BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:27 AM

give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence - Question to me from Joe Offer.

My reply:

Teribus - 20 May 16 - 05:05 AM
As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL.

Now tell me where it was I said any of the following:

That I "don't think that Ireland was entitled to independence" - written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit

"they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?" - written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit

""They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place" - written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 16 - 08:52 PM

Teribus quotes Joe Offer: Humor me, and give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence."

Teribus responds: Already done but obviously you do not read anything I post, even when that post is directed specifically to you

I've tried, Teribus, I really have. There are a LOT of words in this thread, but I have tried to sort through most of them to find out what you really think. All I can find, is statements from you that say you already said what you think - and THAT you have repeated over and over. I find those statements quite easily, so obviously I have been reading what you post.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 16 - 07:53 PM

"Nope not all is opinion quite a bit of fact in there too."
Doubt it - you would have linked us to it otherwise.
Where on earth did you get this nonsense of Ireland's pedigree as a nation being in question - The Normans, the Italians, the Spanish, Uncle Tom Cobley and all that shit - total new one on me.
Now that surely is all your own work or can you link us to tat one?
Please do - haven't had a really good Irish belly-laugh since 'The Ginger Man'!!
Won't hold my Breath though - I've given trying to find how your claimed support for Irish nationhood and Irish independence squares up.
Likewise how a State artificially created by a foreign power at gunpoint and made up of settlers who were forcibly implanted a few centuries earlier by that same power can possibly be regarded as valid - do tell?

Anyway - away from La-La Land and back to the real world.

The Home Rule Bill, after being solidly opposed was finally agreed on in principle only, at the Buckingham Palace meeting in July 1914, with the proviso that the question of partition would be decided later after further consultation with the Redmondites and the Unionists.
That was scuppered by Lloyd George, but not by him alone apparently.

From 'The Irish Question; 1840-1921, Nicholas Mansergh, (1965)'
"Irish Nationalist opinion credits neither Carson nor Craig with responsibility for Partition. That is attributed personally to Lloyd George and collectively to the British Government. They have created for the first time in history' protested Joe Devlin, leader of the Ulster Nationalists, 'two Irelands. Providence arranged the geography of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr Lloyd George) has changed it.'** But in respect of individuals there are in fact other British claimants to such responsibility. Chief among them stands the Canadian, Andrew Bonar Law. He declared that until War came in 1914 he had cared for only two things in politics, Ulster and Tariff Reform. 'Over Ulster', writes his biographer Robert Blake, 'his success was indisputable, and her survival as an autonomous province wholly independent of the Irish Republic is in no small measure the achievement of Bonar Law/ Blake recognises the greater popular appeal of Carson's theatrical leadership, and Craig's contribution in building up a solid backbone of indigenous resistance, but he nonetheless concludes that without the uncompromising support of Bonar Law, without his much criti¬cized decision to pledge the whole of the English Conservative Party the Ulster cause, it is very unlikely that Ulster would stand where ut stands today".
* * House of Commons Debates.

The position of the Unionists had not altered one iota, total opposition to Home Rule for the whole of Ireland up to the tentative agreement on the Home Rule Bill – which was to be put on 'the long finger' till after the war to dot the i's and cross the t's. and then implement it.

From The Making of Ireland, James Lydon, 1998
"Earlier, Asquith had informed Redmond that in proceeding with his gov¬ernment of Ireland bill the position of Ulster would have to be considered before it became operative. If necessary, parliament must be given the opportunity to introduce amending legislation. An amendment to the home rule bill was, in fact, moved by a Liberal MP in June 1912, that four counties (Armagh, Down. Derry and Antrim) should be excluded. It was defeated by 320 votes to 251. 'I have never heard that orange bitters will mix with Irish whiskey' was how the proposer put it in his speech to the house.
Much more seriously, the cabinet had already decided in February of that year that the government must make whatever concessions were necessary to Ulster if circumstances seemed to warrant them and had told Redmond of its decision. At the end of July a mass demonstration in London protested against home rule and Andrew Bonar Law, the Canadian-born leader, with Ulster ancestry, of the Conservative party, told the crowd that what he called 'a corrupt parliamentary bargain' must not be allowed to deprive the Protestants of Ulster of what he insisted was their 'birthright'. There were, he said, 'things stronger than parliamentary majorities' and if parliament forced through home rule 'I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster will go in which I should not be prepared to support them' and which would not be 'supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people'. He had, in fact, already publicly given a pledge to a mass meeting at Balmoral in early April that Ulster resistance to home rule would be supported by British unionists. More than 100,000 attended that meeting, the surest sign that the Protestants of Ulster, supported by unionists outside the province, would never accept home rule".

The Unionists were fully armed and drilled and they had the promise of non-intervention from officers of the British Army, and the full support of Conservatives in Parliament.
It can't be emphasized enough that the Unionists were the first to import arms into Ireland for political purposes, and were fully prepared to use them to prevent Independence, even to the point of starting a Civil War.
So far, we've had only the Rebels as being baddies, prepared to take up arms – they had to run to catch up with the Ulstermen.
The Repbublicans were fully aware of the threat from the Northern fanatics and the support they were getting from Britain, and they were extremely dubious of even the Home Rule Bill, with all its limitations, being honoured.
They would have been of their chumps not to prepare to defend the country.

From 'A History of Ireland in 250 episodes. Jonathon Bardon 2008
"The Republican Brotherhood, almost defunct at the beginning of the century, recruited a new generation of activists. The Irish Party leader, John Redmond suspected that republican militants were in control of the Irish Volunteers. He insisted on taking over control of the Volunteers in June 1914, but the IRB were not so easily pushed aside.
If the UVF could arm themselves without retribution, then why not the Irish Volunteers? Erskine Childers, a former clerk of the House of Commons who had written the first modern thriller, The Riddle of the Sands, passionate!' supported Home Rule. An expert sailor, he and the journalist Darrell Figgis took the yacht Asgard to Hamburg. There he bought a consignment of 1,500 Mauser rifles; almost antiques, these single-shot weapons, loaded with black powder cartridges, were nevertheless deadly.
On 26 July 1914, in a blaze of publicity, the Asgard steered into Howth harbour, just north of Dublin. Some Volunteers openly shouldered rifles on the road. Soldiers made ineffective attempts to disarm them.
Returning to Dublin, the troops responded to taunts and stones from a hostile crowd at Bachelor's Walk by opening fire. Four people were killed and thirty-eight wounded. The impression that nationalists and unionists were being treated differently had been viciously reinforced.
Meanwhile Prime Minister Herbert Asquith faced a bewildering array of problems: suffragettes on hunger strike in prison; a threatened general strike- and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. But Ireland, Asquith was certain, was the most intractable problem.
Asquith might refer to his own 'masterly inactivity' and the merits of his policy of 'wait and see', but actually he did not know what to do. Then King George v stepped in. He called an all-party conference on Asquith's Home Rule Bill at Buckingham Palace on 21 July. In his opening address he said:
"For months we have watched with deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland ... and today the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsi¬ble and sober-minded of my people.... To me it is unthinkable ... that we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues apparently so capable of adjustment... if handled in a spirit of generous compromise."
According to Winston Churchill, the conference 'toiled round the muddy byways of Fermanagh and Tyrone', but there was no spirit of generous compromise, and the talks broke down. Sir Edward Carson certainly thought that civil war was unavoidable: 'I see no hopes of peace. I see nothing at present but darkness and shadows.... We shall have once more to assert the manhood
of our race.'"

You will note that the Bachelors Walk Massacre (four killed, 38 wounded) came about by troops opening fire on demonstrators in support of the arms being shipped in - so much for the Rebels having no support.
The Rebels had no alternative to do what they did if Ireland was to get independence and retain it's Parliamentary freedom, and what better time to do it while there was a war on?
Apart from this, had they not armed themselves, The Unionists would have been able to march in unopposed had the Home Rule decision not gone their way – supported by officers in the British Army and the Conservatives in the Government.
And to add to this, the W.W.1 Sword of Damocles was hanging over the heads of Ireland's youth.
They were Patriotic Heroes, not "murderers" and that is what they are known as in Ireland today and have now been celebrated as such since the beginning of the year.
If either of you two Imperialist reminiscers are going to respond to this – I would prefer accredited facts – rather than the old usual denials – it really does make these things much more interesting.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 21 May 16 - 06:07 PM

All this is your opinion - all your own work"

Nope not all is opinion quite a bit of fact in there too. I have already learned that there is no point in providing links for you as you do not open them and read what they contain. I normally do state where I get my information from and it normally is presented in context and in order, you do not even acknowledge it when a reference is given.

Self-serving noblemen/chiefs? Not merely opinion by any stretch of the imagination examples of them litter the history of countries right across Europe - In Ireland they were no different.

For the catalogue of how France and Spain cynically used disaffected elements in both Scotland and Ireland read N.A.M. Rogers book "Sovereign of the Seas". Again not just opinion. These two super-powers any time they were involved in any conflict, normally with each other, that included either England or Great Britain, or whenever it was important for them to influence England or Great Britain they would try to divert attention away from Europe by instigating trouble at home for Britain. As stated previously they always promised much and delivered little, not always entirely their fault as to get any significant aid delivered they had to come by sea and to do that they had to get past Britain's Navy, which from 1690 onwards just got stronger and stronger. It was British Naval Intelligence that broke the German codes that alerted those in authority in London and in Dublin, unfortunately they did not act on what was proposed on the 22nd April, if they had the Rising would never have happened – again not opinion Jim, that was basically what the Royal Commission into the Rising stated.

