BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 08:45 AM

"That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF."
Quite agree - maybe it's time we commemorated the boys of the gallant Luftwaffe who fell in our own commemoration ceremonies - waddya think?
I think, if you are serious Bobad, try whispering the word "reconciliation" into the ears of Keith and Teribus - perhaps ith might put a stop to their mud-slinging and culture-hating diatribes.
I have to say, I don't see a great deal of merit in the type of protest in question, but if you listen to what's going on and read it up fully, you will find he was using the ceremony to protest against something else entirely different.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: bobad
Date: 27 May 16 - 08:29 AM

That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: bobad
Date: 27 May 16 - 08:09 AM

FYI the ceremony was a joint British-Irish affair attended by, among other dignitaries, Britain's ambassador to Ireland, Dominick Chilcott. It was about reconciliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 16 - 07:54 AM

Bobad lout misrepresents ceremony which was honoring THE BRITISH SOLDIERS who murdered Irish participants the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: bobad
Date: 27 May 16 - 07:50 AM

Canada's ambassador to Ireland teaches manners to Irish lout at Easter rising commemorative ceremony: YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 16 - 03:44 AM

"The REALITY though Carroll is that"
Whoops - your strain is showing - tsk-tsk!!
The reality is that, as you refuse to offer anything other than unlinked and unproven jingist opinions and as you are now just repeating something that has been fully covered over and over again (not to mention that you are reduced to childish-name-calling, you need to find the nearest garage - you're out of petrol.
Jim Carroll

From 'Ireland Since the Famine' F.S.L. Lyons (1971)

