BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: GUEST,Desi C
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 05:06 AM

There's a great misconception that the IRA staged the Easter rising, wrong. It was the Irish National Brotherhood. The IRA at that time was actually a Pacifist org. They were asked to support it by the Brotherhood but refused. So against it they even took out an ad in TheDublin Post waring their members not to take part! Even more remarkable is the fact that the neither the British or the Post office seemed to read the paper, as they were still un prepared on the 16th! It was a vry ill fated if brave attempt. In fact such was the lack of popular support for the Brotherhood that when they were finally led away as prisoners they were booed and jeered by the crowds!
Had the British NOT xecuted the leaders it would surely have gone down as just another failed uprising, but the executions finally stirred the Irish public out of their submissivness and into action, even the IRA were finally moved to arms
May they rest i peace. 'Beware The Risen Few'

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: mayomick
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 06:21 AM

You're mixing up Sinn Fein, the IRA and the IRB , Desi. The IRA was never a pacifist organization. Sinn Fein had pacifists in it but was never a pacifist organization (nor a republican one for that matter -Arthur Griffith its founder was a monarchist ). The IRA didn't exist in 1916 , the IRB from which the IRA was formed and the Irish Citizens Army did the fighting.

An interesting Orange song whose proud, all-Ireland dimension would make any modern Orangeman who was capable of being embarrassed blush. What's mystery , Mr Peasant other than the"dismal shade" of self-induced ignorance? Research the song and you'll find it perfectly explainable , I'm sure!

By the way re the Behan joke - there are no steps into the GPO .

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Murpholly
Date: 24 Mar 15 - 07:09 AM

G.P.O. in Dublin was re-built and is still operational as Major Post Office and as a tourist focal point. Great boards round the waiting areas depict various happenings of the Rising almost like stations of the cross!!! Will be interested to know which date they celebrate next year - Easter - or the actual date which is different with the changing dates of Easter. On last visit to Glasnevin they had almost finished the clearing up, tidying and rebuilding ready for the Centenary. Should be interesting times.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: JenBurdoo
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 02:09 AM

My dad and I visited the GPO in Dublin last year. Quite interesting. There's a video with actors playing the roles of postal employees and their reactions to the Rising, and also some good dioramas. Unrelated to the Rising is a mini-museum of postal history. Outside is a giant metal spire which stands in place of Nelson's Column and is a lot less impressive - none of the locals we met had anything complimentary to say about it.

We also spent a couple hours in a nearby bar named for one of the ringleaders (Can't remember which - Connolly?) who had spent much of his time there before the war.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:27 AM

Are all the posters on this thread drunk?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 03:28 AM

Incidentally, the term "ringleaders" for the leaders of the Rising is about as acceptable as if I were to refer to George Washington as "one of the ringleaders" of the American Rising.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:09 AM

Well, the lads didn't actually get off the ferry. They'd come over some months before and been living at Larkfield, a farm owned by Joseph Plunkett's family, and training there. George Plunkett at their head, they marched down to the Kimmage tram stop and piled on to the first tram, and George said "Fifty-two tuppenny tickets to the city centre please".

The songs that were most sung during the Rising were Step Together - always used as a marching song before the Rising while on exercises - and The Soldier's Song, now in translation our national anthem, Amhrán na bhFíann.

Incidentally, something that isn't often understood in modern times when people have more ready cash and guns are more common: the Volunteers and Citizen Army were very sparsely armed, and had very little ammunition. This was a couple of thousand men and women with shotguns and heavy Boer War era rifles and a few revolvers, and one or two with actual machine guns, and some even with old or homemade pikes and household implements, up against the most modern army in the world, armed with the most modern weapons and heavy artillery. The defenders were fighting through their home city; the attackers in many cases thought they were at the front in France, and were baffled by everyone knowing English.

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

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

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

That's the legend all right; but funnily enough, some witness statements are now surfacing, including one by a Canadian journalist, saying that in many parts of Dublin people supported the rebels.
Even this is surprising. Can you imagine the state of terror of the people of a city that is under military occupation and curfew, where you couldn't walk through town without showing a military-granted pass to soldiers of doubtful stability at every barricade, and where every day the intellectuals of the country are being shot after hasty trials of doubtful legality?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 05:54 AM

during war and revolution legality is never really an issue - all kinds of stuff goes on.

shooting people in cold blood is a shit thing to do, whatever the circumstances. its like the hanging of Casement. legally maybe they had the right - but morally, what a vile act!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 06:06 AM

"That's the legend all right; "
Coffey gaave his source for the eye witness statement.
There is no doubt that there was support throughout Ireland, but a degree of confusion surrounding the attempted calling of of the uprising byy one leader let to a great deal of confusion as to how much
My father's brother-in-law was a runner for Collins later on - wish I'd spent more time with him while he was still living
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 08:27 AM

Yes, Jim, I'm not saying it didn't happen - sorry, I should have phrased it more clearly - but the legend has grown up (or has been deliberately built) that this was the universal reaction, when it was not.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 11:02 AM

It's amazing the things you end up wishing you'd done something about at the time.

