BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 30 May 16 - 10:24 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Home rule had already been agreed."
When?

1914

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

1914

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were overcome in 1914.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Home rule had already been agreed."
When?

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

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

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

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

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

"By the historians Greg? "
What historians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What 5 questions?

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

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

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

There speaks a man who exults in his own ignorance.

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

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

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

Read a book yet?

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not.
Just false accusations.

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

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

Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

Jim, I have quoted historians

Live ones or dead ones?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the peacemakers in Paris also ratify the Irish Republic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the peacemakers in Paris also ratify the Irish Republic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raggytash - 28 May 16 - 10:50 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 12:11 PM

Don't let him nause up any life this thread might have with his inanities Raggy - take your own advice - "whatever" will do fine.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 16 - 11:50 AM


No I am simply saying you know sweet FA about Irish history,

But you can find not a single fault in the history I have presented.
Your false accusations are just gratuitous personal attacks.
You are unable to specify a single error on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:50 AM

No I am simply saying you know sweet FA about Irish history, you have no interest in Irish history you merely want to argue the toss about subjects you have no knowledge of, and I for one can't be arsed any more.

Whatever Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:42 AM

Do you challenge a single historical fact I have ever provided Rag?
No, because you can't.

"Whatever" is an admission of defeat. You are saying you have no reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:35 AM

Ah history according to professor Acheson.

Whatever Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 16 - 10:21 AM

Irish people, far from having to be duped into participating in their own history, have taken an active part in the formation of their nation

Except they did not.
There was no participation by the people in the rising.
The people opposed it and spat their contempt at the rebels.

They opposed the rebels when they started the violence.
They opposed them when they published their "proclamation," opposing that too.
They opposed the rebels when they were defeated, and when they were arrested, and when they were incarcerated.

It was only when they were shot that they received any support.
Perhaps they should have just shot themselves and saved Dublin all that death and destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 05:58 AM

As far as I am concerned, this section of the discussion is well and truely finished - it's been good fun while it lasted, every bit as entertaining as Monty Python.
There's enough here for people to make their own minds up, if they haven't died of boredom.
Irish people, far from having to be duped into participating in their own history, have taken an active part in the formation of their nation and that is what is being celebrated at present.
As happened on the 150th anniversary of the Famine, there has been a renewal of interest in Irish history here in Ireland - every day brings something new.   
For my own interest, I have started to put together a chronological 'what happened next' which I'm happy to continue putting up as I have been with references and links, where possible for genuine debate, otherwise, I'll keep it on file for my own use.
Participation from others here and a couple of P.M.s have indicated some interest - we'll see!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 16 - 04:46 AM

LINK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:48 PM

Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 12:41 PM

More simply put Keith
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?

Simple Jim, as things were going, from the proposed Amending Bill that was agreed to by both Redmond AND Carson by the 8th July 1914, had the Great War not started then the Government of Ireland Act 1914 would have been enacted on the 18th September 1914 when it received Royal Assent Ireland would have got Home Rule and for a temporary period of six years Ulster would have been excluded from rule from Dublin and both sides would have a grace period of six years to convince each other that Home Rule from Dublin could work for both parties. That autonomy would have been granted as Dominion Status and come 1931 with the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become a sovereign independent nation.

But the War did come along and to save their secret and sordid little clique Pearse, Connelly and Co., had to have an armed rising, and they jumped at the chance the war gave them.

I rather think that the agreement reached by Carson, the Lords and the Liberal Government on the 8th July 1914 could not have been reached without the consent and approval of the Ulster Unionists, unlike the IVF they did not have a secret council who had high-jacked the organisation as the IRB had high-jacked the Irish Volunteers.

Tell me apart from drilling and holding the odd parade what violence was ever perpetrated by the UVF between their formation in 1913 and them going off to join the British Army to fight the Germans in 1914.

Easter Rising 24th April 1916, which was defeated. Attempt made by the British Government to enact the 1914 Act in July 1916, now the Unionists want Permanent Partition on the agenda - You tell me Jim what was it that caused that shift in stance from the 8th July 1914?

You've got the links, you've got the sources.

On artillery - Go back and look at your own post - your contention was that it was the heavy artillery used by the British that started the fires in Dublin - simply put it wasn't - and I have proved that, the researchers from RTE and Boston College have proved that - fires started on Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 when there were no British Troops anywhere near Sackville Street and no British Artillery in Dublin. The only people in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 were the Irish Volunteers and civilian looters - OK Sherlock you tell me which of the three groups mentioned could not have possibly started those fires.