The Move to Civil War
"This suggestion was first made in May 1912 and came to nothing in face of George V's impeccably constitutional behaviour, but it was a worrying indication of how far the monarchy itself was likely to be involved in the crisis. On the other hand, the Unionists in general, and Carson in particular, devoted themselves to raising the tension in Ulster to a new high pitch. In September 1912, amid scenes of deep emotion, Carson led a vast concourse of Ulstermen in signing the Solemn League and Covenant. As loyal subjects of the King they pledged themselves, with¬out any evidence of conscious irony, to oppose the King's government and to use all necessary means 'to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognise its authority.'
What gave this tribal ritual its real menace was the fact, insufficiently appreciated either by the government or by the nationalists, that the Ulstermen were beginning to drill and to organise in support of their threats. As far back as Carson's Craigavon meeting of 1911 a Tyrone detachment of Orangemen had impressed all observers by their smart¬ness which, it appeared, was the result of conscientious drilling. During 1912 it was discovered that Justices of the Peace could authorise such drilling 'for the purpose of maintaining the constitution of the United Kingdom as now established' and more and more groups of ardent Unionists took up the idea. In January 1913 the Ulster Unionist Council made the crucial decision to form these groups into a coherent body - the Ulster Volunteer Force-to be limited to 100,000 men and organised on a military basis. To help them they had a retired Indian army general, Sir George Richardson (recommended by no less a person than Field Marshal Roberts) assisted by an able staff officer, Captain Wilfred Spender. The fact that the Volunteers drilled openly was ominous, but since they drilled for the most part with wooden rifles it was still open to the nationalists to laugh at them and to persist in the dangerous belief that they were bluffing. The time was fast ap¬proaching when this belief would become much more difficult to sus¬tain.
Meanwhile, in parliament and behind the scenes the pressure for some sort of compromise was mounting. Early in January 1913 Carson proposed in studiously moderate tones that the whole nine counties of Ulster be excluded from the Bill. It was, of course, a totally unaccept¬able suggestion and Carson himself made it plain that he was still not prepared to compromise on the main issue, but at least it indicated a willingness to talk about possibilities. And although his -motion was rejected, when Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, met Bonar Law at Balmoral in the autumn he found him also prepared to negotiate on the basis of some kind of exclusion. The hope of agree¬ment was faint, but it was enough for the Prime Minister himself to hold three meetings with the Leader of the Opposition between seriously considering whether they might not cause the House of Lords to refuse to pass the annual Army Act, without which no government could exist, since in the absence of an Army Act the Army itself could not be paid or even kept in being as a regular force. That the Con¬servative party should have come to this pass, at a time of deep inter¬national tension in Europe, was a staggering indication of how far the Irish crisis had corroded all the ordinary decencies and conventions of constitutional government. But before Bonar Law and his associates had made up their minds to reject this desperate plan, the initiative was seized by a group of Army officers stationed at the Curragh camp in Ireland. In a state of dire confusion - due partly to the highly charged atmosphere of the time and partly to a misunderstanding of orders-some fifty-eight officers proffered their resignations rather than face the prospect of having, as they believed, to 'coerce' Ulster. Worse still, one of the generals in Ireland, Sir Hubert Gough (himself a member of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy caste) proceeded to London and, aided by the Director of Military Operations (Sir Henry Wilson, another Anglo-Irish soldier), extracted from the Secretary of State for War, Colonel J. E. B. Seely, a pledge that the government had no intention of using the Army 'to crush political opposition to the policy or principles of the Home Rule Bill'. This was too much even for the patient Asquith to stomach. Seely was obliged to resign, as were two generals, and Asquith himself took over the War Office for the time being. He at once repudiated Seely's pledge, but nothing could conceal the fact that he had very nearly had a mutiny on Ms hands and that he could not count upon the loyalty of the Army if he now moved to coerce Ulster. He did not move to coerce Ulster.
It was against this background of ever growing passion and bitter¬ness that Major Crawford now reappeared upon the scene. He had earned out his arms purchases in Germany (enabled to do so by large sums subscribed to a Defence Fund by English as well as Irish Union¬ists) and on the night of 24-25 April these were landed at three har¬bours on the east coast of Ulster (Larne, Bangor and Donaghadee) and distributed with extraordinary speed and efficiency all over the pro¬vince inside twenty-four hours.17 It is hard to say which impressed contemporaries more-the fierce determination that had inspired this
coup, or the inability of the government either to prevent it taking I place or to punish those who had perpetrated it. These two events- the Curragh incident and the Ulster gun-running - had, as we can now i see, a double effect upon the situation. On the one hand, the gun- [ running restored the military supremacy in Ireland to the Ulster Volunteers with, the inevitable result that the Irish Volunteers in the south were moved at once to imitate the northern initiative. And on E the other hand, with the situation deteriorating as fast as it was . doing, the government had more reason than ever to work for a f settlement and, since it could not coerce Carson, attempt to coerce Redmond.
In June 1914, therefore, Asquith, groping desperately for a com¬promise, even if only a temporary one, decided on an Amending Bill I to deal separately with Ulster. As introduced in the Lords, it provided i for county option for six years - precisely 'the stay of execution' already rejected by Carson. But since the Unionist majority in the 1 upper House promptly altered the proposals so as to provide for the exclusion of all nine counties for an indefinite period, it was plain that nothing was to be hoped for from this device. Reluctantly, and dreading i the failure which was almost inevitable, Asquith allowed himself to ; be pushed inch by inch nearer to the conference between the two parties that the King
Had been anxiously urging upon him for some time. The conference duly held its first meeting on 21 July at Bucking¬ham Palace, bringing face to face Asquith, Lloyd George, Redmond and Dillon on the one side, and on the other Bonar Law, Lord Lansdowne, Carson and James Craig. After a few days of intensive but l' entirely fruitless negotiation discussing maps and figures but always
getting back, as Asquith wrote to a friend, 'to that most damnable / creation of the perverted ingenuity of man, the county of Tyrone', the Conference ended in deadlock. It had proved quite impossible to agree on areas of exclusion which would not do injury to either Catholic or Protestant.
The breakdown of the Conference was announced on 24 July. Two days later the Irish Volunteers carried out their gun-running on the Ulster model, but improved upon the occasion by doing it in broad daylight. This, too, was a decisive event, more decisive than was realised at the time, even in Ireland. Superficially, the southern Volunteers were under Redmond's control, for the previous month he had insisted that his nominees should be given what he believed would be a predominant voice in the Provisional Committee which governed their organisation. His action earned him deep resentment but little real influence. The gun-running was planned and carried out without his knowledge, and although the intention of most of those who participated was probably no more than to restore the balance between their force and the Ulster Volunteers, the residuary legatees of this operation were the IRB, who had already permeated the Irish Volun¬teers for purposes of their own. The greater part of the guns were landed at Howth, on the north side of Dublin Bay, so that they could be distributed with the maximum speed. This was done despite the authorities' decision to call out the troops, but when the latter were returning to barracks a further incident Occurred of precisely the kind calculated to do most damage to Anglo-Irish relations. Harassed by a hostile but unarmed crowd, the troops turned and fired, killing three people and injuring thirty-eight.
The immediate political effect of this tragedy was to make it more impossible even than before for the nationalist leaders to compromise. Since Carson was equally adamant, there seemed no Way out short of that civil war which had been threatening for so long. But quite suddenly the domestic quarrel was submerged in the vaster European crisis. With the international situation worsening almost hour by hour, Asquith abandoned his intention of pressing on with an Amendment Bill. But would this mean also the abandonment of the Home Rule Bill itself, now so near the end of its long and weary course? The British arguments in favour of this were strong. With war imminent it would be folly to aggravate the internecine conflict. But a European war did not seem to nationalists a sufficient reason to baulk them of what seemed to them their just expectations. If Redmond did not succeed in getting Home Rule onto the statute-book he might not be able to hold back the surge of indignation that would sweep over Ireland. He him¬self was in a dilemma. Home Rule was the ultimate objective of his whole political career and naturally he did not want to jettison it at this eleventh hour. On the other hand, his sympathies with Britain in the war now breaking out were strong, far stronger than were those of most of his colleagues or of the country he led. At this agonisingly difficult moment in his career he took a momentous decision, one that in the long run was to cost him dear. On 3 August, in an emotional speech to the House of Commons, he pledged Ireland's support for the war and urged the government to leave the defence of Irish shores to Irishmen, to the Volunteers from north and south.
This generosity seems to have been, if not quite spontaneous, at least without political calculation, though it was a reasonable supposition that it might make Asquith a little more amenable to the demand that Home Rule should go on the statute-book. Whether this was so or not, or whether the Prime Minister was more impressed by the impassioned warnings Redmond addressed to him in private that the loyalty of the south could not be relied on if Home Rule were denied, it is impossible to say. He was, of course, being simultaneously pressed in the opposite direction by Bonar Law and Carson, and it was not until September that
The complex cross-currents that swirled round the Irish Volunteers are dealt with below, Part III, chap. 1. It was typical of the confusion of life in Ireland at the time that the purchase of the arms in Germany and their transport to Dublin were carried out by sympathisers who were mainly members of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy class.
he finally escaped from his predicament by agreeing to place the Gov¬ernment of Ireland Act on the statute-book, but with two provisos. One was that it should not come into operation until after the end of the war; and the other was that it would not come into operation until after parliament had had an opportunity of making provision for Ulster by special amending legislation. And thus it came about on 18 September that tie nationalists and their allies found themselves in a House of Commons almost denuded of Unionists, welcoming the news that the royal assent had at last been given. And amid cheers and the singing of 'God Save the King' a long, bitter chapter in the history of two countries seemed to have been ended. Yet nothing could have been further from the truth. Asquith might have bought time by his com¬promise, but he had bought little else"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 16 - 07:29 PM

Jim Carroll - 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

The REALITY though Carroll is that THREATS are one thing ACTION entirely another. Now you tell us all who it was of the two groups who formed in 1913 and who armed in 1914 actually used their weapons against the people of Ireland - not ONCE but three times in the following eight years and caused the deaths of roughly 6,500 people - Give you a hint Carroll - it wasn't the Unionists. THREATS one thing ACTION another entirely.