When I was an apprentice I went out on a job with my foreman. On the way back he announced that he was going to call in on an old farmer he knew, an ex-IRA man., who'd fought in the war of independence. I asked if the guy was Irish and my foreman said "No. He's English, but he got fed up with the dirty end of the stick that the Irish were getting and he decided to go over there and lend them a hand."

I was extremely shy and naive in those days, and I'd never heard of oral history. In fact, I don't think it even existed as a recognised discipline that far back, so I never did anything about it.

A few years later, this old bloke's farm was bulldozed to make room for a motorway and his memories of the troubles are now lying in a grave somewhere. Sad.

Some years later I was working in a civil engineering site office, along with a Mexican draughtsman called Eduardo. Eduardo hated General Franco, who at that time was coming to the end of his reign as Spain's only fascist dictator.

When I asked why, he explained that his father had been the Spanish Prime Minister at the time of Franco's coup, and that was why he and the rest of the family had ended up in Mexico. Unfortunately, with work commitments and whatnot, I never got the chance to follow up that conversation. But who knows what historical nuggets might have been uncovered.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 11:57 AM

That farmer might have been one of the Liverpool Lambs, aka George's Lambs, who were staying at Larkfield before the Rising. They were mostly fellows of Irish parentage or nationality who went to Ireland to a) avoid conscription into the butchery of World War I and b) joined up to free Ireland from British occupation.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 12:22 PM

Thompson. As a native of Merseyside, I'm suprised that I've never come across the Liverpool Lambs before. Could you elucidate further?

I did of course do a Google search, but all that came up was a reference to Larry Lamb. Oh hell.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 12:32 PM

Tom Barry, may have never taken part in the ester rising, at the time he was being trained by the British Army, IMO he was one of the most important people in the guerilla warfare against Britain.
I would rather have Tom Barry on my side, than people who get excited about the correct spelling of James Connolly.
Tom Barry one of irelands greatest patriots not like the wanker enda kenny

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 12:37 PM

The Liverpool Lambs was the nickname of the lads who came over from Liverpool and other places and were staying in Larkfield (sleeping in the barn and preparing a few little bombs and things for the coming Rising). They stayed there for six weeks or so, then got on the tram with George Plunkett, got off in O'Connell Street, formed up, marched to the GPO and on George's call of "LEFT - into the GPO - Charge!" they charged in, told everyone to get out, broke the windows and sandbagged them to prop their guns, and that was the start of the Rising. I think they may have been the first in; not sure about that, though.
In Jack Plunkett's witness statement to the Bureau of Military History he makes reference to them. (Jack was the youngest of the three Plunkett brothers; he was 18 during the Rising.)

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 15 - 01:03 PM

If you look for 'Liverpool' in that Bureau of Military History search you'll find names that will lead you to other names, GSS.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:13 AM

This BBC TV programme also questions the idea that Home Rule was advanced at all by those acts of violence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075f1f2

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:15 AM

"In 1916, at the height of WW1, armed insurgents rose up against the British in Dublin, the empire's second city. Using secret documents, cabinet papers, intelligence reports, military orders, diaries and letters, Michael Portillo pieces together the story of this uprising from the British point of view.

Was Dublin just another battle at a time of war where military justice was immediate and brutal or, by their actions, did the British men who wrote these documents hasten the end of an empire? Did an unlikely band of Irish rebels, led by playwrights and poets, do more to advance the cause of Irish freedom in five days than nationalist politicians had done in the previous 50 years, or did they damage the cause and condemn the island to a history of violence? Michael looks for the answers. This is the story of Ireland's Easter Rising as told by British politicians, soldiers, spies and bureaucrats."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 09:47 AM

This thread seems to be full of weasel words - "uprising" rather than Rising, "ringleaders" - and of course the ubiquitous "would have" assumptions by telepathic posters who possess time machines leading to alternate universes.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Harry Rivers
Date: 11 Apr 16 - 02:29 AM

The Guardian newspaper, a couple of weeks ago, carried a number of essays by Irish writers on the Easter Rising.

I think Glenn Patterson's reflects my own view; if only I could have put it so beautifully:

"As a rule, I am wary of small numbers of men and women taking up arms in the name of the People, especially when they start invoking God. Yet I like Ireland. I feel at home in every part of it, south as well as north. I like the people, lower case: those born here and the increasing numbers who choose to live here. The thought that any part of what I like might have been brought into being by the women and men who rose on Easter Monday a century ago is, to say the least, paradoxical.

I am reminded of Sherwood Anderson's "The Book of the Grotesque" (I live in Belfast: it's never far from my mind), which describes a world full of beautiful truths to live by and the paradox whereby a person snatching up one of those truths and trying to make it his own becomes a grotesque, and the truth so embraced a falsehood.

There is much that is beautiful in the language of the 1916 Proclamation, and much that is grotesque in what it has been used (and is still being used by some) to justify, although even within Ireland it certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that. We seriously fucked up over the Rising's golden jubilee, or "they" did (I was four, it's one of the last things of which I can truly say I am absolved): the celebrations in the south and, more lethally, the overreaction in the north. I hope this time round all who wish to remember remember, and are allowed to remember, with dignity and magnanimity.