Ah so it is now a British shell damaging a water main that caused the damage - it had nothing to do with the Dublin Fire Brigade not being willing to fight the fires they being quite rightly scared of getting themselves shot by the Volunteers who incidentally had already shot at and killed unarmed policemen in Sackville Street. The other thing we have also clearly established is that from the fires being started it was almost 40 hours before any British Artillery fire was directed at Sackville Street - fire if left unchecked can build and do quite a bit of damage in 40 hours.

As for the rest of your incoherent rant I'll wait for a translation from somebody - it like your thinking is all over the place and totally lacking in logic or reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Whatever

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:25 PM

Jim,
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?

Agreement was reached by all parties in 1914 for a temporary partition.
Before it could be enacted, the rising ruined all hope of a peaceful transition and destroyed the unity and consensus finally achieved in 1914.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:36 PM

By the way - if you haave any more to say about Easter Week upsetting the feelings of the poor, sensitive Loyalists, I've got loads and loads here on how they ran the Six Counties after the Treaty, turning it into a sectarian hell-hole lasting half-a-century, for those who kicked with the other foot.
perhaps that was because of Eater Week too - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:34 PM

"That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF."

No reconciliation possible, BooBad, unless certain parties are willing to accept the truth of the situation.

I hope you recognise yourself as among that number under consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:17 PM

The aims of the rising were clearly set out in the proclamation - there was no split
I rea[peat - how do you harden the attitude of a group that has threatened Civil War if its aims were not met?
"Ample evidence provided of previous rebellions where Spain and France have egged on malcontents in Ireland"
Where - you have provided none.
Wolfe Tone went to France to request aid - not the other way around - the time he spent pleading his case is indicative of how difficult it was.
I suggest you visit the exhibition in Bantry House if you dispute this.
" No example of me ever having said that there was no artillery in Dublin then Jim"
As I said, every Nation has a right to demand independence and the Irish were way ahead in the field in doing this.
Your suggestion that this was not the case is no more than post Imperial spite.
"No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings."
The main cause of the extent of the fires was the artillery British shell that hit the water supply making it impossible to put the fires out.
The fires blazed thoughout the week - your timeline mentions only one day at the beginning of that week.
Looters could not have possible caused fires to the that extent
We've ******* been here obv=ver anbd ob=[ver again - artillery fire cause verutualkly all the damage in the centre of Dublin - the Rebels didn't have the wherewithal if they'd wanted to carry it out.
Don't be stupid.
"he Kent brothers were tried by Court Martial as the country was under Martial Law at the time. "
How does this effect the fact that at one minute Asquith claimed that Tom had been executed for murder and later changed it to treason - doesn't truth apply to martial law frightening though!!
Tom Kent was executed as a murderer even though they couldn't prove he was carrying a gun -Asquith changed it to taking part in a rebellion, which waqs equally fallacious.
The trial was riggged - whent there was of it.
"The UVF took no action, and because of that no orders had to be given to crush them, "
So - threatening not to obey orders at a time of threatened civil war was tantamount to mutiny and had it happened in actual wartime would have been open to a sentence of death - semantics aside of course.
"he RTE/Boston College link provided gives you the time line on when fires were started in Sackville Street "
When they started - you claimed that the fires were the responsibility of the looters - full stop.
You did this to remove the artillery barrage from blame - easier to blame the victims.
"As I said "If you can show me the post in which I said anything even remotely like that I would be utterly amazed"
The whole tenor of your argument has indicated that.
Suggesting that Ireland's claim to unity was dubious because of what happened in Norman Times indicates that.
Suggesting that "misfits egged on by France and Spain" were the reason Ireland has demanded independence (as you ahve just repeated) is a screaming indication that Ireland was not entitled to independence
Keith has at least described the Irish as being gullible and led on by propaganda and as dismissed celebrations of "a contemptible joke" comparable to St Patrick's Day - his hatred of the Irish and their history is admitted - yours is palpable - he at least, has more bottler than you.
Between you, you are a pair of squalid little Englanders.
I've finished responding to facts that are long done and dusted.
You have described everything I have put up as "immaterial" and have ignored them.
I have responded to every point you have made only to have them repeated over and over again - as we used to say in Liverpool - "you don't boil cabbages twice".
I will not be responding to any of your points again - you have responded to none of mine.
So far, you have puttwo Wiki links which prove nothing ad a timeline that we have discussed and settled as immaterial to your arguments.
The pair ofg you have bent over backwards to denigrate Ireland and her history - Keith attempting to draw blood from The Civil War - a subject that is still never discussed her a,d you, stooping as low as to attempt to smear one of the leaders over his accused, but unproven sexuality.
You really are a disgusting pair.
This is getting in the way of what I want to do - continue with the story and put together lots and lots of "immaterial" information - not for your benefit (other than to get under your skin, which it does) - now that really turns me on.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 May 16 - 02:11 PM