Asquith's quote - you provided the link, you just omitted to put it in context, you looked at the words used, but not the meaning, you only looked at it subjectively from one perspective.

To support your claim that the 1914 Act, a Bill that you originally claimed had never been passed, was altered you scroll out yards of script from conversations that took place two or four years after the fact and somehow expect everybody to believe they had relevance back in 1914. You are incredibly ignorant of Parliamentary procedure and insist that things were done, in a manner that they could not possibly be have been done, when challenged you either ignore the discrepancies pointed out to you (That's just your opinion) or you rant. Plain fact of the matter is the 1914 Act was never amended and the work done on Asquith's Amending Bill in 1914 records that both Redmond and Carson had come to an agreement that neither liked but both hoped they could work round in the six year period they had agreed to. The Easter Rising threw all that out of the window because by July 1916 Carson and the Unionists position had hardened. Try and identify any other cause, anything else that had happened in Ireland to have brought that change about. Not just opinion Jim just read your own sources and then place events in chronological order.

By 1920 the Unionists were back onboard again the two self-ruling entities to be known as Northern and Southern Ireland was intended as a temporary arrangement, but while those in Ulster agreed to it, in the South Sinn Fein opted for the War of Independence. That sealed the deal as far as the Unionists were concerned and when de Valera would not even live up to what his own Parliament and his own plenipotentiaries had signed it was obvious that th e North would secede.

PS: With regard to this comment of yours:

"Want to challenge anything that resembles actual, verified evidence"

Offer up anything that remotely resembles "verified evidence" and I will give it a go, but I think that you will find that whatever "verified evidence" you find will support what Keith A and I have been saying.

To Joe Offer:

I see that you are obviously having trouble locating anything that I have posted that says clearly and unequivocally that "I didn't think that Ireland was entitled to independence" – You won't because that is something that Carroll made up – You can't find it and neither can he".

One of two things you can do now is be honest and actually admit that I have never stated anything like that or continue to dance on the head of a pin. But every time you wriggle I will ask you for proof.

Humor me, and give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence."

Already done but obviously you do not read anything I post, even when that post is directed specifically to you:

Teribus - 20 May 16 - 05:05 AM
As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL.

Now tell me how I can state that any clearer than I have above – please detail anything ambiguous about that statement – or are you as obtuse as Carroll?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 16 - 12:26 PM

One of the benefits of long-running arguments like this for me has always been that they force you to check things you think you know and have always taken for granted and bring them together into one big whole – it happened for me with the 'Famine' epics (same old two protagonists defending the same old Empire in exactly the same old way – "Britain didn't do nuffin'") .
It's been the case here as well – thanks again lads.
My forebears were Famine refugees so I grew up with some awareness, even knowledge of those events through listening to my parents and grandparents talking about it; it was part of my early education at home.
Likewise, members of my father's family were supporters of Ireland's fight for Independence; my father and his mates were active in dissuading men from joining the Black and Tans who were being sent to soften-up the Irish people during the run-up to the Treaty being signed – there's a book which touches on the campaign PINKMAN
My dad knew the man on whose reminiscences the book is based – I guess he isn't mentioned as the author was pro-treaty, 'Free Staters' and my family decidedly weren't.
None of this, of course, makes me 'right', or an expert, but it has given be a personal reason to take an interest, a 'ringside seat', sort of.
I've superficially known about these events since childhood and later I began to read them up, but there was so little specifically on Easter Week – this argument has been a great help in getting me join all the dots and make sense of what I have always believed to be a magnificent symbolic gesture by brave men and women but, as it turns out, was much, much more than that.
I'll try to put together what I believe about where Easter Week fits into all this later as I have tried to do with the situation which brought it about.
It's been interesting to see the somersaults, backtracking and evasions of our (two only again) defenders of the Imperial Faith – Keith, unable to find "real, living historians" to back his case, reduced to repeating things that have been shown not to be true and Teribus's contradictory "how dare you accuse me of suggesting that Ireland has no right to Independence" leading to "they were never a united nation before the Normans so why should they become a United nation now?" and finally and somewhat spectacularly, "They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place" so presumably they never, deep-down, wanted independence anyway - not exactly a confession, but as near to one as we can expect– love it, love it!!
"Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you."
'Course they didn't Keith, hold on to that thought if it comforts you.
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 – there are no accurate figures as to who supported what or why they did, only the behaviour of the Dublin women towards the rebels as they were being led out; there is not a shred of evidence to suggest any significant number supporting remaining within the Empire apart from the Unionists.
What is beyond any doubt is the fact that, shortly after the rising, when Britain's behaviour in secretly inserting permanent partition finally scuppered the move towards Home Rule, the overall mood became one of demanding full independence.
The call for full independence had certainly gone into a bit of a rest period prior to The Rising, but had not gone away, as many of the quotes I have put up have shown
All immaterial anyway; the demand for full independence was supported; even the Redmondites expected it to happen within six years of the war, but they were sold out by the people they had loyally supported and did not hesitate in declaring that fact; it was that betrayal that led to the destruction of the Home Rule Movement and eventually led to the Civil War and a repressive six-county State.
I intend to deal in full with what happened to the Catholics under the gerrymandered Six Counties later, when I've finished with Easter Week.
The brutality of post Easter Week was repeated later when the Brits sent in the Tans and Auxies to 'steer the Irish people onto the straight and narrow' when they forced through the Treaty
"jim accuses someone else of being against independence, a quite unnecesary and uncalled for comment."
If you read through what has been written you will see that Teribus has been asked on several occasions to explain how his 'before the Normans' doesn't show he is opposed to independence for Ireland - he hasn't responded to requests for an explanation and I doubt if he will explain how his 'Ireland had been conned by Spain and France into demanding independence' doesn't show the same thing – I have little doubt that this is his belief.
Perhaps you might explain it on his behalf!!
Your "running to teacher with stories" really is quite unnecessary - Joe's a bright feller - we had a word for people like you in junior school, which was about the last time I experienced your behaviour.
Keith (again)
"That is where it came from. An invention."
Isn't it about time you stopped flinging your accusations about - neither of you have ever explained your attitude and you, in particular have not explained how somebody who has expressed no interest and admitted having no knowledge in this subject can persist as long as you have - I can only presume an agenda.
Jim Carroll
Is anybody else having regular problems with logging into this site, or is it just the steam-driven West Clare Internet?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 16 - 11:39 AM

joe, pay attention, jim accuses someone else of being against independence, a quite unnecesary and uncalled for comment.
here quote
Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 20 May 16 - 01:40 PM

All this is your opinion - all your own work - no links.
Why would I bother responding to something as ill-informed as that?
Want to challenge anything that resembles actual, verified evidence- no?
Thought not.
I deliberately missed out where Easter Week fits into all this - will do so when I get round to it.
" I'll take this of confirmation that you don't believe Ireland was entitled to Independence?
Thanks for that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:44 AM

Well, gee, I tried to guess what your point was

Seems to me, Joe, his point is obfuscation.

Just one man's opinion, of course......

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 16 - 10:31 AM

Joe, Jim falsely accused us of being against independence because we are against the rising.
That is where it came from. An invention.

There is no contradiction in being in favour of self determination but against the rising.
Independence was already assured and the rising achieved nothing.

What is the relevance of centuries old history to 20th Century events?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 May 16 - 04:25 AM

Teribus says: The point I am trying make should be fairly obvious.

Well, gee, I tried to guess what your point was, and you said I was wrong. Humor me, and give us a summary of exactly what it is that you think about Irish independence.

You say that there was no Irish nation before the English took over, but then you acknowledge that there indeed was a High King. Seems to me that means there was at least some semblance of a federation of Irish kingdoms.

In addition, I think it's clear that there was a unified Irish identity, even though there were several kingdoms. They thought of themselves as the Irish people, whether or not they had a unified government.

-Joe-

P.S. Thank you for attributing the quote, Dick Miles. Between guessing where you get your quotes from, and guessing what Teribus thinks about things, I was thoroughly confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 May 16 - 01:59 AM

Jim,because someone disagrees with you about the majority of support their was for independence, it does not follow that the poster does not feel that ireland was entitled to independence. I gave an example of how there were a considerable number in dublin[ in my opinion diffrent from the rest of ireland] who did not want independence.
however,my view is that it was a good thing that ireland got partial independence,but it would have been much better if the whole of the geographical island of ireland had got total independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 03:15 PM

Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you.

"Nationalists, who represented the majority of Ireland's population, wanted more independence from Britain. They campaigned for devolution for Ireland, and a minority wanted full independence. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgy8tyc

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 01:45 PM

Should read "Wasn't entitled," of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 01:40 PM

All this is your opinion - all your own work - no links.
Why would I bother responding to something as ill-informed as that?
Want to challenge anything that resembles actual, verified evidence- no?
Thought not.
I deliberately missed out where Easter Week fits into all this - will do so when I get round to it.
" I'll take this of confirmation that you don't believe Ireland was entitled to Independence?
Thanks for that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 12:57 PM

The Irish people have been struggling for independence for many centuries, 1798 being a major milestone, when it turned to Revolutionary France for support, all of the attempts ended in failure and resulted in Britain tightening its grip on Ireland.

Doesn't really match up, I don't think the "Irish people" gave a rats, Down through those centuries you had self-serving Irish Noblemen attempting to advance themselves, but please, please, please do not suggest they were doing anything for Ireland or its people. Hugh O'Neill was one of the worst. The Duke of Ormond was another.

As you say 1798 was a bit of a break with tradition, up until then it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt, in 1798 it was the French who did much like the Spaniards before them and exactly the same as the French had been doing in Scotland for centuries - Promising much and delivering little - and the Irish "revolutionaries" exactly like their Scottish counterparts were mug enough to believe them.

