protestant State.

So the right of self-determination is only to be accorded to those who Jim Carroll approves of - how very egalitarian and "socialist" of you.

Sinn Fein enforced the divisions in the 1920s Jim - their war, brought about the actual consequences that came to pass.

Now then Jim all you have to do now is toddle off and do as I have done above and show me the post where either Keith A of myself have stated that Ireland was not entitled too independence.

So much for putting words into people's mouths eh Carroll? Wrong again, but getting things wrong is something that you have now refined into an art form.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 03:23 AM

Ah Jim are you beginning to see now why it is important for you to give details as to who is saying what and when they said it.

None of which matters a damn though as the opinions of de Valera and Paisley on the subject of Ulster are about as predictable as the headline "Dog bites man". And nothing alters the fact that agreement was reached by all parties by the 8th July 1914.

If you want to start understanding history you should try reading objective accounts of what actually happened, not fictional, or subjective accounts of what people think happened.

Here is another fact for you - at no time at all was permanent partition ever offered or guaranteed to the Unionists in the North. You have repeatedly stated that it was, now tell us all who offered it and when, because the 1914 Act was based upon an agreed six year temporary partition period and the 1920 Act was based upon the same six year temporary exclusion - You would actually know that had you bothered to read either Act, you haven't, preferring instead to read what others believed it inferred.

Yet another fact for you Jim is that after the 1916 Rising neither side Republican or Unionist ever bothered attending meetings that could have resulted in any compromise being reached. Why? Because what happened in Dublin in 1916 was seized on by both sides as excuses to dig their heels in. Attitudes hardened (Still haven't got back to us as to when it was in 1916 that that "crucial meeting" of the Ulster Unionists Council took place have you - or are you just conveniently ignoring the information that one was held that year?) which meant that after the General Election of 1918 it was impossible to implement the 1914 Act, which led to its repeal and the implementation of the 1920 Act. The Sinn Fein "Government" of the Republic of Ireland ignored the 1920 Act, while the Unionists in the North embraced it as it gave them their own formal duly appointed political forum within the United Kingdom.

Sinn Fein started their "War of Independence" on the 19th January 1919 and having done so must accept the consequences of taking that course of action. By the summer of 1921 the "War" had been fought to a stalemate and in July 1921 a Truce was established and peace negotiations were entered into. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed on the 6th December 1921 but it took exactly one year until the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 came into force and Northern Ireland seceded from the Irish Free State, in accordance with its rights under Article 5 of the Treaty. Had there been no war, there would have been no truce, there would have been no negotiations in which Northern Irish interests would have been represented or taken into account, no formal secession, no permanent partition of Ireland.

To state that I do not need to provide links, or sources, because I am not attempting to support someone else's opinions as to how or why things happened, I am merely stating what actually happened in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 16 - 03:19 AM

What happened to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland
Jim Carroll