Then maybe once this and the other forthcoming centenaries are over – the clocks have been definitively reset, from 1916 to 2016 (or 2023) – we could all try squeezing our truths a little less tight."

They can all be read here:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/26/easter-rising-100-years-on-a-terrible-beauty-is-born

Best wishes,
Harry

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: LadyJean
Date: 11 Apr 16 - 08:01 PM

There will be a commemoration of the Easter Rising here in Pittsburgh.
My dad was in Ireland, back in the 30s. He went to a movie one night and was impressed when the entire audience stood and belted their new naitonal anthem.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: GUEST,Desi C
Date: 14 Apr 16 - 06:47 AM

Why would other countries be comemorating a purely Irish rebellion!?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Apr 16 - 07:20 AM

Hi, Desi - most of the Irish live outside Ireland, don't they? A huge number of Americans claim Irish ancestry.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 16 - 11:25 AM

Sorry to digress Email not linking Hi, hope your well, Would you do me a favour and send me a good photo of the LP cover of 1070 Scotia Folk, I was never out of the pub then and want to see who I know, I wasn't there that day, nae luck!!! Any other pics too if your wife has any, thank you for taking the time to do that, Cheers Geraldine Kerlin, as I was then, Take Care

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 16 - 11:27 AM

Sorry email- [e-mail]   Geraldine

Subject: New Compositions on the 1916 Easter Rising
From: GUEST,Pat 'de Verse' Burke
Date: 15 Apr 16 - 03:39 PM

I've written one myself, 'The Murder of Skeffy', on the killing of pacifist Francis Sheehy Skeffington by Capt. Bowen Colthurst during the Rising. I should be singing it at the 1916 Song Project Concert at Lexicon Library Dún Laoghaire on Fri 22 April. I wasn't one of the original singer/song writers chosen, but I'm privileged and honoured to perform it in my home town of Dún Laoghaire. All the 1916 Song Project nights should be great occasions, so get to one if you can!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: AmyLove
Date: 15 Apr 16 - 10:28 PM

A link to the Clare songs from the Carroll Mackenzie Collection (lyrics and recordings, among other things) which Jim Carroll mentioned:

Singers and Songs of County Clare from the Carroll Mackenzie Collection

Subject: Easter Rising (1916 Song Project)
From: Pat deVerse
Date: 16 Apr 16 - 08:34 AM

Just finished watching a few video clips from last night's 1916 Song Project Concert at NLI, Dublin. Excellent songs. I loved Aileen Lambert's song...very moving. Also impressed by Paul O'Reilly's marching ballad. Good old Wexford, they never let us down. One of the few places outside of Dublin who rose at Easter 1916, and the 'Flame of '98' still sparks!

Unfortunately, I couldn't make it last ev. But am looking forward to the next night at Lexicon Dún Laoghaire on April 22.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 16 Apr 16 - 10:41 AM

Pat deVerse" a few video clips from last night's 1916 Song Project "

Would those be private or do you have a www link ?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 16 - 10:54 AM

One of the few places outside of Dublin who rose at Easter 1916,

How many rose in Dublin?
Dubliners spat on them.
How many Dubliners died because of them?
Any of the leaders ever seek an actual vote?
Only one did. Stood once as a councillor and came last.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 16 Apr 16 - 12:11 PM

How many rose in Dublin: around 1,500 armed with Franco-Prussian War era Mausers and some shotguns and handguns and a few homemade grenades, versus 30,000 British soldiers with Enfield rifles, machine guns, artillery and all the weaponry of the largest empire of the time.
Dubliners - some Dubliners - spat on them at the time; less than a month later Dublin had utterly reversed its attitude.
How many Dubliners died because of them: most of the civilians who died were killed by British sniper fire and artillery.
Any of the leaders ever seek an actual vote: James Connolly stood for the council (he was the first, and probably the only person to use election posters in Yiddish. Most of the leaders would not have stood for election to a British parliament; why should they?
However, two years after the Rising, the party that grew out of it swept all other parties away in the 1918 election.
The purpose of the Rising was to hold the city in arms for a week - even three days, on the precedent of the last war, would legally gain those seeking Irish independence a place at the Peace Conference that followed the European war.
The result of the Rising was to pull on a thread that unravelled the British Empire, the largest, most powerful empire that ever existed, which at that time covered one-fifth of the world and ruled over a quarter of the world's people.
One of the leaders of the Rising taught and three of the leaders of the Rising radicalised some of the great revolutionaries of India, who would take their example and free their country from colonisation.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 16 - 12:48 PM

Exactly as Thomson just said.
The opposition to the uprising melted away immediately the British began to execute the leaders in their usually brutish manner.
In 1918, Britain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription in Ireland and totally failed to do so because of the opposition that had built up - had they been successful, the Irish population would have been decimated, leaving the country untenable.
"did they damage the cause and condemn the island to a history of violence?"
Meant to respond to this point earlier.
Any violence that took place following Easter Week and independence can be laid at the door of the British forcing through partition, the deliberate creation of a Protestant State in the North in which the Catholic third minority were second class citizens, politically and economically - the regular Anti-Catholic riots bore witness to who actually caused the violence.
The typically brutal response to peaceful Civil Rights Protests set into motion 'The Troubles' that we all saw and in some cases experienced in the following years.
Britain has never come to terms with their own role in Ireland
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 16 - 02:18 PM

Home rule had already been agreed.
It was not brought forward by one day.
The killing was all for nothing. There could have been a peaceful transition and no civil war.
The fools, the fools.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 03:40 AM

Home Rule had already been agreed.
All tht killing did not advance it by a single day.
There would have been a peaceful transition, and no civil war saving thousands more Irish lives.