"Is it to be part of the policy and programme of our party that, if returned to power, it will introduce into the House of Commons a bill for Irish Home Rule? The answer, in my judgment, is No." - Herbert Asquith

What a great pity that you took that out of context and failed to give Asquith's reasons for stating that. For Asquith and the Liberals to stay in power for the Parliament we are talking about here he relied on forming coalitions, Irish Home Rule was not a very popular notion and had he stated he was going to introduce another Home Rule Bill then it would be highly unlikely that his Government would have lasted very long.

The support of the Irish Nationalists was essential to Asquith's government after the January 1910 election deprived him of the Liberal majority in the Commons. Keeping Ireland in the Union was then the declared intent of all the parties, and the Nationalists, as part of the majority that kept Asquith in office, were entitled to seek enactment of their plans for Home Rule.

The cabinet committee (not including Asquith) that in 1911 planned the Third Home Rule Bill opposed any special status for Protestant Ulster within majority-Catholic Ireland. Asquith later (in 1913) wrote to Churchill, stating that the prime minister had always believed and stated that the price of Home Rule should be a special status for Ulster. Nevertheless, the bill as introduced April 1912 contained no such provision.

This unamended Bill introduced in April 1912 received Royal Assent in September 1914 when it became the Government of Ireland Act 1914 which remained unaltered and unamended until it was repealed and replaced with the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

In the final paragraph of the post we get:

The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), and was eventually sabotaged by Lloyd George, who altered one of its main conditions, unilaterally and secretly changing the negotiated clause that partition should be introduced for six years, at which time it should become fully independent.

What Bill was put on ice? When was it put on ice? Immaterial whether of not it was fully agreed as a Bill it could never be enacted, as for something to be enacted it first must be an ACT, i.e. the Bill giving birth to it has to have been through the Commons and the Lords the prerequisite number of times amended as required and fully agreed before it gets Royal Assent which then makes the Bill an ACT.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 11:48 AM

At the same time, by mid-1914, the Ulster leaders (Carson apart) had moved perceptibly towards demanding a way out for Ulster rather than an end to Home Rule for all Ireland. Politicians on both sides are on record as thinking even by late 1913 that county option, especially for the intricate cases of Fermanagh and Tyrone, would be so reasonable a solution that they would not dare to oppose it; therefore, they hoped the other side would continue to indulge in extravagant demands. Saving political face often appeared more important than hammering out a solution on its merits. By 1914 Bonar Law was still considering using the House of Lords to amend the Army Bill to save Ulster from 'coercion', and then provoke a first-rate constitutional crisis. But on more realistic levels, a six-county Ulster excluded from Home Rule was more and more clearly envisaged - though even this included areas of knife-edge majorities.
The Home Rule Bill as passed in May 1914 allowed opting out on a county basis for six years only; the Lords amended it to the exclusion of nine counties, for ever. A conference at Buckingham Palace, convened in July to work out an exclusion formula, brought the impasse no nearer resolution. The bill was placed on the statute book with the exclusion amendment left in suspension; while Asquith was seen by Unionist opinion as utterly unprincipled, for having forced through any measure of Home Rule at all. 'He has behaved like a cardsharper and should never be received into a gentleman's house again.'7 None the less, Partition had been, in principle, secured. As Michael Laffan has percipiently remarked, 'if war had not broken out and if Carson had led a rebellion in August or September 1914 his aim would not have been to preserve Antrim, Down, Derry and Armagh, for their exclusion had already been conceded. It would have been to impose exclusion on Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry City where Home Rule was desired by small but clear majorities' - a much less tenable endeavour.8 Like Asquith, he was saved from the logic of his position by the guns of August.
From - Modern Ireland 1600-1972 R. F. Foster 1988
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 11:18 AM

How the **** could a Home Rule Bill have possibly been enacted without the "assurance of its amendment in respect of Ulster" that division of the nation" be discussed and agreed upon"?
What planet are these two living on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:54 AM

"was written by a retired history teacher."
Oh sweet suffering Jesus - not again!!!!
By 1914 the faith of Irishmen in English parties and English pro¬mises was dead. The Home Rule Bill which John Redmond had wel¬comed with a warmth that cloaked anxiety as a 'great measure', was, it is true, placed on the Statute Book in October 1914, but accompanied by an Act suspending its operation till after the ending of the War and by an assurance of its amendment in respect of Ulster; that division of the nation which Redmond had denounced at Limerick in 1912 as 'an abomination and a blasphemy', had been the subject of negotiation in which Redmond, under pressure from his Liberal allies, agreed to the exclusion of Ulster for six years as the 'extremest limit of concession' without eliciting any favourable response from his Unionist oppo¬nents. It was a concession which the more advanced Nationalists were not prepared to make. 'So long as England is strong and Ireland is weak', was the comment of Sinn Fein, 'she may continue to oppress this country, but she shall not dismember it.' In the south there were men who had observed the Ulster rebellion, who had learnt from the organization of the Ulster Volunteers, who had watched the Fanny unload her cargo of arms at Larne. Like Sir Edward Carson—'the only Irish member of Parliament who has any backbone' observed Irish Freedom, the newspaper of the Irish Republican Brotherhood— they did not share John Redmond's belief in the wisdom and good faith of majorities at Westminster; like Bildad the Shuhite they answered and said 'how long will it be till ye make an end of words?'
The Irish Question Nicholas Mansergh Unwin Universdity Books 1965
Are you surprised that people regard you as they do Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:13 AM

Jim, your last paste job about "Home Rule Movement" was written by a retired history teacher.
He states, "The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), "

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:07 AM

Jim,
As for majorities - had the entire island of Ireland been given the vote on independence at the time, it would have voted overwhelmingly for Indendence,

Not true.
BBC history site on Easter Rising,

"Nationalists, who represented the majority of Ireland's population, wanted more independence from Britain. They campaigned for devolution for Ireland, and a minority wanted full independence. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgy8tyc

As for Ulster, that minority would have been even smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 10:02 AM

A run-down of the struggle for Irish Independence:
What objection in particular do you have against this analysis?
Jim Carroll

The Irish people have been struggling for independence for many centuries, 1798 being a major milestone, when it turned to Revolutionary France for support, all of the attempts ended in failure and resulted in Britain tightening its grip on Ireland.
The struggle came to a halt during the Famine years, but the handling of that disaster, the holding of available food from the starving people, the mass evictions, the enforced Emigration and the holding of the land by absentee landlords shifted the focus of the struggle from a Nationalist fight to a struggle over ownership and possession of land.
THE LAND WAR
THE FAMINE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_War
The struggle over land continued into the early 20th Century, officially up to 1911, but in the poorer areas, right into the 1920s following the treaty granting 26 counties independence.
LAND AND REVOLUTION
Politically, The Home Rule Movement, which had come into being at the beginning of the 19th century, fought peacefully for a situation where Ireland could remain within the British Empire but could enjoy a degree of autonomy; "an Irish legislature with responsibility for domestic affairs. It was variously interpreted, from the 1870s was seen to be part of a federal system for the United Kingdom"
HOME RULE MOVEMENT
Three Home Rule Bills were presented to Parliament, the first two, in 1886 and 1893 were all rejected by the House of Lords, Asquith stated his parties's position in 1902;
""Is it to be part of the policy and programme of our party that, if returned to power, it will introduce into the House of Commons a bill for Irish Home Rule? The answer, in my judgment, is No.""
His opposition was galvanised by his attempts to appease the Ulster Unionists
"One of the major problems faced by Asquith was appeasing those in the region known as Ulster who were against any form of Home Rule.
The opposition to Asquith in Parliament had now adopted the title the Unionist Party. It comprised of an assortment of parties but was dominated by the Conservative Party. They were naturally opposed to Home Rule. Before 1910, the Unionists had put their faith in the House of Lords rejecting any form of Home Rule Bill – as proved to be the case in 1886 and 1893. After the Parliament Act of 1911, they could no longer do this. The Unionists feared that any form of Home Rule would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. In this they had the full support of many.
Some Unionists like George Wyndham, believed that the country had every reason to use every means at its disposal to stop Home Rule in its tracks – including using the army to stop Asquith!
"(The Tories and the King) have the money, the Army and the Navy and the Territorials, all down to the Boy Scouts. Why then should they consent to a change in the constitution without fighting?" (Wyndham)
By 1911, the Unionists were led by Arthur Bonar Law who was against Home Rule. However, despite all the arguments for and against Home Rule, a Home Rule Bill was introduced into Parliament in April 1912. Its contents were similar to the ones of 1886 and 1893.
Still violently opposed to Home Rule in any shape or form, the Unionists armed themselves against its introduction and declared itself prepared to embark on Civil War to prevent it being enacted.
"However, all talk of Home Rule ended when World War One broke out. Redmond agreed that the issue should be postponed for the duration of the war. Many in Ireland agreed that this was the patriotic thing to do – even staunch supporters of Home Rule."
HOME RULE AND IRELAND
The Bill was put on ice (never fully agreed and never enacted), and was eventually sabotaged by Lloyd George, who altered one of its main conditions, unilaterally and secretly changing the negotiated clause that partition should be introduced for six years, at which time it should become fully independent.
This was unacceptable to Redmond's Parliamentarians who described it an act of treachery, the Home Rule Movement collapsed and Ireland entered into a War of Independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:40 AM

did you read the article Greg, it verifies what both sides are saying in this discussion , in different places it both confirms what jim is saying and what keith a and teribus say , read it in full again

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:21 AM

John Waters may be a lot of things - homophobe, depression-denier, domestic violence apologist, journaslist, etc, but one thing he ain't is an historian.