Whatever Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 12:41 PM

More simply put Keith
If you have two diametrically opposed vies on the questuiion of partition and if the enactment of the Treaty depended on both sides reaching agreement on this question, how on earth could it possibly have been enacted?
How could a peaceful solution have been reached if one side of the argument had armed itself and announced it was ready to enter into Civil War to get its way?
As these arguments predated the uprising by nearly two years, how could that have had any effect on enacting the Bill?
Answers on a plain postcard will not do - put your facts where your claims are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 12:38 PM

Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 09:35 AM

Teribus
None of your links (at long last) - make the slightest difference to anythhing I've said

1: So there was a split in the Irish Volunteers in 1914 with 92.5% of the membership siding with Redmond (Nationalist, Constitutional Home Rule) and only 7.5% of them siding with Pearse (Militant, Republican, Independence). But you said there wasn't a split didn't you.

2: Clearly demonstrated that the Easter Rising did harden the attitudes of the Unionists reluctant acceptance of a temporary six year exclusion in July 1914 to demanding permanent exclusion two years later in July 1916 in the immediate aftermath of the Easter Rising - I cannot think of anything else that might have made them change their minds can you?

3: Ample evidence provided of previous rebellions where Spain and France have egged on malcontents in Ireland in order to hopefully divert the attention of England with whom both Spain and France were engaged in hostilities at the time.

4: No example of me ever having said that there was no artillery in Dublin then Jim? Thought not - just more output from the Jim Carroll factory of "Made-Up-Shit". What I actually did say and what the RTE/Boston College link tells you is that there was no artillery in Dublin when the first fires were started by looters in Sackville Street. The link also tells you that no artillery fire was directed on Sackville Street until after noon on the 26th April. At The Four Courts here is the entry for 18:15hrs on the 26th April Fighting continues around the Four Courts, with rebels setting fire to buildings in an attempt to hamper the military advance. - I would imagine that the researchers from both RTE and Boston College had good factual grounds for detailing those pieces of information - I for the life of me can see no reason to believe that they just made it up or lied about it.

5: The Kent brothers were tried by Court Martial as the country was under Martial Law at the time. Had they not fired on the policemen who had come to arrest them then none of them would have died. Instead they fired on the police and on the soldiers who were subsequently called to assist the police in the armed stand-off initiated by the Kent Brothers. One brother sentenced to death with that sentence being carried out, a second brother was acquitted and released and a third sentenced to death with that sentence being commuted to 5 years penal servitude of which he only served one year.

6: The UVF took no action, and because of that no orders had to be given to crush them, no orders were disobeyed - In short there was no "Mutiny". No act of military aggression as you first described it.

7: The RTE/Boston College link provided gives you the time line on when fires were started in Sackville Street - No British troops near, only civilian looters and Irish Volunteers present - Tell me why should the researchers from RTE or Boston College lie. Also mentioned in their chronology of the events they state that Volunteer fire drove away members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, so when the fires started in Sackville Street the Dublin Fire Brigade did not make any attempt to put those fires out - Tell me what do you think would happen if you torched buildings in a city centre then just left them to burn - would things get better or would they get worse?

8: Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times

As I said "If you can show me the post in which I said anything even remotely like that I would be utterly amazed" - after all you've had long enough and you've been asked often enough - yet neither you or Joe Offer have come up with that elusive, or should it be non-existent post of mine - more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 12:29 PM

"Oh dear. I can't make it much simpler for you Rag dear."

Oh dear - you haven't responded to my questions on this - your repeating something you know not to be true which is a clear indication of your dishonesty in repeating it.
To repeat

"Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising."
It was never "discussede" after the Rising - Lloyd George had gone ahead with making partition permanent - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement
Redmond had made it cleared from the beginning that permanent partition was not on the table as far as his party was concerned - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"So no guarantee of permanent partition then"
Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?   
"NOT the same thing at all."
Certainly not the same he had told the Unionists if that's what you mean, though I'm sure you don't - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?"

If your patonising statement is true - please respond to the points
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 16 - 11:48 AM

Rag,

How an event TWO YEARS AFTER the initial agreement can prevent it from being enacted is ridiculous.