This should just be about the music.
Make your political points below where they can be answered properly

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 04:59 AM

Home Rule wasn't about independence. The Home Rule Act 1914 allowed Ireland to have a kind of playtime parliament (while still sending a few MPs to the British parliament), but every decision could be overruled by the Lord Lieutenant.

There's been a vigorous attempt to conflate Home Rule with independence, but they were not at all the same thing.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 05:06 AM

"Home Rule had already been agreed."
No it had not - it was nowhere near agreed in the period after the war ended.
If you read your history, you will find the the Home Rule Bill was defeated yet again and in Jully, 1914, King George took it on himself to call a meeting of all the Irish Parliamentarians at Buckingham Palace to see if an alternative should be reached - There was no guarantee that the conclusions would be adhered to.
No attempts were made to push through the Home Rule Bill following the end of the War and the brutality shown by the British both towards the rebels and in letting loose the Black and Tan and Auxie thugs on the Irish people as a whole led to the War of Independence which eventually brought about a treaty of sorts.
The greatest advance to Independence was probably inadvertently the result of Britain's violent response to Irish opposition.
That violence was continued in newly formed Northern Ireland by the new Protestant Government, this time aimed at the Catholic minority.
It continued right up to the 1960s, when it brought about a backlash - leading to the troubles.
You need to listen to what is being said here at present, even by those who weren't fully in support of the Rising - forget Michael Portaloo.
"This should just be about the music."
THis thread is entitled @The Easter Rising" - it was a political and historical event and those of us who wish to are quite entitled to discuss it in those terms
You were quite happy to be part of a political discussion until you painted yourself into a corner.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 05:46 AM

It's quite often forgotten the first act of military aggression against Home Rule took place at The Curragh Camp in Kildare on 20 March 1914, in sopport of the Northern Ireland Unionists, instigted by Sir Edward Carson - no arrests, no courts martials, no resignations and certainly no executions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 06:25 AM

the first act of military aggression against Home Rule took place at The Curragh Camp in Kildare on 20 March 1914, in sopport of the Northern Ireland Unionists, instigted by Sir Edward Carson - no arrests, no courts martials, no resignations and certainly no executions.

What military aggression?

As far as I am aware Army Officers submitting their resignations is not nor ever has been illegal so why should there have been any executions? What would the charge have been?

As for there being no resignations the Secretary of State for War J.E.B. Seely and the CIGS (professional head of the Army) Sir John French were forced to resign as was the Adjutant-General Spencer Ewart - three pretty senior scalps there Jom.

No idea where Thompson gets his figure of 30,000 British troops from, the actual number was 16,000 and at the start in Dublin if his figure of 1,500 volunteers is correct, then they outnumbered the forces available to the crown at the start by about 300 men, and vast bulk of the weaponry available to the greatest empire on earth in 1916 was directed elsewhere. Also Thompson it was the crushing cost of fighting the First World War that sounded the death knell of the British Empire and it was the cost of fighting the Second World War that hammered the nails into the coffin - in both those conflicts the Irish Nationalists sided with Germany (Understandable during WWI, unconscionably during WWII).

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 06:30 AM

" "This should just be about the music."
JC "THis thread is entitled "The Easter Rising" - it was a political and historical event and those of us who wish to are quite entitled to discuss it in those terms" "

I was going to argue with JC but I reread the OP. It doesn't mention music.
"Apart from Ireland will there any other countries that will be holding commemoration ceremonies for the '16 Rising?"

I'd still prefer to read the politics in BS.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 06:51 AM

Here's a piece about the Curragh Incident. Basically, the officer class of the British Army in Ireland said they would resign rather than fire on Unionists if those Unionists took military action when Home Rule was brought in.