But at least he's alive, and his journalistic productions are available at high road book-sellers.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:19 AM

Very interesting article GSS, thank you for posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 09:06 AM

As for majorities - had the entire island of Ireland been given the vote on independence at the time, it would have voted overwhelmingly for Indendence

Opinion masquerading as fact.

Had Ulster as a whole been given the vote, the result would have been the same.

It wasn't and you have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty how people would have voted. Again opinion masquerading as fact. And just because an author states an opinion or the opinion of someone else in a history book does not make that opinion a fact.

As it was, the decision of permanent partition was taken unilaterally and secretly on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, who claimed to represent two thirds of the six counties, but in fact were a minority of the population as a whole, a minority of the Protestant population and divided among themselves - a minority of a minority of a minority.

Ah you mean much in the same manner as:

As it was, the decision to instigate and mount an armed rising was taken unilaterally and secretly on behalf of the Irish Volunteers by seven men, who claimed to represent the entire movement throughout Ireland, yet who had to keep their plans secret from the executive committee and membership of that organisation and were in fact representing a minority of the Irish Volunteer Movement, a tiny minority of the population and divided among themselves - a minority of a minority of a minority.

However in the case of the Unionists they had lodged their objection in 1912 when the Bill was first introduced, those objections were given in Parliament by the MPs for Ulster elected by the people of Ulster. I think Keith supplied the demographics but a massive percentage of the Protestant population of the North signed the Covenant and Declaration in 1912 stating clearly that they would resist Home Rule by all means necessary. No such clarion signal was given in support of Independence in the South at that time - support for Home Rule yes, but independence No. Agreements relating to six year temporary exclusion came to nothing in part because of the Easter Rising and the Unionists in the North saw exactly the style of Government they could expect from Dublin after the 1918 General Election. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 called for two autonomous self-governing areas on a temporary basis, the Unionists accepted this and established their own Parliament, the Sinn Fein Government in Dublin rejected it and fought the Irish War of Independence, tell me why didn't the whole of Ulster fight for Irish Independence if what you said above was true? The war which resulted in a stalemate was brought to and end with the negotiation, ratification and signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which gave six counties of Ulster the option to secede from the newly created Irish Free State and that is exactly what their Parliament did one day after the creation of the Irish Free State was announced (6th December, 1921, Ulster seceded on the 7th December 1921). Hardly unilaterally they'd been discussing it for damn near ten years.

Their power came from the barrel of a gun and they were prepared to plunge the whole of the island of Ireland into civil War (when it was still a part of Britain) in order to mantain that power."

Nope their power came from the display of solidarity displayed in 1912. In comparison the Pearse faction of the Nationalists their power really did come from the barrel of a gun and they actually did use them, in Dublin in the Easter of 1916, during the War of Independence and then again after they had refused point blank to follow the democratic will of the elected representatives of the people of the newly created Irish Free State when they actually did plunge the newly independent state into a Civil War in an attempt to overturn the treaty and impose their will on the people. Please don't say that "the people" supported them - they didn't only 3.33% of the population turned up for their idiotic and totally unnecessary civil war.

Tell me Jim is the United States of America any less independent by being a Federation of independent states each of whom have their own state executives, legislatures and judiciaries?

Is Australia any less independent by being a Commonwealth of independently governed states with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State?
During WWI when expansion of their Commonwealth Defence Act 1911 to include service overseas was being discussed in Australia the plebiscite was run on a state by state basis, three voted for expansion and three voted against. Being a plebiscite all votes were lumped together and counted and those opposed to the expansion of the Act won.

Is Canada any less independent being Confederation of Provinces each with their own self ruling Parliaments?

The Unionists in the six counties wanted nothing to do with a united independent Ireland in which they, according to their perception, would always be a minority and in which they would always shoulder the main burden of taxation, their trade and industries relied heavily on being part of the United Kingdom, being part of a united independent Ireland was simply not in their best interests and they said so very plainly, when no-one in either Dublin or London paid them any attention they registered their objections in an even plainer manner, signed their Covenant and formed the Ulster Volunteer Force. Now then that had nothing to do the interference or imposition by any foreign power - That was simply how a large minority group of Irishmen in the North viewed independence. Or are they still to you "Blow-In Newcomers" from 500 years ago with no right to speak of at all? No right of self-determination.

In 1914 both Redmond and Carson had agreed to a temporary exclusion for Ulster and had the nationalists held off and had the Easter Rising never happened I believe that the two sides would have come closer together. But that is not what happened and the events of Easter 1916 polarised and hardened views of both nationalists and unionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 May 16 - 08:41 AM

here is an article from the irish times written by john waters friday april 29 2011, especially for joe offer and other nit pickers about quotes.
this rather shows that dublin did not support the easter rising.what proportion of the irish population lived in dublin in 1916 50 per cent?


"In a sense, Dublin never quite seceded from the British empire, but seems to gaze forlornly across the Irish Sea, writes JOHN WATERS
WHENEVER THE events in Dublin of 95 years ago are raised, someone invariably tables a reminder that the Easter Rising had little or no support among the people of Dublin.
And indeed, while there are accounts not in accord with this version, there was undoubtedly some vociferous opposition to the Rising, mainly from the wives of men fighting in the war against Germany, and therefore dependants of the British crown. In his 1995 book, The Easter Rebellion, Max Caulfield noted that, as the rebel prisoners were marched away under arrest, they were attacked by working-class women, who pelted them with rotten vegetables and emptied chamber pots over them.
In his eyewitness account, The Insurrection in Dublin, James Stephens wrote: "Most of the female opinion I heard was not alone unfavourable, but actively and viciously hostile to the rising. This was noticeable among the best-dressed classes of our population; the worst dressed, indeed the female dregs of Dublin life, expressed a like antagonism, and almost in similar language. The view expressed was 'I hope every man of them will be shot'."
Because of the odd cultural dynamics nowadays attending these discussions, such accounts are usually presented as reflecting badly on the rebels. There is another perspective: that they reflect badly on Dublin and her citizenry.
The Dublin of the time was really just another provincial city of the British empire, bought in body, mind and spirit. It was in hardly any sense a capital city, but an outpost of British colonialism, more connected through governance, economics and culture to the "mainland" than to the country at its back, and unmoored from the Irish nation by virtue of its complicity in the continuing occupation of Irish hearts, minds and territory.
With a deliberate, strategic obtuseness, our dominant conversations nowadays seek to depict the Rising as a failed attempt to take power in the capital. But in the minds of its key leaders this was simply the most literal and least potent dimension of their endeavour. The idea that there was a realistic chance of gaining power, especially following the non-arrival of promised troops and munitions from Germany, was about the last thing on anyone's mind.
The point was to reclaim Dublin for the Irish nation by a gesture that would resonate for generations, to redeem Dublin of the sins of its acquiescence in the subjugation of Ireland.
In a letter to his mother on the eve of his execution, Pearse wrote: "We have preserved Ireland's honour and our own. People will say hard things of us now, but we shall be remembered by posterity and blessed by unborn generations."
Pearse insisted the battle they were fighting was not merely against Britain/England, but was a struggle for "the national soul", compromised and contaminated by centuries of interference and occupation. True independence, he wrote in The Spiritual Nation, "requires spiritual and intellectual independence as its basis, or it tends to become unstable, a thing resting merely on interests which change with time and circumstances".
This is a succinct description of what befell the business end of Ireland under British rule, and remains largely accurate of Ireland today.
It is worth recalling that just two of the signatories of the Proclamation, Pearse and Joseph Mary Plunkett, had been born and raised in Dublin. Thomas MacDonagh was from Tipperary, Seán MacDiarmada from Leitrim, and Éamonn Ceannt from Ballymoe, on the border between Roscommon and Galway. The other two, James Connolly and Thomas Clarke, were born outside Ireland.
It is pointless trying to arrive at a settled understanding of the Easter Rising in Irish culture unless we reflect deeply on these facts. Nowadays, we think of Dublin as entitled to speak for Ireland, as ruling over the State, albeit today in a certain quasi-democratic fashion. But Dublin is only a small part of Ireland, and by far the least representative part, an administrative capital that has hardly covered itself in glory by the quality of its administration.
It is impossible to imagine that, if the capital was Galway or Westport, this country would bear any resemblance to its present condition, which is largely a reflection of Dublin's confusing influence and control.
Dublin may well be the "brain" of Ireland, but this entity is by no means coterminous with the Irish mind. Our Dublin-based, supposedly "national" media are not so much Dublin-centric as Anglo-centric, obsessed with exploring comparisons between Ireland and Britain and promoting British provincialism as the reality of Irish culture.
Dublin never responded to the call of the Proclamation, believing itself to have too much to lose. The result, today, is a rather strange town, lacking any significant presence of an indigenous populace or self-generated culture, inhabited and run by people from outside itself, who seem never really to settle or belong but who existentially reject and are rejected by a city with a mind of its own.
In a sense, Dublin never quite seceded from the British empire, but seems to gaze forlornly across the Irish Sea as though to a lost lover cast aside in a moment of petulance. In this sense the Easter Rising might reasonably be said to have failed to achieve its primary objective."
jim, what have you to say about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 07:29 AM

"he was most definitely NOT speaking for the entire nation"
Redmond as a supporter of The Home Rule Bill which kept Ireland in the Empire for an AGREED period.
As for majorities - had the entire island of Ireland been given the vote on independence at the time, it would have voted overwhelmingly for Indendence,
Had Ulster as a whole been given the vote, the result would have been the same.
As it was, the decision of permanent partition was taken unilaterally and secretly on behalf of the Ulster Unionists, who claimed to represent two thirds of the six counties, but in fact were a minority of the population as a whole, a minority of the Protestant population and divided among themselves - a minority of a minority of a minority.
Their power came from the barrel of a gun and they were prepared to plunge the whole of the island of Ireland into civil War (when it was still a part of Britain) in order to mantain that power.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 07:12 AM

You have been given the specific question which was not about The Easter Rising but directly relating the the subject you are protesting about - to repeat:
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."
Your response
"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."
You are saying partition is not an abomination.
No partitioned country under the jurisdiction of a foreign power can be described as "Independent in any shape or form.
You are supporting partition ero you are opposing independence.
Ireland was no more a "quaint little country than Britain was when it was divided into small Kingdoms and that aside, what it was like 800 years ago is totally irrelevant to what it has become since - so what relevance has that got to Easter Week or anything really?
You use the Normans to respond to an opposition to partition and you complain of others bringing in the repressive nature of the six counties since partition - you have to be joking!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 07:12 AM

Apologies pressed the submit button too early:

John Redmond in 1914:
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."