The magnificent seven rose on that Easter Week-end for an independent united Ireland - truth is that 100 years on plus, almost 10,000 Irish lives have been needlessly lost and the "men of the gun" have ensured that that goal of a united independent Ireland is further away now than it was on the 23rd April 1914 - Haven't they done well.

Now instead of ranting and frothing at the mouth you calmly put down in writing what you think the prospects are for the attainment of a united Ireland are today and when you think that it will happen. My assessment is that it is still a very long way off - if ever, and that is what was won by the seven men who forced the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916 and if you laud their efforts, then accept what their actions wrought - a permanently partitioned land, because that is the reality of today.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 16 - 07:07 PM

Raggytash - 26 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Shall we do this by getting you to supply the answers?

Time line

Third Irish Home Rule BILL introduced in April 1912

Third Irish Home Rule Bill goes through its readings in both Commons and Lords. Finally in July 1914 agreement is reached by all parties via an proposed Amendment Bill that guarantees the Unionists a six year exclusion from Government from Dublin. This Amendment Bill is abandoned in August 1914 when Britain goes to war with Germany. The Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 however becomes the Home Rule ACT in September 1914 with the understanding that what was previously agreed still remains to be formalised to allow the Act to be made fact. Nothing else is done between the declaration of war and the rising instigated by seven fanatical members of the IRB. Their "Rising" set up from start to finish to FAIL impresses who in what quarters? The Republicans to push ahead and the Unionists to dig in against it. That Raggytash is how decisions taken in 1916 wrecked something that was put in motion in 1912, which became Law in 1914.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 May 16 - 05:32 PM

Teribus, you in particular disappoint me, I thought you may have more intelligence.

Well, now there's you problem, mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Teribus, you in particular disappoint me, I thought you may have more intelligence.

The professor wrote:

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement. "
They were, and only the rising destroyed that agreement.
Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted"

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

As for anything the professor types ........ whatever

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:17 PM

More time now
This is where it should have been at the beginning - out in the open.
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 you have any evidence of a "faction" among the rebels - please provide it.
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.
If you have any evidence of Ireland being egged on by Spain and France to demand Independence - please provide it.
If you have evidence of any of your crass claims - no artillery, a fair trial for Tom Kent, an army refusing to act if a bunch of Unionist thugs invaded part of Britain not being tantamount to a mutiny, rioters setting fire to the whole of Sackville Street, Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times...... any of this shit - please provide it.
Otherwise it remains what it appears to be - the hate-filled ramblings of a pair of Neanderthal Empire Loyalists making up stories in defence of a long-gone-but not missed predatory Empire and a highly dangerous group of religion-inspired fanatics.
You don't provide evidence, either of you because there is none - not even Keith with his assiduous searching for "real historians" has turned up zilch, though I have little doubt that he has worn out eyes and fingers looking for some.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

"It would appear that both Raggytash and Jim Carroll have major problems with time lines and chronology of events."
And it would seem you still have trouble offering nothing other than arrogantly definitive statements - where ifs your evidence for anything you have ever said?
"The rising of 1916 hardened Unionist opposition"
Utterly stupid - how do you "harden opposition" of a bunch of armed fanatics who have threatened Civil War if their demands where not met - bring them to the brink of nuclear war?.
Even the Brits recognised that the Unionists were armed loose cannons who were prepared to go to war to get their way and had the support of sections of the British Army to achieve that end; despite this fact, they still appeased them.
They were the first to arm and drill and the first to threaten a War that would make Easter week look like a playground scrap.   
The only way you can possiby justify this utterly crass statement is by ignoring the landslides of factual documentation you have been given - in return, you have offed nothing..
"Quite right and no country or Empire did in the case of Irish Independence"
Again bal;derdash - Independence means unity - Britain forced through pertition to appease the Unionist thugs - you've been given the evidence of this - in return, you have offed nothing.
"Who are you talking about here the UVF or the Pearse Faction of the IVF?"
Now you are deliberately rewriting Irish history
There were no factions among the rebels - no disagreements as to what their aims were - the proof of this is carved into Irish history in the agreed Proclamation.
As with all movements, there were different ideals - Connolly and others were Socialists, Pearse a National idealist, the bulk of them just wanted fredom from British rule
THere's little use asking you to prove this smear - you don't do that sort of thing.
Conned by the Spanish and French, no right to Unity because of how it was before the Normans - you really do operate of the "if you can't prove it, smear it" principle.
When will you realise that, until you start actually backing what you say with actual researched facts, your pronouncements will remain nothing but the opinions of an Empire Loyalist   believed by no-one but Keith, and he has his own personality problems

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

"It would appear that both Raggytash and Jim Carroll have major problems with time lines and chronology of events."
And it would seem you still have trouble offering nothing other than arrogantly definitive statements - where ifs your evidence for anything you have ever said?
"The rising of 1916 hardened Unionist opposition"
Utterly stupid - how do you "harden opposition" of a bunch of armed fanatics who have threatened Civil War if their demands where not met - bring them to the brink of nuclear war?.
Even the Brits recognised that the Unionists were armed loose cannons who were prepared to go to war to get their way and had the support of sections of the British Army to achieve that end; despite this fact, they still appeased them.
They were the first to arm and drill and the first to threaten a War that would make Easter week look like a playground scrap.   
The only way you can possiby justify this utterly crass statement is by ignoring the landslides of factual documentation you have been given - in return, you have offed nothing..
"Quite right and no country or Empire did in the case of Irish Independence"
Again bal;derdash - Independence means unity - Britain forced through pertition to appease the Unionist thugs - you've been given the evidence of this - in return, you have offed nothing.
"Who are you talking about here the UVF or the Pearse Faction of the IVF?"
Now you are deliberately rewriting Irish history
There were no factions among the rebels - no disagreements as to what their aims were - the proof of this is carved into Irish history in the agreed Proclamation.
As with all movements, there were different ideals - Connolly and others were Socialists, Pearse a National idealist, the bulk of them just wanted fredom from British rule
THere's little use asking you to prove this smear - you don't do that sort of thing.
Conned by the Spanish and French, no right to Unity because of how it was before the Normans - you really do operate of the "if you can't prove it, smear it" principle.
When will you realise that, until you start actually backing what you say with actual researched facts, your pronouncements will remain nothing but the opinions of an Empire Loyalist   believed by no-one but Keith, and he has his own personality problems

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 16 - 10:13 AM

It would appear that both Raggytash and Jim Carroll have major problems with time lines and chronology of events.