The 30,000 British troops included those rushed in during the Rising, rather than only those present in Ireland at its start. And yes, Teribus you're right about the artillery being needed in France (if, of course, you think that the killing in France was right); Asquith's Liberal government fell in 1915 in a scandal over the lack of artillery shells available in France (the 'Shell Crisis') and he was left heading a cobbled-together coalition dominated by Ulster Unionists. So there was anger in Britain as well as in Ireland over the artillery used to destroy Dublin, though for different reasons.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 07:24 AM

"I'd still prefer to read the politics in BS."
It was the choice of them in charge to put it in this section, but even so, the logic of your argument is that we can never discus the political aspects of political songs in this section (I see there's another thread active on the subject at present).
I suggest you make a list of all the songs you will never be able to discuss on the music section - hundreds of contemporary songs, songs about strikes past and present,, Jacobite songs, eviction, transportation for poaching rising from the enclosures, songs of mutinies like The Sea Martyrs, Death of Parker, Machine Breakers.....
the list is endless.
If this forum had no BS section, all these hundreds of songs would be no-go areas.
The first earliest songs in the English language are political and are to be found in Thomas Wright's 'The Political Songs of England - from John to Edward II (in English and Latin)
"three pretty senior scalps there Jom."
"J.E.B. Seely"
As General Jack Seely, he led one of the last great cavalry charges in history at the Battle of Moreuil Wood on his war horse Warrior in March 1918
"Spencer Ewart"
He was appointed General Officer Commanding Scottish Command in 1914, a post he held until 1918: he retired in 1920.
"General John French"
We are all aware that he was deptived of taking part in WW1 - what a great loss to the war effort eh?
How sad to have ruined such promising military careers.
Give us a break Terrytoon – I meant real, forced resignations for acts of mutiny, not crowd-pleasing phoney ones.
The Government of the day put the Curragh Mutiny down to "a misunderstanding"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Thompson
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 07:27 AM

To clarify: the Curragh Incident wasn't a mutiny - it was a rebellion - the officers were saying that they would not defend their government from an attack by the Unionists.

Further on the dismantling of the British Empire: of course the deaths of huge numbers of the British ruling class and even huger numbers of its citizens (not to mention its subjects in the colonies; for instance, 1.2 million Arabs fought in the British Army) was part of the reason that the empire ceased to be, but the Rising began a great resistance in its colonies. Not to mention that several of those involved in the Indian revolution, including President VV Giri, were taught by Thomas MacDonagh in University College Dublin, and were influenced by him and by James Connolly and PH Pearse.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 08:15 AM

If you read your history, you will find the the Home Rule Bill was defeated yet again and in Jully, 1914,

It is you who needs more reading Jim.
The Government of Ireland Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 90), also known as the Home Rule Act, and before enactment as the Third Home Rule Bill, was an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom intended to provide home rule (self-government within the United Kingdom) for Ireland. It was the third such bill introduced by a Liberal government in a 28-year period in response to the Irish Home Rule movement.

The implementation was only postponed because Britain, including Ireland, were embroiled in a desperate war for their very survival and losing.

Compared to your 1500 rebels, over 200 000 Irishmen volunteered for the British Army to fight WW1.
Betrayed and stabbed in the back with weapons supplied by the enemy.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 09:05 AM

The Curragh incident was the first military action in connection with the Home Rule Bill - both that and the Government reaction to it showed that Ireland would never get Home Rule without meeting military resistance - from the top level.
Had the "betrayal" not taken place Irish youth would have suffered the same fate as British youth on the killing fields of Europe leaving the country devoid of a viable population.
WW! was an Imperial War fought in defence of the same Empire Ireland had spent centuries attempting to free itself from.
Any "support" for it was, as in Britain, an alternative to mass poverty and unemployment and a promise of a short, easy war, pretty uniform and regular meals - those who opposed the rebels did so because they adopted the attitude that the sooner it was over the better - when the facts became known they did a complete about turn - within a couple of months and participated in a War of Independence of their own.
They are all the facts, not just selected ones.
WW1 was never Irish otherwise Britain would have introduced compulsory conscription, as it had in the rest of Britain.
The Church had a massive influence on those who joined up - The Bishop of Dublin led a campaign to support 'Gallant Little Belgium' (I actually saw one of his posters last year in The National Library in Dublin).
As I said, the same con both sides of the Irish Sea.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 11:25 AM

Irish youth would have suffered the same fate as British youth on the killing fields of Europe

They did. They volunteered in their thousands. 200 000 from a tiny population.

It was not an "imperial war" for Britain and Ireland.
It was to defend Europe and ourselves from an aggressive invader bringing tyranny and slavery.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 11:33 AM

Any "support" for it was, as in Britain, an alternative to mass poverty and unemployment and a promise of a short, easy war, pretty uniform and regular meals -

Complete rubbish.
In peace time some joined for those reasons.
This mass enlistment was prompted by the German invasion of Belgium and France and the atrocities they committed.

The greatest numbers joined during and after the retreat from Mons when there was no longer any hope of a quick victory, but a real threat of utter defeat.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 11:38 AM

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."
Dr. Catriona Pennel

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 11:40 AM

"They did. They volunteered in their thousands. 200 000 from a tiny population."
And immediately changed their minds following the uprising.
It was an Imperial war for both Britain and Ireland - Britain even named the war "The Great Imperial War" and still call their museum "The Imperial War Museum" - it was a war between Empires.
Incidentally, far from a Home Rule Bill being agreed, there was the question of partition to be decided.
Originally Asquith proposed a "temporary" partitioning of Ulster later adapted to only six counties - the period had not been decided.
In 1916, following the uprising, he reintroduced the bill without the "temporary" proviso - all the Irish parliamentarians turned it down.
Although Parliament supported the bill, The House of Lords still opposed it by a large majority.
There was no agreement for Home Rule - there never had been and when it did come with the signing of the treaty in 1922 it led to Civil War - s.f.a. to to with The Easter Rising.
Even if there had been agreement Civil War would have been inevitable - only the Unionists wanted partition and the Government went along with that following the Curragh attempted military coup (which was what it was in essence)
There was never support for the war in Ireland and the government was aware of that otherwise they would have introduced compulsory conscription as they did throughout the rest of the British Isles - when they tried, they failed miserably.
Jim Carroll

Subject: BS: Easter Rising Ireland 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 02:11 PM

May we continue the non-music discussion here please?