1: I think in reading that it is perfectly obvious to all and sundry that John Redmond is speaking for "Irish nationalists" - he was most definitely NOT speaking for the entire nation.

2: Speaking as he was in 1914 John Redmond would be painfully aware of the fact that rather a large minority of Irishmen and Irishwomen wanted absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an Independent united Ireland. While a two nation "theory" (Note the use of that word "Theory") might be an abomination and a blasphemy to an Irish Nationalist it would not be to an Irish Unionist.

Any argument with any of that?

Am I the only one to note the incongruity of the nationalists demanding their right to self-determination while at the same time denying that self-same right to the Unionists?

My response:

"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."

A simple observation and a plain statement of fact that you Jim Carroll seem to agree with judging by what you stated Date: 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 06:55 AM

you used the Normans toi justify partition

Nope.

The whole Norman thing and any reference to it comes from me answering a specific question that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Easter Rising. The question came from a couple of people, Joe Offer being one of them. He asked what the British were doing in Ireland I merely pointed out to them:

1: That the Normans had been invited over to Ireland by a minor Irish King who had been deposed by the High King and he sought assistance from Henry II of England in reclaiming his land.

2: That Ireland was not a unified country at that time being a collection of small kingdoms based on tribal groups - i.e. BEFORE the Normans landed there was no notion of any national identity.

Purpose of the post was to dispel any quaint notion that any country such as Ireland existed BEFORE the Normans got there.

The exchange had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.

John Redmond in 1914:
"Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."

I think in reading that it is perfectly obvious to all and sundry that John Redmond is speaking for "Irish nationalists" - he was most definitely NOT speaking for the entire nation.



Your response
"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 05:45 AM

What have the Normans got to do with anything then?
The actual exchange - reference to Redmond's objection to the partition of Ireland.
If a country is split in two with one part under foreign jurisdiction it cannot be claimed in any way to be independent - you used the Normans toi justify partition - ir really doesn't get any more simple than that.
Jim Carroll

John Redmond in 1914: "Irish nationalists can never be the assenting parties to the mutilation of the Irish nation. The two nation theory is to us an abomination and a blasphemy."
Your response
"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 05:39 AM

Jim Carroll directs to a post that is supposed to illustrate that I said that Ireland was not entitled to Independence – It is actually one of his own posts - Here it is:

"that Ireland was not entitled to independence". {A statement I have never made}

Ireland is Ireland - one country for at least 800 years and that it is inconceivable to the vast majority of Irish people that - You put forward that that Ireland was only a united nation up to Norman times {I SAID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, which, as far as I am concerned, directly calls into question its validity as a nation - you decline to respond to the fact that the Six Counties were the invention of a foreign power and have only been in existence for less than a century.

By the way here is what I did say:

"they were never a united nation PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE NORMANS, they were a collection of small kingdoms

That you read and your amazing skill when it comes comprehension of the English language got it 180 degrees out, I take it that you are aware that "prior to" means BEFORE. You yourself stated that Ireland had been Ireland for 800 years, so that would take us back to 1216 and the Normans arrived in Ireland in 1169 - close enough for you.

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

Joe Offer - 20 May 16 - 04:06 AM

1: I have never ever stated that I thought or in any way believed that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

2: But Jim Carroll clearly stated in one of his posts that that is what I had said.

3: I have been requesting Jim Carroll to direct me to the post in which I said that I believed that Ireland was not entitled to independence. He has steadfastly refused to do this.

(As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL).

4: The point I am trying make should be fairly obvious I did not and have never ever stated that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence and I want a clear statement from Carroll that acknowledges that fact.

Whenever I have been shown to be in error, I have apologised and admitted my error - I have done so to you and to Raggytash on this very thread.

but it seems crystal-clear that the point you were making over and over again, was that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

When Joe? please give me an example, one should be pretty easy to come up with if what you say is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:30 AM

I did not and would not have stated that Ireland was not entitled to independence.
I believe in the right of people to self determination.
My case has been that the rising was not just irrelevant to the gaining of independence, but set it back years, destroyed any prospect of a united independent Ireland, and led to years of war and death.

This discussion is about the rising, not the legitimate struggle for self determination.
The rising had no mandate. Just the undemocratic power of the gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:23 AM

"You get to tell people what they think and irrespective of the truth of the matter you get to tell them what they said? And you have got the brass-neck to witter on about bully boys."
You have dragged this thread on interminably; you have insulted anybody who disagrees with you, you have either ignored or insulted what they put up without responding to it ("Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest"), and now you are repeating the same old, same old without any reference to anything that has been said beforehand -(eg- "that Ireland was not entitled to Independence" - If that is true then show us the post where either of us has stated anything even remotely like that". how many times have I responded to that at length" - try (Date: 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM) - and around and around we go.........!!!
I'm not telling you how to make your contributions - I'm saying what I intend to do.
We don't have to talk to each other, but if we do, I expect a little more than have my contributions described as irrelevant twaddle - they are neither - they are all directly addressed to the topic in hand and they all come from accredited, researched and identified sources.
You want to debate - do so with facts and, given your track record, I would prefer them to be accredited, as mine have been and not unqualified pronouncements.
You don't want to debate, fine by me too, then I'll do what I said I'd do (or not do) as the mood takes me.
I have covered every single point you have just made over and over again, and as many as I can manage of the rest of your points - I have avoided nothing - you simple repeat the same points as if they hadbeen ignored; now you want to argue about the arguments - life is far too short and, as far as I'm concerned, this subject is far too interesting.
Up to you (as far as I'm concerned, Keith's out of it unless he lifts the needle out of the groove.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 May 16 - 04:06 AM

Wait! Wait! Wait!

Teribus, if you were NOT saying that Ireland was not entitled to independence, what is the point that you are trying to make? You complain about people putting words in your mouth, but it seems crystal-clear that the point you were making over and over again, was that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

If that's not what you were saying, what are you trying to say? Say it clearly and simply, and don't clutter it up with irrelevant sidetracks. What is it that you think about all this?

Thanks.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 16 - 02:54 AM

So is this all to do with your "pecking order" Jim? You get to tell people what they think and irrespective of the truth of the matter you get to tell them what they said? And you have got the brass-neck to witter on about bully boys.

You came out on this thread with a very clear statement that both Keith A and myself had said that we thought "that Ireland was not entitled to Independence".

If that is true then show us the post where either of us has stated anything even remotely like that.

"I've given you my reasons for doing so" - Unfortunately the reasons you have given do not meet the criteria of being anything even remote like saying that we thought "that Ireland was not entitled to Independence".

"You still offer no substantiation to your claims"

Now let me see what my "claims" were:

1: That the Home Rule Bill of 1912 was passed by Parliament to become the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - You on the other hand had stated that it hadn't because it had been defeated by Tories and the House of Lords - The only substantiation I require for this is that the Bill became an Act, and anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can look that up.

2: That there was no Mutiny at the Curragh in March 1914 - you claimed that it was "The first Act of Military aggression" - Substantiation that no mutiny had occurred was provided in the link you yourself supplied.

3: That the Rising did not have the support of the people - hell it didn't even have the support of the Leadership of the movement that carried it out. You on the other hand claimed that it had the support of "the people of Ireland" your substantiation being Sinn Fein election victory in 1918 - sorry but what happened in 1918 does not in any way serve as an indicator of how the population felt on March 23rd 1916. The Irish Volunteers in 1914 numbered ~180,000 to ~200,000 as a generous estimate, when war came this organisation was split into the Redmondite Faction (92.5%) and the Pearse Faction (7.5%). The Redmondites supported the British War effort the Pearse faction did not instead they wanted an armed rising supported by Germany. All that is a matter of record

4: The Leaders of the rising and signatories of the Proclamation colluded with the enemy in time of war. Your idiotic response to that was that they had only asked Germany for weapons, your substantiation a photograph showing a propaganda banner.

What substantiates my claim:
- The IRB meeting in September 1914 to stage an armed rising while Great Britain was engaged in a war with Germany and that assistance from Germany should be sought:
- The German declaration of November 1914
- The Ireland Report submitted to German High Command by Sir Roger Casement in 1915 requesting that German Officers be made available to act as advisors and for German troops to be landed on the west coast of Ireland
- The capture and arrest of Sir Roger Casement on 21st April 1916 after he had landed from a German submarine off Banna Strand.
- The capture of the Captain and crew of the Aud a German ship transporting German arms in time of war to the rebels. The arms never arrived as the crew scuttled the ship to avoid capture by the Royal Navy.
- The reference in the Proclamation to Germany as "Gallant Allies in Europe".