Carroll thinks that all parties involved used their clairvoyant powers to decide to delay the enactment of Home Rule until after the end of a war that hadn't even started.

Raggytash wonders:

Start of the war August 1914, the Act 1914, the Rising 1916 yes I can see how two years after the event the Rising prevented something two years prior. Makes sense doesn't it.

Yes it does make perfect sense as long as you take the trouble to realise that:

1: The 1914 Home Rule legislation was delayed by the start of the war and that it would be enacted once hostilities were concluded. Before the start of the war all parties had reached agreement and that involved temporary partition for Ulster for a period of six years.

2: The rising of 1916 hardened Unionist opposition and prevented enactment of the 1914 Home Rule Act, it did not however prevent enactment of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Besides in August 1914 the "Rebels" hadn't had the opportunity to hold all the appropriate meetings to collude with the Germans and get more arms, in order to stage their rising while the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was at war with Germany. The "magnificent seven" hadn't even had the chance to form their highly secret clique within a highly secret organisation in order to hoodwink the Supreme Council of the IRB and the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers who were actually supposed to be running things. All that underhand and traitorous planning and plotting takes a bit of time - two years would just about cover it - Makes sense doesn't it.

As for this:

No country or Empire should have the right to artificially divide another without the permission of its inhabitants.

Quite right and no country or Empire did in the case of Irish Independence. By the way what was the position of the inhabitants of Ulster? I think that they made their wishes known very clearly from 1912 onwards - they were to be ignored were they? OK to coerce them.

No country should have the right to section of vast tract of another and declare it a separate state, based on religion, colour of skin, taste in music..... whatever.

Quite right and no country did in the case of Irish Independence

No country should have the right to defend minority religion-driven fanatics who have armed themselves in order to impose their will on the country as a whole.

Who are you talking about here the UVF or the Pearse Faction of the IVF? Fact shows that of the two only the IVF actually used their arms, only the IVF engaged in the subsequent War of Independence in order to impose their will on the country as a whole. In the North how well supported was the "rebel" side in the war of independence, hardly any support at all correct. Neither the Rising or the subsequent war did anything to promote any confidence in any Dublin based independent government and de Valera's total disregard for the will of the majority and disrespect for democracy illustrated in the aftermath of the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty vindicated the Unionist's decision to have no further part in any Independent Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 09:31 AM

"Agreement was reached."
And please stop repeating this inaccuracy unless you are prepared to offer evidence to back uop yourr claim.
Agreement was most definitely reached on the issue of partition.
After years of opposition, the Unionists narrowed down their demand from "no independence in any form for Ireland" through, "partition for nine counties", to reluctantly agreeing to "permanent partition for six counties" - Carson rejected the Redmondite demands for temporary partition saying "we do not want a sentence of death, with a stay of execution for 6 years."
Redmond refused permanent partition completely as "an unthinkable abomination" and described Lloyd Georges unilateral promise of permanent partition as "a betrayal"

"Following the Easter Rising, Lloyd George made another attempt to achieve a Home Rule settlement, which again foundered on the partition question. By the end of 1918 the situation was transformed by the collapse of the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Fein's demand for a settlement considerably in advance of Home Rule."
   
This is the progression of the situation

"Sir Edward 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."
HOME RULE CRISIS

When Lloyd George guaranteed that that "temporary" situation was to be permanent, the movement collapses and Ireland moved on to demand full independence.
If "Agreement was reached." - how did they square that circle?
Lloyd George's, not the rebels' behaviour sent the Home Rule Bill and the Movement crashing in flames - you are the only ones who have blamed the Rebels for this.
If you possess a single shred of honesty, (which I doubt) you will either produce evidence to back your parrot-like utterances or you will stop making them - an actual withdrawal is, of course out of the question.
Now, perhapss we can move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 08:35 AM

"Perhaps you could identify a single error of fact from me Steve."
Please do not turn this into another of your "me, me, me" threads.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 May 16 - 08:25 AM

Whatever Keith


Now go and repeat your mantra.











The English, the English the England are best
so up with the English and down with the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 16 - 07:49 AM

Rag,
I can see how two years after the event the Rising prevented something two years prior. Makes sense doesn't it.

Perfect sense Rag.
Agreement was reached.
The war delayed enactment, but the rising destroyed it.

Steve, once again you post with no contribution to the debate, just a personal attack on me.

Treat his input as a bit of fun and you'll be all right.

Perhaps you could identify a single error of fact from me Steve.
Good luck with that.
No-one else has been able to.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 05:42 AM

"You won't get anywhere with Keith in a month of Sundays. "
I really don't expect to Steve - you can't feed information into closed minds
I considered leaving this pair to stew in their own juice until I worked out what I had gained from this thread.
It's helped me to put together, check and articulate what I have always sknown abot Ireland, adjust it and correct it where it has been wrong and add to it, mainly from revisiting books I haven't read for years
Keith doesn't read books - he told us so, Teribus never quotes from anything, books or the web, or , if he does, he won't tell us what for fear we will find him out in telling porkies.
None of this is for their benefit, it's for mine and anybody who wishes to join me on the two-way-street of information sharing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:43 AM

You won't get anywhere with Keith in a month of Sundays. Treat his input as a bit of fun and you'll be all right. He's at it again big-time over on the Labour Party thread. It must be because he eats three shredded wheats every morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"That all depends if you accept what Jim says in his post as being the truth - simply put it wasn't -"
Then produce evidence rather than denials - I have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:31 AM