Jim said,
And immediately changed their minds following the uprising.

Not true. They continued to serve loyally.

Incidentally, far from a Home Rule Bill being agreed, there was the question of partition to be decided.

The bill had been passed by parliament. The question of partition was unresolved, but the Dublin bloodbath hardly helped deal with that!

There was no agreement for Home Rule

Yes there was. The bill had passed.

Even if there had been agreement Civil War would have been inevitable - only the Unionists wanted partition

The civil war was not about the partition.

There was never support for the war in Ireland and the government was aware of that otherwise they would have introduced compulsory conscription as they did throughout the rest of the British Isles -

Yes there was support. Over 200,000 volunteers!
No need for conscription.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising Ireland 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 02:32 PM

"May we continue the non-music discussion here please?"
No we can't Keith - not as far as I'm concerned.
Once again you have scurried behind historians you haven't read and totally ignored the facts as seen and now being widely stated on our media by those who were involved in the form of documentary evidence they have left behind - not historians, but actual participants.
You many stick your Little Britain mind games - I have the facts of the civil war and the war of Independence - you have out-of-context quotes again - you cannot turn on the television here or open a newspaper without being bombarded by it.
Answer the points made - I have no intention of being part of closing yet another thread as you and your historian have just done
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 04:10 PM

As the music editor, I am going to overrule the decision to close this thread, and I will move the messages from the BS thread here. This will no doubt be a controversial discussion. Please stick to the subject and refrain from personal remarks or attacks. If you disagree with a point of view, refute it with facts and logic - not namecalling. Be aware that an opposing opinion gives your side an opportunity to present its case and provide information that may be of value to us all. This topic is of folkloric value, and forms the context for many important songs. Mods, leave it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising Ireland 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 04:10 PM

Keith you know next to nothing about Irish history, so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your statements are widely inaccurate and you are parroting an interpretation of history that has being cobbled together and peddled by establishment apologists and revisionists since the end of WW1.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 05:00 PM

Earlier posts have remarked on a connection between Irish nationalism, and Germany. This connection is a complex one with multiple layers. I am thinking of the sad ending to the career of Dr. Kuno Meyer.

The layer in question here is language, linguistics, literature, lyrics.

Dr. Kuno Meyer was a German born and bred, and ultimately he would die there. But his career took him elsewhere. His studies of languages led him to Dr. Ernst Windisch, a 19th-century German specialist in Middle Irish. I don't know nearly enough about Windisch, nor about Zeuss whose first name I can't recall right now, Zeuss specialized in Old Irish actually. This earlier generation of German scholars became deeply devoted to Gaelic literature. These are the professors who went and looked for the manuscripts scribed in the monasteries by Irish monks, and copied down the Gaelic quatrains in the margins, or the longer poems that filled up larger spaces such as the beloved "Messe ocus Pangur Bán."

These were the authorities in place when a relatively young Douglas Hyde pleaded the case for Gaelic as a language in its own right; he called upon them for support, and their opinions and research overcame the opposition, at least in that particular contest.

Kuno Meyer had a solid career teaching this language and literature in Dublin, and he was branching out to North America as a lecturer, when the Great War began. Because Meyer, somewhat automatically, sided with his native Germany, his career collapsed like a house of cards, because the countries in which his career was based were all opposed to the aggression of the Germans. Suddenly he could no longer teach in Dublin, and Harvard University changed its mind and decided that he did not belong on their faculty.

By the time the Easter Rising took place, Meyer was more or less persona non grata in Ireland and Englsnd. He found himself in North America, lecturing, and hanging on to the remnants of his career in linguistics. After a brief marriage to an American woman, he made his way back to the Continent; while the Ireland that he loved made its destiny without him, he returned to Germany and died in 1917.

Meyer was a scholar of such stature that an entire generation of Irish or Anglo-Irish linguists learned their craft from him, and owed their very educations and careers to professors like him.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Apr 16 - 10:29 PM

Fergie says: Keith you know next to nothing about Irish history, so stop trying to pretend that you do. Your statements are widely inaccurate and you are parroting an interpretation of history that has being cobbled together and peddled by establishment apologists and revisionists since the end of WW1.

I know you can do better than that, Fergie. Please provide historical facts to support what you have to say. Address issues, not posters. Many of us have a lot to learn about this subject. All I know, is what I read in the Leon Uris books. Well, a bit more - but not much.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:08 AM

Well at least we are getting some progress albeit slight.