All the above are all matters of record and established fact.

5: You claimed that the Government of Ireland Act 1914 had been altered - All the evidence indicates that it had not - Asquith abandoned his Amending Bill on the 4th August 1914 (Something else had come up)

6: You claimed that the Unionists had forced the condition of permanent partition into the Amendment Bill Asquith was working on - They hadn't they had accepted a temporary agreement for six years on the 8th July 1914. Again all a matter of record.

7: You claimed that conscription was a significant factor "immediately the war broke out" - It couldn't have been as conscription did not exist as far as the British Armed forces were concerned, it was not introduced until 1916 and expressly excluded Ireland.

8: You claimed that Dublin was bombarded by British Heavy Artillery - it wasn't, no heavy artillery was deployed in Ireland and you were supplied a link that clearly established that fact.

9: You claimed that the fires that started in Dublin were caused by British artillery fire - I pointed out to you that looters started the fires on Sackville Street on the 24th April, 1916 and that British artillery did not arrive in Dublin until the day after, to substantiate my claim I provided a link to a joint RTE and Boston College Chronology of the Easter Rising. At no time at all has anybody ever claimed that artillery fire did not start fires, but they were not the sole cause of the fires as you claimed.

10: You claimed that Lloyd George has written a letter to Carson guaranteeing permanent partition - No proof ever given of this by you. All accounts on the other hand indicate that what assurance that Lloyd George give Carson was that the Unionists would not be forced into an Ireland ruled from Dublin against their will.

11:You claim that conscription was used as a threat or a bargaining chip in relation to the enactment of the Home Rule Act of 1914 - all immaterial as conscription was never enforced in Ireland and after the Easter Rising in 1916 as far as the Unionists were concerned the 1914 Act was a dead duck , this turned out to be the case and it was repealed and replaced by the 1920 Act which was enacted and accepted by the Unionists in the North and rejected by Sinn Fein.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:32 PM

"How dare you write a post based upon attributing me with holding the view that Ireland was not entitled to independence."
How dare you suggest you don't - I've given you my reasons for doing so and you have choose to respond with denial only.
You still offer no substantiation to your claims, and you still have not responded to any of the masses of documented evidence I have put up other than to describe it as "Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest."
Keith has reduced his virtually non-existent contribution to 'cracked record imitations.
Fine - here's what I intend to do.
If I do decide to continue with this (haven't decided yet), I will sum up each argument we have had and will link you to my responses and request a reply - I will also continue to add to the masses of information I have already supplied (which has apparently got right up your nose) - there really is a wealth of it to be had.
I will not respond to any of the type of evasive question questions you are now putting up such as "How many Irishmen were conscripted in Ireland for service in the British Armed Forces"
You've already had masses of response to that, specifically in the form of cabinet notes from the period.
If you are unwilling or unable to give honest responses to these, I will move on until I get bored.
You are offering no facts, documented or otherwise - all you are offering is what you would like to have happened to fit your own preconceptions.
I won't be bothering with Keith any more - shouldn't have in the first place, as he has admitted hi has no knowledge and no interest in acquiring any.
You appear to have an interest, but no knowledge - as Billy Connolly once said "sad but saveable".   
You want to swap Ideas - fine, I'm happy to to do that; you want to reapeat the same thing over and over again; talk to Keith - that appears to be all he wants out of these discussions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:18 PM

Jim Carroll - 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM

How dare you write a post based upon attributing me with holding the view that Ireland was not entitled to independence.

Although you have accused me of holding such a view - I have never ever said anything like that and you have now been asked God knows how many times now to come up with the post in which I stated any such view - To date you haven't - because you can't - be honest enough to simply admit it. If you cannot admit it then you are in fact guilty of "inventing stuff".

You have questioned Ireland as a united nation therefore you have suggested that it is not entitled to full independence

The above is a perfect example of someone putting words into someone else's mouth.

You put forward that that Ireland was only a united nation up to Norman times

No I most certainly did not!! Exactly the reverse in fact - Ideas and any concept of a national identity only started to form AFTER the Normans arrived, prior to that, Ireland had consisted of a number of small kingdoms, a collection of tribal groups with no concept of nationality at all.

Six Counties were the invention of a foreign power and have only been in existence for less than a century.

Northern Ireland was the invention of those who lived there, it came into being because those who lived there freely exercised their right to self-determination.

Great Britain only became a unified sovereign state in 1707. around six-and-a-half centuries after the Norman invasion - does that invalidate Britain as a unified entity - of course it doesn't it it is crass to suggest otherwise.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being with the ACTS of Union in 1707, in forming that Union neither England or Scotland lost their sovereignty, national identity or their laws. From that date an additional sense of being British was born.

Independence is full independence, not just for Ireland but for any nation - that's what the word means - free from restraints and interference of any other nation - and that is what both of you have consistently opposed.

So on 6th December 1921 the Irish got their independence as a single 32 county nation, free from the restraints and interference of any other nation. Also in 1921 on 7th December the six northern counties that formed part of Ulster exercised their right and seceded from that independent Ireland. If you demand and support the right of self-determination then you must support and defend that right for all. The Easter Rising, the War of Independence and the Civil War all ensured that the Unionists in the North would never come into the fold of a united independent Ireland.

By the way; enforeced or inveigled, or brought about by necessity conscription of one form or another is always a possiblity in wartime - that was the situaltion from August 1914 onwards

Conscription, as we are talking about here is relatively new and came from the "levee en masse" introduced by the French during the French Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic War. Other countries in Europe copied the French but the British did not. The first time Britain reluctantly introduced conscription was in 1916, the practice ended in 1920. Conscription was re-introduced in 1939, what was called wartime service remained until 1948 and then continued until 1960 with what was known as National Service.

Your idiotic statement about it being an issue immediately war broke out is laughable.

Jim Carroll - 19 May 16 - 12:49 PM

Two simple questions:

When was ANY Conscription or Military Service Act EVER enforced in Ireland or anywhere else for that matter outside of mainland UK?

How many Irishmen were conscripted in Ireland for service in the British Armed Forces?

As for the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - it was never enacted. It was repealed, abandoned and replaced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, an Act that called for the creation of two Home Rule States, Northern and Southern Ireland. To attempt to imply that conscription played any part in the decision to instigate the rising in Dublin it is not the minutes of a 1918 Cabinet meeting we want to see - its the minutes of the IRB meeting held in September 1914 where they resolved to rebel while Britain was at war with Germany and to seek German help to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 02:31 PM

Finished with you Keith
Now you are just repeating what has been sent crashing in flames.
If your mate starts up the same - it's back to the pile of books.
Like trying to teach trigonometry to infants
You don't even have the courtesy to respond to what's been put up.
You're a waste of time - both of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 01:30 PM

"Home rule was in the bag."
Until Lloyd George moved the goalposts.

Nothing was changed until the rising, and then because of the rising.

As it happens, it was always and only the Unionists who offered opposition to Home Rule

They agreed the 1914 Bill.

Conscription.
Irish were excluded before the rising, but a German victory would have been catastrophic for Britain including Ireland.
If that became a real possibility then it would be necessary to think the unthinkable.
In early 1918 that was briefly the situation, but it quickly passed.

Only the prospect of imminent defeat made the contingency briefly necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 12:49 PM

Keith
These are the details in full of the Cabinet meeting discussing the enforcing of conscription on Ireland.
They are interesting for a number of reasons.
They show how close Ireland came to conscription.
They show that Lloyd George intended to introduce conscription, no matter what the cabinet decided.
They show that they were fully aware of the link between the future of conscription and The Home Rule Bill.
And they also show that the British were first prepared to introduce Home Rule and then apply enforced conscription when that had taken place, committing Ireland to any war Britain deemed necessary.
I've put the full debate in (from Cabinet Meeting Papers researched by Carlton Younger) Truth to tell, I'm only bothering my arse about this because it turns me on to see you deny the same things over and over again - must be getting kinky in my old age!!
Now, for the last time
Jim Carroll