More of the same, unqualified arrogance that has been dealt with over and over again
I gave you a list of statements and asked you if you had a problem with them - once again, you refuse to rely.
Thank you for confirming that Britain decided to go with the Unionists on partition, totally ignoring the Catholic majority wishes, without consultation - that's something, I suppose.
No country or Empire should have the right to artificially divide another without the permission of its inhabitants.
No country should have the right to section of vast tract of another and declare it a separate state, based on religion, colour of skin, taste in music..... whatever.
No country should have the right to defend minority religion-driven fanatics who have armed themselves in order to impose their will on the country as a whole.
Britain did all these things and much more and that is what you are defending.
The result of that fanatical minority taking control in those six states on the lives of those who didn't share their fanaticism lasted for half a century and ended in a bloodbath which still bubbles away beneath the surface.
The non-fanatic minority in the six counties were forced to inferior lives than those who followed the religion of the ruling fanatics, under a regime of non-equality, insecurity of tenure and employment, poor housing, regular sectarian rioting and a greatly inferior access to electoral democracy
Peaceful protests against the conditions imposed on the minority were met with extreme violence by the fanatics, fully supported by the forces of 'law-and-order' - which led to two decades of bloodshed in Ireland and on the British mainland.
From the word go those fanatics have been "the selfish men of violence" - first to arm, first to threaten, first to consider civil war, first to establish an oppressive sectarian state within Britain - all supported by the British establishment, by sections of the British Army and later by the British Army and judicial system as a whole - and by you.
And you dare to shed crocodile tears for those who died during Easter Week, overwhelmingly at the hands (artillery) of the British forces.
Every nation has a right to full cultural and political independence, to choose its own path, to make its own mistakes and to shape its own future - that is now a fully accepted truth, except by the dinosaurs who year for the day when they were kings of the prehistoric rainforests.
People who fought to bring about that freedom and make it a reality are heroes, not "selfish murderers", nor gullibly brainwashed" idiots.
Their efforts were acts of heroism, not "contemptible jokes".
The "murderers" were those who rigged trials and executed the heroes and innocents alike - or those who cut down pacifists, or massacred protesters or indiscriminately fired mortars into occupied areas.
The gullibly brainwashed idiots are those who defend this behaviour and sneer at the heroes who fought for the right of countries to rule themselves and in doing so, helped to bring the entire difice of Empire throughout the world crashing to dust - proof of the pudding, if nothing else is.
You pair are (once again) alone in your quest - here or elsewhere - I can't think of anybody anywhere who is prepared to spend the time and effort denigrating what is in fact, an internationally accepted act of heroism - it is hardly surprising that the same two put in similar efforts into defending the depopulation of Ireland and the mass-murder of its people not too long ago - if we were discussing serial killings we would be considering "a behavioural pattern".
Ireland will be celebrating and re-examining this event for the rest of the year, in a few years time it will be doing the same for the limited independence that these events helped bring about Best not put way your Union Jacks too soon - you're going to need them again shortly to tell the Irish they didn't deserve independence and they were tricked by "the Spanish and the French" into asking for it in the first place.
Rule Britannia, eh what!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 May 16 - 04:11 AM

Whatever Keith.

Start of the war August 1914, the Act 1914, the Rising 1916 yes I can see how two years after the event the Rising prevented something two years prior. Makes sense doesn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 16 - 03:57 AM

Jim,

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.
"
Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition

Rubbish!
There was no war then, and Britain was intending not to join any war between Germany and France.


"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement. "
They were, and only the rising destroyed that agreement.
Only the rising prevented the Bill from being enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:08 PM

GSS Jims post underlines my point that politicians [even then] were not to be trusted

That all depends if you accept what Jim says in his post as being the truth - simply put it wasn't - at no time at all was permanent partition ever promised by anyone to the Ulster Unionists. please do not just take my word for it:

Look at the details of the proposed but abandoned Amending Bill for the 1914 Home Rule Bill

Look at the details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which still mentions a temporary exclusion lasting six years - how could that possibly be if Lloyd George had promised the Unionists permanent Partition in July 1916?

Taking a look at what was said between 1912 an 1914 British Politicians did everything that they said they would

Delivered a Home Rule Act that was delayed due to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe

Delivered on their promise that Home Rule would be the first thing they'd deal with once hostilities had ended

Delivered on the promise that all parties would be consulted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:54 PM

"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?"

The problem I have with that statement is that on the 9th July 1914 war had not been declared, Germany had not invaded Belgium, so perhaps you could tell us all how at that time they decided to wait until after the end of a war that had yet to be started.

On the 8th July 1914 the Lords and the Unionists agreed to the temporary six year exclusion that had been proposed as part of Asquith's Amending Bill that had was to be included in the 1914 Home Rule Bill. The amending bill was abandoned on Great Britain's entry into the war on the 4th August 1914.

At no point at all in the process was permanent partition ever promised until Ulster was guaranteed an opt out of an independent Ireland set up by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.

Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour

Lloyd George told Redmond that the six year temporary exclusion previously talked about and agreed to in 1914 would remain. Lloyd George assured Carson that the Unionists would not be forced into a union against their will. Tell us how that matches up to what you have stated above Redmond didn't want partition at all and Carson was not given any promise of there being a permanent partition. The rising led to the war of independence which resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which then gave the Ulster Unionists exactly what they wanted. Had there been no rising, there would have been no war of independence and there would have been no Anglo-Irish Treaty, no opt out for the Unionists. Instead the North and South would have had six years to reach a compromise solution.