Oh dear. I can't make it much simpler for you Rag dear.

The initial agreement was for a peaceful transition to independence.
Unity and consensus was finally achieved.
Before the war ended and it could be enacted, the violent and bloody rising destroyed the unity and consensus forever.
The Unionists wanted no part of such an unstable and violent state.

So, two years after consensus was achieved, but before it could be acted on, the rising ruined everything for everyone.
Ok Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 11:35 AM

Raggytash - 27 May 16 - 09:49 AM

You've lost me there I'm afraid please point out the diatribe in which I said

"Kinsale, Cork, virtually the SOUTHERN tip of Ireland."

I think that phrase above was clearly marked as an extract from the link I supplied. Perhaps you are being too eager to leap into the nit-picking fray to bother to read what is written. Please take the matter up with whoever wrote the Wiki entry - it certainly was not me.

And as you cannot believe a word I say - try opening the link and you'll find the phrase you so vehemently object to there.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 May 16 - 09:49 AM

I do like one line in your latest diatribe Teribus






"Kinsale, Cork, virtually the SOUTHERN tip of Ireland."




Actually it's a long way from the southern tip of Ireland which is at Brow Head on the Mizen Peninsula close the Crookhaven, some 70 miles by road.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 09:35 AM

By the way Bobad - "reconciliation" involves acknowledging past behaviour and, if necessary, apologising for it, as did Tony Blair (for all his faults) over the bloody Sunday Massacre.
The British establishment and press have virtually ignored this centenary - no official representatives at the ceremonies, no coverage in the British press.... as sumed up nicely in this Guardian article.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-easter-rising-centenary-irelands-history-lesson-for-britain
The last thing those running Britain have in their minds at present is "reconciliation" - they've never forgiven Ireland for what she did to the Empire - talk about the Irish having long memories!!!
Teribus
None of your links (at long last) - make the slightest difference to anythhing I've said - I've read them all before and quoted from one of them.
Your "Boston College Chronology" is identical to the one you put up earlier which is dun and dusted to the extent that is one of the few you have actually back-tracked from.
It certainly doesn''t claim that the widespread fires that destroyed Sackville Stree were started by the looters - it says that when the fires looting started prior to Wednesday, there were fires started.
Come - on - eve you can do better that two old-hat wiki entries and a timeline which has been long put to bed.
No wonder you don't put up linls if that's the best you can manage
Why not ask Keith for lessons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 May 16 - 09:21 AM

The outpouringsof these two are little more than a display of spiteful cultural hatred directed at a tiny handful of poorly armed and trained men who held the British Empire at bay for a week and ended up tweaking its nose so hard that it set the building blocks of the entire Imperial system tumbling.

If that is what you have to believe to give yourself some comfort then all well and good - it is about as far away from the truth as you normally get.

1: If you have any evidence of a "faction" among the rebels - please provide it.


The Irish Volunteers

Extract:
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".[7] The Volunteers included members of the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians and Sinn Féin,[8] and, secretly, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB). Increasing rapidly to a strength of nearly 200,000 by mid-1914, IT SPLIT in September of that year over John Redmond's commitment to the British War effort, with the smaller group retaining the name of "Irish Volunteers".

The Redmondite faction became known as the National Volunteers. It was in September 1914 that your magnificent seven decided to collude with the enemy and stage a rising, they did that to save THEIR little movement from extinction.

2: If you have any evidence of the actions of Easter Week offending the finer feelings of a bunch of armed traitorous thugs to the extent that they forgot their manners - please provide it.


Governmment of Ireland Act 1914

Extract 1:
At the Bill's third reading on 21 May 1914 several members asked about a proposal to exclude the whole of Ulster for six years. Asquith was seeking any solution that would avoid a civil war.

Extract 2:
Carson and the Irish Unionist Party (mostly Ulster MPs) backed by a Lords' recommendation, supported the government's Amending Bill in the Lords on 8 July 1914 for the "temporary exclusion of Ulster" from the workings of the future Act, but the number of counties (four, six or nine) and whether exclusion was to be temporary or permanent, all still to be negotiated.

Extract 3:
AFTER the Easter Rising of 1916, two attempts were made by Prime Minister H. H. Asquith during the First World War to implement the Act. The first attempt came in June 1916, when David Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, was sent to Dublin to offer immediate implementation to the leaders of the Irish Party, Redmond and Dillon. The scheme revolved around partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons.