The Curragh Mutiny is now acknowledged as not being a mutiny at all and is more accurately described historically as the Curragh incident, an incident in which no law (Civil, Military or Criminal) was broken, hence no trials, or executions.

The resignations mentioned were forced resignations from the high offices held not resignations from the Army.

Thompson where does this figure of 1,200,000 Arabs fighting for the British Army come from? I think I remember you bringing this up on another thread in which you also claimed that 500,000 of them were killed. Like your figure of 30,000 British troops being deployed in Ireland to counter the Easter Rising your information is just plain wrong and your figures are fanciful myth.

On India I would direct you towards Niall Ferguson on the subject

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:37 AM

Further progress in as much as the Curragh Incident originally described as being the first military aggression has now been downgraded to military action, which of course is also incorrect as no military action took place at all, what was proposed was no action at all by way of massed resignations from the army.

Joe Offer - Date: 17 Apr 16 - 10:29 PM

Well said Joe, in general that has been needed saying for some time now, I hope heed is taken of it.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 04:05 AM

Jim,
- I have the facts of the civil war and the war of Independence - you have out-of-context quotes again

Facts like the bill not having been passed?
You were wrong about that.

It is true that I read what historians say about history.
They do the research and write the books.
You are deluded if you believe that you know better.

You were wrong about the naming of the Imperial War Museum.
It was originally called the British War Museum.
The name was changed to acknowledge that much of the fighting was done by Empire not British fighters.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 04:47 AM

You accuse me of "out of context quotes."
I have only quoted one historian, and I provided a link so that it could be seen in its original full context, exactly as quoted.

You have failed to challenge a single point that I have made.
Many of yours have been shown to be wrong.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 05:26 AM

The Imperial War Museum was opened in 1920 and was called the Imperial War Museum from 1917.

Facts

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 06:45 AM

Thanks.
The original name was "The National War Memorial" and not quite as I recalled.
It is a fact that the name "Imperial War Museum" was chosen to acknowledge the contribution of the Empire, and Jim was wrong to claim it as evidence of an imperial war.

The museum's name was changed in November 1917 at the request of the India and Dominions Sub-Committee, who wanted a name that ensured 'India and the Dominions would feel that their part in the War would be permanently commemorated in the centre of the Empire'.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 06:58 AM

"It was originally called the British War Museum."

Any chance of an acknowledgement that you were mistaken.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 08:02 AM

"The Curragh Mutiny is now acknowledged as not being a mutiny at all and is more accurately described historically as the Curragh incident,"
Not true - it was an attempt by a number of high ranking officers to influence British policy by refusing to act should they be ordered to do so - mutiny by threat and if it had come to it, mutiny by action tantamount to a military coup on behalf of the Ulster Unionists.
If it had happened during wartime it would have been treasonable and subject to trial and execution if those concerned had been found guilty.
It was described by the Government as "a misunderstanding and largely ignored, which was confirmation, if any were needed, that Home Rule could never be arrived at by peaceful means.
That there was no intention of ratifying the Home Rule Bill, (which was re-introduced and rejected by the Irish Parliamentarians in 1916) was confirmed by the fact that, by the end of 1919 no moves were made to introduce independence, instead, yet more thuggish violence on Britain's part by sending in the Black and Tans and Auxies to beat the Irish into submission.
Any violence that took place subsequently was in reaction to that instigated and carried out by Britain and the Ulster Protestant State, culminating in the viciousness towards the Civil Rights Protests, which led to open warfare.
"The Imperial War Cabinet" was the British Empire's wartime coordinating body. The Imperial War Conferences of 1917 and 1918 were a series of meetings held concurrent with the Imperial War Cabinet to co-ordinate governance of the British Empire during the war and prepare for the post-war situation."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 08:25 AM

Rag your Wiki page gives the original name as The National War Museum.
I recalled it as The British War Museum.
Sorry for the slight but irrelevant error.

Jim, the word "imperial" was appropriate because it was not just a British fight. The whole Empire was involved.
Britain was not fighting an "imperial war" as you claim, but was fighting to defend Britain and Europe from an aggressive invader.

Britain was not fighting for territory, only defending.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 08:43 AM

Question: Just how much territory did Britain acquire post WW1 that pre WW1 had been German or Ottoman territory.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 09:02 AM

"Jim, the word "imperial" was appropriate because it was not just a British fight"
You've claimed this once before without evidence - you provide none now
It was a war over world domination - doesn't matter who started it - it was Empire defending Empire plain and simple and its excesses led to the eventual collapes of the Imperial system - after how many centuries?
Finished with this.
On to why Britain was all agog to give Ireland independence but never quite got round to it.
To repeat - Icidents such as the constant defeat of Home Rule bills and the Curragh mutiny proved beyond doubt that Ireland would never get Independence without forcibly seizing it - even when it succeeded, the partition that was forced on them led to ongoing oppression, violence and eventually open warfare.
Easter Week was the frst major step towards Independence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 10:33 AM

Part of the geographical island of Ireland gained independence.
however they sold their independence to Europe and now appeared to be ruled by Brussels.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 10:51 AM

Having said that Dick Ireland has done very well out of Europe. Look at your infrastructure for a start.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 11:31 AM

It was a war over world domination

Not for Britain.
It was just about the invasion, and the war aims were just to halt the invader and push him back to his own borders, freeing the conquered and enslaved peoples.