""Parliamentary Republicans""
They are referred to as both

Inaccurately and incorrectly, there were no Parliamentary Republicans until after the 1918 election and they all refused to take their seats in Westminster.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:44 PM

Whatever Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:07 PM

"From 1912 to 1914, attempts were made to introduce a Third Irish Home Rule Bill, it was passed under the Parliament Act after House of Lords defeats, with Royal Assent as the Government of Ireland Act 1914 but never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I, when it was agreed that the remaining hurdle would be debated and sorted out when the war ended; it was decided that the major stubling block, that of partition would be debated and settled then.
This was scuppered when Lloyd George, on behalf of the Government, connived separately with the Unionists and the Republicans, promising one (by phone) that partition would be established for a period of six years only, at the end of which, Ireland would become fully united.
At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent.
From the beginning, the Ulster Unionists had opposed any form of Independence for Ireland even to the point of arming itself and threatening Civil War if any attempts were made to give Ireland independence from Britain.
They were supported in their threats by officers of the British Army in the Curragh, who said they would not take part in any intervention, were they ordered to intervene."
Jims post underlines my point that politicians [even then] were not to be trusted

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:04 PM

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.
"
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?
""Parliamentary Republicans""
They are referred to as both - including in the documents you have been given - stop trying to be clever - that's the last thing you are.
Tell us Jim who but seven selfish men instigated the Easter Rising?
A rising of sorts was on the cards throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century
Tell me who but the sectarian thugs in the north armed themselves in order to end any chance of Ireland becoming independent?
Now - unless you are prepared to debate honestly - this is finished
You are the most reactionary arrogant and ignorant individual I have ever come across.
You won't provide evidence or respond to points yet you demand that I do.
You make up claims based on thin air and expect to be believed
You make statements that nobody has and are taking a stance that nobody else is.
You denigrate the Irish as a nation because of something you claim did or didn't happen back in Norman times, using it to show Ireland has no claim to unity then lie about it.
You accuse the Irish of being duped by foreign powers into demanding freedom from The Empire, then lie about it.
What are you on - I'd have a word with my dealer if I were you.
Now, unless there's anything else..... shut the door as you go out.
Thank you for confirming my "pecking order" joke - I wasn't serious, but I am now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 01:21 PM

"I have said specifically that the Easter Rising took place due to the fact that Britain was not to be trusted throughout the Home Rule negations"

And what facts were there as of 18th September 1914 or onward until the 23rd April 1916 that would lead anybody to believe that Britain was not to be trusted throughout the Home Rule negations

By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.

Asquith conceded to the Lords' demand to have the Home Rule Act 1914, which had passed all stages in the Commons, amended to temporarily exclude the six counties of Northern Ireland, which for a period would continue to be governed by London, not Dublin, and to later make some special provision for them. A Buckingham Palace Conference failed to resolve the entangled situation. Strongly opposed to the partition of Ireland in any form, Redmond and his party reluctantly agreed to what they understood would be a trial exclusion of now six years; under Redmond's aspiration that "Ulster will have to follow", he was belatedly prepared to concede a large measure of autonomy to it to come in.

After the 18th September 1914 Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising. The Supreme Council of the IRB had a meeting too in September 1914 didn't they? That was the one where they decided to stage their rising while the British were fighting the Germans and that German assistance was to be sought. One possible reason for that could have been that the IRB were greatly afraid of the British Parliament coming through and granting Home Rule to Ireland which is what the majority of people in Ireland and in the Irish Volunteers wanted - if that happened the IRB would have been consigned to history - they needed a rising to save themselves - they needed Pearse's "Blood Sacrifice".

"Nothing was decided on partition in any shape or form"

So no guarantee of permanent partition then. Your statement above is incorrect on the 8th July 1914 the proposal that Ulster be excluded on a temporary basis for a period of six years had been agreed to by all parties.

"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader Carson a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced in "

Which is what I said - what's your point?

But that is NOT what you said was it?

You stated that:

"At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent." - Jim Carroll - 25 May 16 - 08:35 AM

NOT the same thing at all.

John Redmond led the Irish Parliamentary Party where on earth did you get the idea that the party he led were the "Parliamentary Republicans"? Irish Nationalist John Redmond undoubtedly was Irish Republican most certainly NOT.

Tell us Jim who but seven selfish men instigated the Easter Rising? Did they have the full support of the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers? The answer to the first question is nobody and the answer to the second is no.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 11:35 AM

Jim,
IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?

No. The two quotes were fake. I id not write that.

Do not call me a liar please

Then do not attribute quotes to me that I have not written.
You put them in quotes. They were fake.

you are claiming that the Irish people as a nation is being brainwashed on a scale comparable to Stalinism at its worst - IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? - PLEASE ANSWER.   

I made no comparisons. You lie again.

I quoted two historians, Kinealy who you have admired and quoted, and O'Callaghan who both you and Rag have quoted.

Kinealy said that the Irish school system presented "nationalist myths" as history, and O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 11:24 AM

"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader Carson a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced in "
Which is what I said - what's your point?
The question of partition was a deciding factor on the Parliamentary Republicans taking part in any negotiations - Redmond had stated clearly that permanent partition of any form was an anathema to him and his party - had it been agreed that Ulster would not have to accept Independence after six years, they would have had no part and Britain would have been negotiating Ireland's future with a nine minority of of Unionist fanatics and ignoring the wishes of Ireland as a whole - a classic Imperial ploy - put the dissentig colony into safe hands (fir the Empire, that is).
The Rebels were vindicated in their actions, Britain was traitorously dealing with armed fanatics - what better reason could you possibly need for taking up arms?
The number of those killed during Easter Week measures tiny against those who would have died in the case of a civil war with Unionists backed by Britain - a veritable bloodbath.
"What did you say about seven selfish men"!!!!
Do not request proof of anything until you are prepared to give som of your own.
Who do you think you are - either of you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 10:59 AM

"Any proof of that?"
You've been given it - any confirmation to the contrary?
"Wrong they opposed any form of independence for an Ireland that automatically included them against their will"
Civil War then - they were part of a united Ireland under Britain
I have said exactly when it happened and it has been reitrterated over and over again
What's Your point - I have said specifically that the Easter Rising took place due to the fact that Britain was not to be trusted throughout the Home Rule negations - not because of Lloyd George's dishonesty - you bloody well know this as you accepted it by describing it as 'dishonesty by politicians"
Claiming otherwise is proof of your own dishonesty.
Nothing was decided on partition in any shape or form - the promis made was that partition would be agreed on before the bill was enacted and that if no agreement was reached, the enactment of the bill wouldld be put back a year, then another year, then another years.... until agreement was reached.
You've had all this, now you are just wriggling.
Moe sill, later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 09:54 AM