1925–65
Under successive unionist Prime Ministers from Sir James Craig (later Lord Craigavon) onwards, the unionist establishment practised what is generally considered a policy of discrimination against the nationalist/Catholic minority.
This pattern was firmly established in the case of local government, where gerrymandered ward boundaries rigged local government elections to ensure unionist control of some local councils with nationalist majorities. In a number of cases, most prominently those of the Corporation of Derry, Omagh Urban District, and Fermanagh County Council, ward boundaries were drawn to place as many Catholics as possible into wards with overwhelming nationalist majorities while other wards were created where unionists had small but secure majorities, maximising unionist representation.
Voting arrangements which gave commercial companies multiple votes according to size, and which restricted the personal franchise to property owners, primary tenants and their spouses (which were ended in England in the 1940s), continued in Northern Ireland until 1969 and became increasingly resented. Disputes over local government gerrymandering were at the heart of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
In addition, there was widespread discrimination in employment, particularly at senior levels of the public sector and in certain sectors of the economy, such as shipbuilding and heavy engineering. Emigration to seek employment was significantly more prevalent among the Catholic population. As a result, Northern Ireland's demography shifted further in favour of Protestants, leaving their ascendancy seemingly impregnable by the late 1950s.
The abolition of proportional representation in 1929 meant that the structure of party politics gave the Ulster Unionist Party a continual sizeable majority in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, leading to fifty years of one-party rule. While nationalist parties continued to retain the same number of seats that they had under proportional representation, the Northern Ireland Labour Party and various smaller leftist unionist groups were smothered, meaning that it proved impossible for any group to sustain a challenge to the Ulster Unionist Party from within the unionist section of the population.
In 1935, the worst violence since partition convulsed Belfast. After an Orange Order parade decided to return to the city centre through a Catholic area instead of its usual route; the resulting violence left nine people dead. Over 2,000 Catholics were forced to leave their homes across Northern Ireland.
While disputed for decades, many unionist leaders now admit that the Northern Ireland government in the period 1922–72 was discriminatory, although prominent Democratic Unionist Party figures continue to deny it or its extent.[16] One unionist leader, Nobel Peace Prize joint-winner, former UUP leader and First Minister of Northern Ireland David Trimble, described Northern Ireland as having been a "cold house for Catholics.
Despite this, Northern Ireland was relatively peaceful for most of the period from 1924 until the late 1960s, except for some brief flurries of IRA activity, the (Luftwaffe) Belfast blitzduring the Second World War in 1941 and the so-called "Border Campaign" from 1956 to 1962. It found little support among nationalists. However, many Catholics were resentful towards the state, and nationalist politics was fatalist. Meanwhile, the period saw an almost complete synthesis between the Ulster Unionist Party and the loyalist Orange Order, with Catholics (even unionist Catholics) being excluded from any position of political or civil authority outside of a handful of nationalist-controlled councils
Throughout this time, although the Catholic birth rate remained higher than for Protestants, the Catholic proportion of the population declined, as poor economic prospects, especially west of the River Bann, saw Catholics emigrate in disproportionate numbers.
Nationalist political institutions declined, with the Nationalist Party boycotting the Stormont Parliament for much of this period and its constituency organisations reducing to little more than shells. Sinn Féin was banned although it often operated through the Republican Clubs or similar vehicles. At various times the party stood and won elections on anabstentionist platform.
Labour-based politics were weak in Northern Ireland in comparison with Britain] A small Northern Ireland Labour Party existed but suffered many splits to both nationalist and unionist factions
History of Northern Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 03:20 PM

Incidentally
"and that supersedes anything said in 1912."
Paisley's and Allister's summing up of the hisory of Unionism and its attitude to partition was made in the mid 1980s, so that trumps every crd in the pack - straight from the horses' mouths
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 03:10 PM

"If that were indeed the case Jim then there would have been no Government of Ireland Act 1914"
Take it up with your mate Paisley - he said it.
"A temporary exclusion for six years was agreed to by ALL parties on the 8th July 1914 and that supersedes anything said in 1912."
And a enforced permanent partition presented after the war and re-affirmed in 1921 - that supersedes anything you pair have ever offered.
Finished with this one - it joins the pile of wreckage you've already totted up.
Have we heard the last of Catholic thuggery against Protestants - yes - thought so - just made up again
You have as little self-respect as your friend
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 02:22 PM

""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."

If that were indeed the case Jim then there would have been no Government of Ireland Act 1914 - would there. If a week is a long time in politics what do you reckon two years makes?

A temporary exclusion for six years was agreed to by ALL parties on the 8th July 1914 and that supersedes anything said in 1912.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 12:48 PM

Try thgis for size

""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."

Where does your "Home Rule Settled" fit into that?

"There was consensus on the Bill, which came after the Buck Ho. conference."
And where did "to partition or not to partition" fit in to that consensus?

Howe about this from your link
"Only an earthquake or general conversion could have settled the problem: and the sorrows of the conference were due to the fact that it was attempting to decide by Act of Parliament what could only be effected by ACT OF GOD'."
Are you a masochist - do you enjoy humiliating yourself in public?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 11:31 AM

"There was nothing in you vast paste job that contradicted anything I have said!"
Yes there is Keith

If there is, produce it. Not screenfuls of text, just the salient paragraph.