……as Home Rule had been carried in Parliament. It would be a mistake not to take the necessary powers until after the Home Rule Bill was through as the Irish might resist Home Rule. "We must not give them that incentive," he said. And, with less of his earlier forthrightness, he declined also to undertake categorically to postpone the application of conscription until the Home Rule Bill was through. Here was the usual Lloyd George loophole; having stated his intention, he reserved the right to change his mind. It would take time to put conscription into force, he explained; they would have to improvise a register with the aid of the police. In the meantime, borrowed American troops would fill the gaps in the British Army, then British drafts would have to be drawn upon. Clearly, it was in his mind that, from then, only Ireland would remain as a source of manpower. His colleagues took up the argument, and the debate in the Cabinet that day is revealing.
Lord Curzon: We must stand or fall by both (measures).
Mr Bonar Law: How would you justify to the House of Commons delaying conscription? You can say, as the Prime Minister has just said, that time is required for machinery, but it must be made plain that the two Bills are not contingent.
Lord Robert Cecil: You will have to say the postponement is in connection with Home Rule.
The Prime Minister: I would say it will take time, and that time we mean to use to put through the Home Rule Bill.
Lord Robert Cecil: You will have to indicate that both will have to be worked together.
Lord Milner: It is our intention to proceed with conscription even if the Home Rule Bill is generally opposed.
Dr Addison: We can say, "You are getting the right of self-government, you must do your share to defend your liberties."
Mr Bonar Law: Suppose we start with trying to force both Bills through, and then find that Members of all kinds are opposed to the Home Rule Bill, how can you possibly carry if through?
Answering, the Prime Minister said it was "absurd to decide what we can do before the crisis arises. "
Mr Churchill: The two measures should be regarded as independent, and be simultaneously introduced. I do not see the
advantage of delaying the application of the Military Service Act to Ireland. The dual policy should be loyally followed. I would press forward on the two roads. There is a great deal to be said against any delay in action once conscription is announced.
Mr G. N. Barnes: You have in the Bill a clause which would deal with the Sinn Feiners who are now drilling. That can be applied at once. I cannot assent to apply conscription willy-nilly without any guarantee of Home Rule. I shall have to reserve the right to reconsider the position later.
Lord Robert Cecil: I do not know what the Cabinet's scheme of Home Rule is. Many of my Unionist colleagues are in the same position. I am anxious to get conscription through in Ireland, and am prepared to pay a high price to get men in this emergency.
The Prime Minister: I can only say, in a general way, that our scheme will proceed on the lines of the Cabinet letter, with safeguards for Ulster in the shape of an Ulster Committee.
Mr Bonar Law: You do not ask your colleagues to commit
themselves today to the form of the Home Rule Bill.
The Prime Minister: That would be hardly fair.
Mr Herbert Fisher: Has not the Government given a pledge to proceed if there was substantial agreement at the Convention?
The Prime Minister: I do not think you can say that 44 to 29 is substantial agreement. We are now going on the other line: that, failing substantial agreement, the Government will produce a Bill, and in that Bill we must make provision for Ulster.
Mr Bonar Law: It is absurd to ask Ministers to commit themselves now.
Mr Churchill: That is a hard saying. The enforcing of conscription on Ireland is a rupturing of political associations and involves a complete new orientation of antagonisms, and therefore it is folly not to see how grave that decision is. I could not agree to that unless our Unionist friends come with us on the other measure, which profoundly affects opinion here, in Ireland, and in the United States. It is hard that we should commit ourselves to conscription unless we can count on cordial agreement among our Unionist colleagues that they will go forward in support of Home Rule with equal energy. Dr Addison concurred.
The Prime Minister: That is the policy of the Government. The Cabinet have agreed to a definite plan.
Mr Bonar Law: But the letter gives no definite plan.
The Prime Minister: Unless we follow the lines of the Cabinet letter and the Cabinet agreement, then I cannot put forward conscription for Ireland on Tuesday.
Mr Bonar Law: It depends upon the form in which the principles of the letter are put in the Bill.
Lord Curzon: We have accepted the broad principles of the letter, and our colleagues are entitled to see the letter.
Mr Bonar Law: It must depend on whether the Bill carries out the principles of the letter.
The Prime Minister: That is a different matter.
Lord Milner: I am prepared to accept such a Home Rule Bill as conforms generally to the proposals put forward in the Prime Minister's letter to the Convention. It is very hard for us to support such a Bill if Ulster opposes it, but I am prepared to do that and to put forward every effort in support of the Home Rule Bill but I am not prepared to abandon conscription even if we completely fail with the Home Rule Bill. Mr Barnes: Why not put both in one basket? I am voting for conscription because I am thereby hoping to get Home Rule. If not, I shall have to reconsider my position.
Lord Robert Cecil: If I vote for Home Rule it is because I hope thereby to get conscription.
Mr Barnes: If we fail we can go to the country.
The Prime Minister: We could not do that. The Government can go if we fail.
Lord Derby: We must stake our existence on passing both Bills.
Mr Herbert Fisher: Are you definitely satisfied that there is a military advantage in applying conscription to Ireland? I feel absolutely with you as to the bad effect on English public opinion of continuing to exempt Ireland; but we should look at it as a cold military proposition. English public opinion is sound. Our artisans will do their duty. You have to decide whether it is worth your while to enforce conscription in Ireland and thereby perhaps obtain disaffected elements for your army.
Lord Derby: They will be distributed through the army.
The Prime Minister: That is the one consideration that chiefly worried me. Is it worth while in a military sense? You will get 50, 000 at any rate, at a minimum, who will fight. These five divisions will be made up of excellent material, of young men up to twenty-five, at a time when we are taking old men.
Mr Churchill: I have not met one soldier in France who does not think we shall get good fighting material from Ireland. I think the decision of the War Cabinet is a battlefield decision but a wise one.4
The new Military Service Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on April 10th. On the same day a telegram from Duke warned the Government that de Valera was urging on the Sinn Fein executive that it would suit their policy if conscription came, for they could then take systematic and violent opposition to its enforcement. According to the Chief Secretary, de Valera was advocating a policy of the stoppage of all transport work and the shooting of the recruiting authorities whether Army or Royal Irish Constabulary.5
In the Commons the Bill was vehemently opposed by the Irish Parliamentary Party, led by Dillon since the death of the brokenhearted John Redmond in March, and in protest they marched out of the House. There were misgivings still in the Cabinet.6 Barnes said he had "always understood that the policy of the War Cabinet was, firstly, to stand or fall by the two Bills", and "secondly, that military service was only to be applied in Ireland after an interval during which a measure of Home Rule could be passed." He was particularly concerned that the Home Secretary's speech had been "in favour of compulsory military service pure and simple."
Lloyd George answered that in his own speech, he believed, he had made the position clear, but he had thought it inadvisable to make too many references to Home Rule. But Barnes "could not forget the evidence which had been given before the War Cabinet by responsible men to the effect that conscription without Home Rule was out of the question." The Cabinet decided that the Home Rule Bill should be immediately prepared. Their thoughts turned now to the possibility of enlisting volunteers in Ireland "to meet the critical situation." Any approach to the Nationalist Party by the War Cabinet would be useless, but representations by the Labour Party might possibly produce results.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:44 AM

By the way - the 'Churchill' piece went on to say that the only reason that the Buckingham Palace Conference reached its theoretical conclusions was because of the outbreak of the War and, if that had not happened the Unionists would have reverted to Civil War to prevent any form of Independence.
That how much "in the bag" it was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 11:38 AM

"Yes, and it was a total failure because Irishmen VOLUNTEERED"
Some did and for different reasons as did the volunteers of Britain
"Home rule was in the bag."
Until Lloyd George moved the goalposts.
As it happens, it was always and only the Unionists who offered opposition to Home Rule - from the very outset in the 19th century, even to the point of threatening Civil War - you have the evidence, but here's a little more.
This is what Winston Churchill had to say on the Unionists continuing opposition to the Home Rule bill just as World War One broke out and after The Bill had been agreed on in principle only by those attending the Buckingham Palace Conference:
"According to Winston Churchill, the conference 'toiled round the muddy byways of Fermanagh and Tyrone', but there was no spirit of generous compromise, and the talks broke down. Sir Edward Carson certainly thought that civil war was unavoidable: 'I see no hopes of peace. I see nothing at present but darkness and shadows.... We shall have once more to assert the manhood of our race.'
A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes (Jonathan Bardon, 2008)
"There was no fear of conscription, and no need to fear. It was never imposed."
It was never opposed because compulsory involvement in the war was totally opposed from the beginning, even by the Irish Parliamentarians who supported remaining in the Empire (for six years, if you repeat this again I will have no alternative to dredge up every shred of evidence I have put up and anything else I can find - is that what you really want
"The rebels had nothing to offer, but blood and death for nothing".
Melodramatic, Post Imperialist jingoistic sloganising that could have come from an early 20th century poster.
Please try to reach some degree of maturity in your arguments and inject a little reality into this Keith
I remind you that you have yet to produce one single scrap of documented evidence of your case from the beginning of this - what you have to say is all personally opinion and we have all been aware where that stems from for a long, long time - certainly not from an interest or a modicum of knowledge of Ireland or her history - you've told us that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 10:21 AM

Jim,
It was an issue immediately the war broke out and opponents launched an fierce anti-recruitment campaign in all of the major cities.

Yes, and it was a total failure because Irishmen VOLUNTEERED in their tens of thousands because they supported the war and had no quarrel with Britain.
Home rule was in the bag.
There was no fear of conscription, and no need to fear. It was never imposed.
The rebels had nothing to offer, but blood and death for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 09:36 AM

Oh come on - this has been dealt with over and over again - you have had the researched evidence, you have offered none.
"that Ireland was not entitled to independence".
Independence for the Irish has never been anything than as a complete entity, even to the extent of fighting a Civil War when partition was forced on it and constant conflict between the two communities in the six counties has been a fact of liofe and is ongoing since partition. Ireland is Ireland - one country for at least 800 years and that it is inconceivable to the vast majority of Irish people that -
You put forward that that Ireland was only a united nation up to Norman times, which, as far as I am concerned, directly calls into question its validity as a nation - you decline to respond to the fact that the Six Counties were the invention of a foreign power and have only been in existence for less than a century.
Great Britain only became a unified sovereign state in 1707. around six-and-a-half centuries after the Norman invasion - does that invalidate Britain as a unified entity - of course it doesn't it it is crass to suggest otherwise.
Doesn't invalidate any of the units to claim independence, but that has sfa to do whith when it was united.
You have questioned Ireland as a united nation therefore you have suggested that it is not entitled to full independence - that has been your argument all along.
Irland has always been culturally united, no matter what political divisions have taken place.
The Irish in the six counties are every but as culturally Irish as are those on the rest of the island, and you only have to travell around the place to realise that.
Any divisions there might be are deliberately enforced by arms, political ones, based on religion.
Catholics suffered severely since partition, despite your differences, that has never been the case in the 26 counties - the Irish are Irish and only deliberate British interference has ever changed that.   
Independence is full independence, not just for Ireland but for any nation - that's what the word means - free from restraints and interference of any other nation - and that is what both of you have consistently opposed.
If you are incapable of understanding this perhaps you shouldn't
be here until you have some substance top back your claims - you are still producing none - none whatever.
Do note ever accuse me of "inventing" anything ever again - I don't do that, I don't see the point in doing that, I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm not even a nationalist.
It's you pair who continually manipulate or ignore facts, take them out of context or, as now, never bother with them anyway and just proclaim your opinions.
As I said - we've been through the rest dozens of times - if you have any contrary evidence put it forward - not rule books, not what should and should not happen in Parliament, not what the manual says should happen - all of which are the nearest thing you pair ever come to.
By the way; enforeced or inveigled, or brought about by necessity conscription of one form or another is always a possiblity in wartime - that was the situaltion from August 1914 onwards - the threat of having to die on the battlfield was always a threat for Irish youth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:53 AM

It {conscription} was an issue immediately the war broke out

Hardly possible as in August 1914 it didn't exist as far as the British were concerned - they only introduced it themselves in 1916!!