Now can any body see the shift in the Unionists position from the one accepted on the 8th July 1914 and what they were demanding on the 19th July 1916 AFTER THE EASTER RISING.

In 1916 in Ireland there was only one group of armed traitorous thugs and fortunately their hash was settled in Dublin where through their actions they were responsible for the deaths of 485 people. The Ulster Volunteers by 1916 were almost entirely serving in the British Army alongside former members of the Redmondite faction of the Irish Volunteers.

3: If you have any evidence of Ireland being egged on by Spain and France to demand Independence - please provide it.

Spain - The Nine Years War

Extract 1:
Later in 1595 O'Neill and O'Donnell wrote to King Philip II of Spain for help, and offered to be his vassals. He also proposed that his cousin Archduke Albert be made Prince of Ireland, but nothing came of this.[9][10] Philip II replied encouraging them in January 1596.[11] An unsuccessful armada sailed in 1596; the war in Ireland became a part of the wider Anglo-Spanish War.

Extract 2:
In 1601, the long promised Spanish expedition finally arrived in the form of 3,500 soldiers at Kinsale, Cork, virtually the southern tip of Ireland. Mountjoy immediately besieged them with 7,000 men.

The Spanish tried three times to land troops in Ireland to assist Hugh O'Neill only the one detailed above was successful in getting troops ashore. The rebellion failed with a victory for the English at the Battle of Kinsale.

France - 1798 Rebellion

Extract 1:
The outbreak of war with France earlier in 1793, following the execution of Louis XVI, forced the Society underground and toward armed insurrection with French aid. The avowed intent of the United Irishmen was to "break the connection with England"; the organisation spread throughout Ireland and had at least 200,000 members by 1797.

Extract 2:
Despite their growing strength, the United Irish leadership decided to seek military help from the French revolutionary government and to postpone the rising until French troops landed in Ireland. Theobald Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen, travelled in exile from the United States to France to press the case for intervention.

Extract 3:
Tone's efforts succeeded with the dispatch of the Expédition d'Irlande, and he accompanied a force of 14,000 French veteran troops under General Hoche which arrived off the coast of Ireland at Bantry Bay in December 1796 after eluding the Royal Navy; however, unremitting storms, indecisiveness of leaders and poor seamanship all combined to prevent a landing. The despairing Wolfe Tone remarked, "England has had its luckiest escape since the Armada."[7] The French fleet was forced to return home and the veteran army intended to spearhead the invasion of Ireland split up and was sent to fight in other theatres of the French Revolutionary Wars.

4: If you have evidence of any of your crass claims - no artillery

Where and when did I say that there was no artillery? Had to go back to making stuff up again Jim? You on the other hand claimed that the British used Heavy artillery in Dublin - they didn't there was no Heavy Artillery in Ireland at that time it was all deployed on the Western Front.

5: a fair trial for Tom Kent
Tried by Court Martial in Cork as the Country was under both DORA and Martial Law, was that the same trial in which his brother was found not guilty and acquitted?

6: an army refusing to act if a bunch of Unionist thugs invaded part of Britain not being tantamount to a mutiny

Hypothetical Jim and hardly an Army, but I suppose you have proof that the Army would not have acted, besides Jim the Ulster Volunteers were raised in 1913 to counter any attempt by the British Government to force them into home rule from Dublin so which part of Britain were they about to invade.

On the 18th/19th March 1914 troops in Ireland were ordered North to guard six arms depots, the troops obeyed those orders and by the 31st March 1914 the six arms depots were reinforced and secured.

7: rioters setting fire to the whole of Sackville Street

RTE/Booston College Chronology of the Easter Rising 1916

Open the link and read and digest the entry for 20:30 on the evening of the 24th April 1916:

Looting continues in Sackville Street, and fires also begin breaking out in premises on the street.

Your claim was that Sackville Street was set ablaze by British Heavy Artillery - not true though was it.

Now scroll down through the link provided to THE ENTRIES FOR 14:00hrs and 15:00hrs on the 25th April 1916 the day AFTER fires were started on Sackville Street:

14:00 - The British have continued to rush troops into the city from across Ireland. During the morning the Reserve Artillery have arrived from Athlone

15:00 - British 18-pounder artillery based at Grangegorman Asylum opens fire on rebel positions in the Phibsboro area.

Keep going Jim and you will find that the first mention of artillery being directed at Sackville Street comes around noon on the 26th April 1916. By that time fires started by looters on the evening of the 24th April had been burning unchecked for almost 40 hours.

8: Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times

If you can show me the post in which I said anything even remotely like that I would be utterly amazed.