What exactly are you claiming was "consensus" on partition?

There was consensus on the Bill, which came after the Buck Ho. conference.
Not my claim. I just quoted History Ireland.

Partition was left to be resolved, but home rule was guaranteed.
The rising destroyed the consensus, did not prevent partition, and gave Ireland years of bloody conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 11:27 AM

Which part?
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 11:01 AM

Connemara coast, utterly beautiful place and so peaceful and serene. Loads of music, great people, great Guinness. Bliss

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 10:48 AM

Mine's a pint of Guinness Raggy
Where are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 10:45 AM

Frankly I don,t give a damn. I,m off to Ireland shortly where tomorrow I pickup the keys to my new property.


YIPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 09:31 AM

"John Bowman and I would have thought that the title served as a big enough hint."
It's a 300 page book - "DeValera and The Ulster Question" was the title, not a reference to that particular section - I would have thought that was fairly obvious, but maybe not.
Silly man.
"Ah Jim so you still think of those living in the North albeit that they have been there for about 500 years a bunch of "Blow-In Newcomers" "
Who said that?
Putting words into people's moths to make an unmakable case again.
The thuggery was instigated by the Unionists - it wqas the Unionists I was referring to as you well know
What does that make you?
You are the one who suggested Ireland had no grounds for claiming unity for the state things were in Norman times
What does that make you?
"To say nothing Jim about the sectarian reign of terror that prevailed, largely unreported in the Republic "
If it was "unreported" how come tyou =know about it - divine inspiration maybe?
Perhaps you'd like to fill us in, or is this yet another of your "inventions", like your "German plot"?
"Carroll"
Your insecurity is showing again.
"Lloyd George had guaranteed them Permanent Partition"
Lloyd George wrote to Carson informing them that permanent partitio was in the bag - he telephoned Redmond to say it would only be foir six years - you know this and have been linked to it - you described it as the work of dishonest politicians
What does that make you?
Perhaps you'd like to help Keith out of his hole - no?
Thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 09:30 AM

"can the same not be said of Haig but on a much greater scale."

No Raggy it couldn't.

Haig was a soldier. A Divisional Commander who kept his troops intact as a "force in being" in extremely difficult circumstances against an enemy force of greater numbers and greater superiority in artillery. After the initial German surges of 1914 and 1915 Haig did not lose one single battle to the Germans. He is also credited with having led the most successful offensive campaign ever mounted by the British Army throughout its entire history.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 09:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 09:06 AM

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

Who said it was?

John Bowman and I would have thought that the title served as a big enough hint.

"DeValera and The Ulster Question" by John Bowman (1989)

"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?

Ah Jim so you still think of those living in the North albeit that they have been there for about 500 years a bunch of "Blow-In Newcomers" - what does that make you?

"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"

To say nothing Jim about the sectarian reign of terror that prevailed, largely unreported in the Republic over the same period. 1911 13% of the population of what became the Republic of Ireland was Protestant that through the years has fallen to about 3% in 2011. Compared that to the North of Ireland where in 1911 35% of the population was Catholic who through this reign of terror you mention has managed to increase, up now to 42% according to the last Census. You tell me Carroll where the ethnic cleansing took place.

"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

That is not what you said at all - you stated that Lloyd George had guaranteed them Permanent Partition - simply put he did no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 08:19 AM

Last paragraph of your link as you apparently didn't get down that far.
What have you been told about "carefully selective quotes"
The Buckingham Palace conference was an altruistic but futile attempt to broker a partition arrangement; there was little incentive to make concessions despite there being no shortage of ideas on how 'statutory Ulster' could be composed. George Dangerfield best summarised matters: 'Only an earthquake or general conversion could have settled the problem: and the sorrows of the conference were due to the fact that it was attempting to decide by Act of Parliament what could only be effected by ACT OF GOD'.
Jim Carroll

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

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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.