I have invented nothing - I don't.

Then respond to the request for you to show the post where either Keith A or myself have ever stated "that Ireland was not entitled to independence".

The fires started by the looters on the evening of the 24th April were left to burn and they were not contained in any way, rebels had fired on unarmed policemen and driven them from the area - the Dublin Fire Brigade took the hint. The looters, looted in Dublin in 1914 for exactly the same reason they looted in London not so long ago - they looted because they thought that they could get away with it. The looting stopped because Martial Law was declared on the 25th April 1916 and a curfew came into force whereby anybody abroad on the streets at night between 19:00 and 05:00 was likely to be shot.

Buildings were shelled primarily because they were fighting positions occupied by the rebels, as previously stated, that made them legitimate targets. The rebels themselves set fire to buildings to hinder the troops arrayed against them.

Indiscriminate fire for what? Five days in the middle of a capital city with a population of roughly 305,000, a city enmeshed in the violence of a rebellion that resulted in less than 500 deaths all told, I would say that that fire could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as anything even approaching indiscriminate.

And all this destruction because seven men decided to highjack an organisation and railroad their agenda through irrespective of the wishes of the executive committee of that organisation. Had those seven men just sat on their hands that Easter Ireland would have been a united independent country by 1931. It would not have seen the destruction wrought in 1916, it would not have had to endure the war of independence or the damage caused by the IRA in the dying throws of the civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 08:37 AM

" but Carroll's arguments always jumble up events in order to as you say justify the unjustifiable."
I didn't notice this
You know my name and I don't jumble up anything to justify anything - I provide concise links to what I asy, whereas you have yet to get round to it.
What I said to Keith goes for you.
I don't have to continue with this - it's hardly educational; the subject interests me - no other reason.
I'm always happy for an excuse to revisit books I haven't read for some time, and am happy to continue doing so without the help of you pair - and will continue to put up anything relevant whenever I come across it.
Neither of you show any foreknowledge of this subject and appear only to be here to justify the behaviour of our Glorious Empire - Keith has boasted he isn't even interested so, as far as I'm concerned he's as significant as a spare.... I'm sure you know the saying!
You want to continue with, curb your manners - you really don't know enough to do anything else to command my attention.
Jim Carroll

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

"Irish conscription was not an issue in April 1916."
It was an issue immediately the war broke out and opponents launched an fierce anti-recruitment campaign in all of the major cities.
It was a permanent point of discussion around the implementation of the Home Rule Treaty, both in the Unionist counties and throughout the rest of Ireland.
The fact that it had to be vetoed is evidence enough that it was an ongoing threat.
It was a permanent Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Irish people - it would have been introduced right away had it not been for the reluctance of the Redmondites to make it compulsory - he was actually a supporter of the war, his son enlisted, yet he was fully aware that the Irish people as a whole - the War itself was described by Irish historians as "highly unpopular" and "an English, not an Irish war" - you've had the quote and you've been given a list of all the many and various reasons why those who enlisted did.
"It is just another of your inventions to justify the unjustifiable."
Teribus appears to be making an effort to make this discussion viable - you obviously haven't got round to that yet.
I have invented nothing - I don't.
I'm happy to continue to responding to reasonably put points - if you are incapable of doing so, please leave now.
Personally, I'm quite happy to continue selecting from the yard or so of books on Irish history - doing so has apparently rattled enough cages to bring the exchange of ideas to this level - continue in a reasoable manner or wreck it - your choice.
"The fires in Sackville Street were started on the 24th April, those fires were not and could not have been started by artillery as there was no artillery in Dublin at that time"
The fires in started by looters were not of the extent that they could possibly have cause the damage they did to the whole of Sackville (now O'Connell) Street and nowhere has anbody ever claimed they did.
In the main, the looters looted (unless you are suggesting that they supported the Rebels) - they looted because they were poor, not because they were malicious vandals, and they went back again and again into the shops to take as much as they could - hardly likely to kill the golden goose by deliberately setting it on fire.
The looting was curtailed largely by the Rebels mounting a campaign against it as it degraded their cause.
The extensive fire damage was solely the cause of military bombardment which set buildings on fire, blew up fuel containers in premises and made it impossible for the fire-fighters to do their jobs
The first mention of fires in your timeline is at 10-30 Monday night, there is no mantion that they were major ones and the fire department was able to cope with them.
The next mention of fires is at 10-15 on Wednesday caused by hand grenades thrown into Fitzwilliam house by British troops.
The intensification of the fires is noted as happening on Thursday afternoon at 3.PM and is directly connected to artillery fire and by five o'clock artillery fire has caused them to burn out of control – that is the first mention of them being uncontrollable.
The last time looting is mentioned is on Wednesday – at no time other than Monday has it ever been identifies as the cause of any widespread fires – that, throughout the article, has been put down to British action – not the looters, not the rebels - no descriptions of the events have ever linked the damage done by fires to the looters or the rebels - nowhere.
"I will keep reminding people about that too"
And I will keep asking you to prove it - you have been given to descriptions of indiscriminate firing by the British
Eye witness account.
"The British artillery was taking its time about finding the range of the GPO, and its efforts were spraying shells far and wide. Guns in the garden of the Rotunda Hospital were lobbing shells over buildings to drop into the Sackville Street area. Some hit the roof of the Imperial. A water tank attached to a side wall, under the roof, took a direct hit and shattered. The water fell straight down into an annex where a number of Volunteers were resting – it hit them like a wave and washed them along the floor."
The same techniques of lobbing shells was used by The Helga - indiscriminate.
Conscription is a done deal here - you have the full account of it as reported by referenced British Cabinet Papers researched by Englishman, Carlton Younger.
Your speculation of what would/should have been done is as immaterial as your earlier similar claims on executions, dealing with military insubordination, the rigged trial of Tom Hayes (not to mention the deliberate murder od Francis Sheehy Skeffington).
THe facts override the rulebook every time.
Harry Patch!!!!!
More immaterial smoke and mirrors.
The war was identified as being very unpopular - if there was a "surge" it was to get it over with - at no time did it become a cause for the Irish people, especially after the murder of the Rebel Leaders.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 06:09 AM

Good point Keith - but Carroll's arguments always jumble up events in order to as you say justify the unjustifiable.

The fires in Sackville Street were started on the 24th April, those fires were not and could not have been started by artillery as there was no artillery in Dublin at that time - I will keep reminding people of this until the factual reality of that sinks in.

All targets thereafter engaged by the Government Forces were occupied by the rebels making them legitimate targets and I will keep reminding people about that too.

The claims and hysteria are now getting farcical:

"forcibly conscripting the imprisoned rebels to fight in Europe"

Now just consider that for a moment, using logic and reason, how on earth could that ever possibly work, you'd have to be a complete and utter idiot even to suggest it. But there again maybe the poster believes that it would be possible by lining up special squads of military policemen to gun them down if they didn't get out of the trench quick enough - but even that wouldn't work would it because all these forcibly conscripted armed former rebels would have to do would be to shoot the special squads of military policemen down.

Conscription in 1918? Again looking at it logically and applying reason. Starting in January 1918 the following would have to be done:

Compile the registers of those eligible;
Set up the Conscription boards for hearings;
Medical screening of conscripts;
Basic military training;
Specialist military training;
Deployment;
Theatre training whilst being held in reserve;
Deployment into the line.

Take the example of an English conscript Harry Patch who was trained as an infantryman, his specialisation was as part of a Lewis Gun team. He was conscripted in October 1916 and deployed to France having completed his basic and specialist training in June 1917 and sent into action (deployed to the line)some time in August or September 1917 as part of the Third Battle of Ypres - Now that spans a period of 10 to 11 months to complete this process. IIRC the proposed date of the suggested introduction of conscription in Ireland was AFTER the start of the German Spring Offensive (March 1918) so the earliest it could be put into practice would be April 1918. Now anybody conscripted in Ireland in April 1918 would be deployed to the line following the Harry Patch model in January or February 1919 - three months after hostilities had ended.

Another rather odd thing can be gleaned from studying the pattern of volunteering in Ireland during the First World War - In the North there was a massive rush to join in 1914 and in 1915. In the South it was a bit more gradual, but there was a surge in 1918, I think a few Irishmen in the South had seen how things were going and read the situation exactly as I have outlined above - (Free lodging, clothes, three squares a day and regular pay - for doing nowt).

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 16 - 04:51 AM

Irish conscription was not an issue in April 1916.
It had been vetoed earlier that year.
It was not even mentioned as remotely an issue by the rebels.
It is just another of your inventions to justify the unjustifiable.