Alarmed by the changed and volatile situation in Ireland the Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, following prolonged discussions, announced on 25 May 1916 {i.e. One month AFTER the rising} to the House of Commons that he had agreed to undertake negotiations to bring about a permanent Home Rule settlement in Ireland. Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, was then sent to Dublin to offer this to the leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party, John Redmond and John 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 in

With regard to the letter written to Carson refer to Patrick Maume's book, "The long Gestation, Irish Nationalist Life 1891–1918", Chapter 7 'The Price of War' pages 182–83, published by Gill & Macmillan (1999) ISBN 978-0-7171-2744-3

So at what point was the letter guaranteeing permanent partition written, because that is not what was on offer in the letter referred to above.

If Asquith was alarmed by recent events in Ireland {i.e. The Rising} how do you think the Unionists viewed it? Would it make them more or less amenable to an independent Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 09:09 AM

"At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent."

Any proof of that?

"From the beginning, the Ulster Unionists had opposed any form of Independence for Ireland even to the point of arming itself and threatening Civil War if any attempts were made to give Ireland independence from Britain."

Wrong they opposed any form of independence for an Ireland that automatically included them against their will.

Why so coy about the date of Lloyd George's "dishonest intervention"? Could it be that you want to mislead people into thinking it happened before the Easter Rising?

You also haven't explained why partition being a temporary is mentioned in the 1920 Act if permanent partition was already a done deal? Why there was a clause giving Northern Ireland the option to opt out of an independent Ireland in the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 if permanent partition was already a done deal? Doesn't quite square with your version of events - bit inconvenient that Eh Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 08:35 AM

What has been established so far:
Ireland has sought independence from Britain for centuries; in the latter half of the 19th century the idea of Home Rule was embarked upon,
Over the course of its existence the movement incorporated different concepts of home rule, from a self-governing Ireland still within the UK, to a fully independent republic, finally settling on a limited self-government for Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
Two attempts at introducing Home Rule bills were crushed by The House of Lords.
From 1912 to 1914, attempts were made to introduce a Third Irish Home Rule Bill, it was passed under the Parliament Act after House of Lords defeats, with Royal Assent as the Government of Ireland Act 1914 but never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I, when it was agreed that the remaining hurdle would be debated and sorted out when the war ended; it was decided that the major stubling block, that of partition would be debated and settled then.
This was scuppered when Lloyd George, on behalf of the Government, connived separately with the Unionists and the Republicans, promising one (by phone) that partition would be established for a period of six years only, at the end of which, Ireland would become fully united.
At the same time he informed the Unionists by letter that partition would be permanent.
From the beginning, the Ulster Unionists had opposed any form of Independence for Ireland even to the point of arming itself and threatening Civil War if any attempts were made to give Ireland independence from Britain.
They were supported in their threats by officers of the British Army in the Curragh, who said they would not take part in any intervention, were they ordered to intervene.
On Lloyd Georges dishonest intervention, the Home Rule Movement collapsed entirely and Ireland entered into War for full Independence.
At no time has the question of Easter Week been cited as the cause for the collapse of Home Rule, in fact, John Redmond, head of the Parliamentary Republicans made this quite clear when he condemned the Lloyd George's proposal as "treachery"
All this has been linked above – no linked information as ever been put forward to contradict it in any way, in fact, requests for such information have been either ignored or refused.
More later
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:42 AM

What links do I need to ask you questions about what you have written?

But it is rather revealing that you always evade and refuse to answer questions that show your claims to be woefully ill-informed and wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:30 AM

No links, no qualified response to what I have written - no discussion
I'll do what I said when I get time - you pair are just a waste of space - orr, at best, a perfect example of what Ireland always fought against - rule by a racist, predatory Empire.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:28 AM

Not me Teribus, you are the one who considers them daft, well you and the other jingoist.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:10 AM

Almost the entire nation of Ireland were commemorating the events in the past few weeks so they must be as daft as Jim.

If you say so Raggytash - If you say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:07 AM

the act was invalidated and the Home Rule movement collapsed because the government over-rode the promised discussion on how partition should be implemented by unilaterally making it permanent.

When did that happen Jim? Lloyd George's discussions and correspondence with both Redmond and Carson took place in mid-to-late summer 1916 didn't they? And the Rising took place when?

When did they {The British Government} unilaterally make partition permanent? You incorrectly stated that Lloyd George wrote to Carson guaranteeing permanent partition, but he did no such thing did he - The letter written to Carson assured Carson any agreement reached would not put Ulster in the position that it could be forced into any union against its will - different thing entirely.

Also if the British Government had unilaterally made partition permanent in July 1916 could you explain why the 1920 Government of Ireland Act still mentions temporary partition?

Furthermore if the British Government had unilaterally made partition permanent in July 1916 could you explain why the clause relating to Northern Ireland was required in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921?

It could of course all be down to fact that you are talking a complete and utter load of bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 May 16 - 06:00 AM

A significant bit of back-pedalling going on there Teribus what you posted was

"The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.

ONLY THOSE AS DAFT AS JIM. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture that was guaranteed to fail from the outset by a man who sought death and believed in blood sacrifice"

Almost the entire nation of Ireland were commemorating the events in the past few weeks so they must be as daft as Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:54 AM

seeking help for a cause is somewhat different to conned into demanding what was rightfully theirs.

What "cause" was that Jim? The cause of the self-aggrandisement of Hugh O'Neill? Having spent much of his life fighting his way to the top he'd been fighting and killing Irish people right, left and centre for years - he couldn't care less about the "Irish People" or Irish Nation. His "pitch" to curry favour in Spain was to claim he was fighting for the Roman Catholic faith (Strange thing to claim for a practicing Anglican). His goal was to make Ireland a colony of Spain in which he hoped that he would be Spain's Viceroy - Not merely my opinion - that is what his letters to the Spanish show. All of these shenanigans taking place against the backdrop of the Anglo-Spanish War.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:41 AM

"The 1914 Act died a death when nine men decided that what the country needed was a war of independence in 1919,"
No - the act was invalidated and the Home Rule movement collapsed because the government over-rode the promised discussion on how partition should be implemented by unilaterally making it permanent.
No suggestion has ever been made that Easter Week played any part in the collapse of The Home Rule Bill and it's a waste of my time to ask you to verify that claim with anything that resembles actual documented proof because you don't do that sort of thing.
This is all your own work - yet again.
WE appear to have finished with Ireland being conned by foreign powers t claim independence and that it had no claim to be a united nation because of The Normans, so I think we're finished here.
Weather permitting, I'll sum up where we've reached so far and push on to the War of Independence, the Treaty and how the Catholics fared under Unionist rule - if that's all right with you.
You are every bit as boringly predictable as your mate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 05:20 AM

The Act wsas passed on to te statute books on the understanding that it would not be enacted on until the matter of partition had been resolved - as the Government ascertained that no agreement could ever be reached by deciding on the matter of partition arbitrarily without consultation, the law became null and void and the whole Home Rule issue died a death

The Act went onto the statute books on a number of understandings

1: Conclusion of hostilities was the primary one
2: It would be the Westminster Parliaments first order of business once the war had ended
3: That the question of temporary partition would be addressed as the previous agreement and amending bill had been abandoned when Great Britain declared war on the 4th August 1914

The 1914 Act died a death when nine men decided that what the country needed was a war of independence in 1919, the 1914 Act was repealed and the 1920 Act was passed to replace it. The Unionists in the North accepted it, and Sinn Fein in the South rejected it, even in the 1920 Act partition was only temporary. The War of Independence ended up in stalemate in June 1921 when a truce came into effect and peace negotiations were entered into. This resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of the 6th December 1921, the following day the Parliament of Northern Ireland created by the 1920 Act seceded from the Irish Free State in accordance with their rights guaranteed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:47 AM

"In the Nine Years War Chief Hugh O'Neill did not seek the help of Spain"
Of course it's true - seeking help for a cause is somewhat different to conned into demanding what was rightfully theirs.
Has not Britain or any nation sought the help of allies in times of need.
Please don't be more stupid than you already have been - it debaes the topic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:41 AM

"A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again."
"Gullible", "brainwashed", "misled by propaganda" - did somebody else use your name two refer to the Irish people?
Do not call me a liar please - I don't see the point of telling lies on a discussion forum - something else we disagree about.
"A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again."
"I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact." IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?
And please don't make the excuse that this was addressed to Fegie - he was saying exactly what has been filling our screens and publications for the last five months and is being celebrated by the Irish people in schools, in lecture, in concerts....... throughout Ireland.
If you claim this is being brainwashed then you are claiming that the Irish people as a nation is being brainwashed on a scale comparable to Stalinism at its worst - IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? - PLEASE ANSWER.   
Your garbage on Kineally has long been blown out of the water and is immaterial anyway - anybody who believes Irish children are brainwashed to hate British - which is what you suggested, is a racist - it doesn't matter if they are prominent historians or just flag-wagging jingoists - it is a racist statement, pure and simple, and in this case, aimed at children
"No. The 1914 Act became law."
The Act wsas passed on to te statute books on the understanding that it would not be enacted on until the matter of partition had been resolved - as the Government ascertained that no agreement could ever be reached by deciding on the matter of partition arbitrarily without consultation, the law became null and void and the whole Home Rule issue died a death (even Teribus has attributed this to crooked politicians).
None of this has anything to do with Easter Week and nobody but you pair has ever attempted to link it to Easter Week.
Your feeble-minded repetition of your claim and your refusal to respond to any of the actual facts that have been put up is the only dishonesty here.
Now - please respond to the points I have just made with something more than mindless repetition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 16 - 04:38 AM

So Jim the following was just simply not the case:

In the Nine Years War Chief Hugh O'Neill did not seek the help of Spain

In 1794 Wolfe Tone did not report to French agents that Ireland was ripe for revolution. In 1796 he did no seek the help of France in the form of weapons and troops.

And of course we know from your own statements that in 1914 the IRB did not seek assistance from Germany even though in 1916 attempts were made to land German arms and the Germans were described as "Gallant Allies" in the Proclamation.

All just my imagination? Hardly there exists masses of evidence in Ireland, Great Britain, Spain, France and in Germany to back it up.

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

No Raggytash the fools and idiots were those who were responsible for masterminding the rising. The Republic has every right to commemorate the events in any way they wish, the rising in 1916, was an important and extremely significant step on the path to independence selected by an unrepresentative and unelected few that has resulted in the partition of their island. A partition which after nearly 100 years looks as though will remain a permanent feature.

By the way you never said at the commemoration events that you witnessed if all who died were remembered? Or was the same one sided format they have used for their memorials?

As far as history and the teaching of it goes. The historian Ruth Dudley Edwards who was born and educated in the Republic said that according to what she learned in school the Irish Civil War just didn't happen. Not a single thing was taught about it - wonder why that was? The guiding hand of Eamon de Valera perhaps? I suspect by what he said to his son ten years after the event that he must have been downright ashamed of himself for having instigated it. Do you think that they will have centennial commemorations of that as well? Or will they carry on with "tradition" and halt the process and just mark the end of their War of Independence and just pretend that the civil war didn't happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:46 AM

you are assuming politicians keep their word, in my experience that is rather like believing in fairy stories.

No. The 1914 Act became law.
It did not rely on anyone keeping their word.
The rising destroyed the unity that had been achieved, and the rising alone prevented the Bill from being enacted.