No domination.
No territorial gain.
Irishmen did not and would not volunteer to expand the British Empire.
They volunteered to fight against a threat to civilisation and democracy including that of Britain and Ireland.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 12:16 PM

most of the infra structure here was built by the British.
the IRISH Reduced the rail network about the same time as Beeching,the European union has done very little towards improving the rail network, they have provided some road funding, but some of that was ill advised, they would have done better to have spent it on the rail network, they have contributed to destroying a heritage site, read this letter

Madam, - I read in a recent article here in Germany that the M3 motorway being built through the Tara valley will be partly financed by European Union subsidies.
It is a condition for EU member-states which receive subsidies that they undertake not to destroy any heritage in the course of using EU funding. Yet if the M3 motorway proceeds on its planned route it will destroy the recently discovered archaeological site at Lismullin.
This matter was raised in the European Parliament in May by the Irish MEP Proinsias De Rossa, and also by the British MEP Roger Helmer. I believe the issue will also be raised in the future by German MEPs.
During my studies I lived for a period in Ireland, and came to deeply appreciate Irish culture and heritage. I find it so hard to believe that the Irish Government would seek to build a motorway through what has rightly been called the heart of Irish culture. Irish heritage is part of European heritage. Surely European Union money must not be used to destroy what all European visitors to Ireland know is something unique and precious. - Yours, etc,
CHRISTA SPANNBAUER, Holzkirchen, Germany.
Raggytash, your comment is an example of someone who makes occasional visits, but does not really understand what has happened in this country.
I have a lot of criticsms of Europe and their inept petty Imperalistic bureaucracy but I am in favour of staying in, better the devil you know than the deep blue sea that you do not.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 12:19 PM

"Irishmen did not and would not volunteer to expand the British Empire."
Nope - they went out because they were offered jobs, an easy war and meals every day, which many of them did not have at home.
Expalin the sudden U-turn - from support for Britain to a War of Independence that drove Britain out of Ireland in a matter of months.
Ireland had everey reason to hate Britain in teh shape of a deliberately manipulated Famine ("God's punishment for indolence" according to Sir Charlie") and mass enforced (sail or starve) immigration.
As with every nation, the Irish have their flaws, but they would have to be a nation of masochists to support a nation which did that to them.
The war provided work and wages, as it did for many in Britain - it turned out to be not as easy as they had been led to believe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 12:53 PM

Jim Carroll - 18 Apr 16 - 08:02 AM

Lots of "IFs" in all of that Jim - Unfortunately examining the ifs does not reflect either the times or the events - as relevant as the old saying "IF my Aunt had balls She'd be my Uncle".

There was no mutiny, no laws were broken, no offences committed - yet to Mr Carroll it was an act of military aggression for which people should have been tried and executed - his only rational for justifying this is to apply his IFs and present those as if they represented the situation and conditions that prevailed in March 1914.

Still he's back to calling it the Curragh Mutiny so no progress made at all. No point in entering into any "discussion" with Carroll at all.

As for putting up "facts" and backing them up Thompson (Who doesn't think that there ever was an actual "mutiny" at The Curragh) seems to have gone very quiet when his facts are challenged.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 01:14 PM

"There was no mutiny, no laws were broken,)
'Course here wasn't - it was all a dreadful mistake and the ones that resigned just needed a couple of weeks off!!
Try answering the specific points rather than the old usual denial with a little sprinkle of bullshit.
The Officers informed the Government that they would have no part fighting the Unionists if ordered to doi so - Bad hair day, schoolboy petulance - or what exactly.
It was a case of leading officers refusing to do what they were paid to do for political reasons, simple as that - if not, what exactly was it (or did we all dream it.
Of course, it never got beyond a threat because the occasion did not arise, but it remains what it was, the military attempting to intervene in Government policy - if not an actual mutiny a threatened one for political purposes - hair-splitting - the difference between industrial action and threatened industrial action.
You'll be scrabbling round for typos next.
BBC
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 01:17 PM

BBC AGAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 01:37 PM

From the link dealing with the incident Jom we read this:

The 57 officers were not actually guilty of 'mutiny'; they had not disobeyed direct orders of any kind.

So care to tell me why you are calling it a "Mutiny" when it wasn't?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:08 PM

"So care to tell me why you are calling it a "Mutiny" when it wasn't?"
It is generally known as a mutiny - it was mutinous in its intent and it was an open attempt to interfere in Government policy - the question as to whether it succeeded in changing Governmenyt policy has never been resolved.
Would you mind telling me why you are claiming that what the officers did was not wrong - by both military and civilian law?
Why are you defending Military interference in in Government actions.
I repeat, if it had taken place a few months later, whether it was successful or not, it would have been a treasonable act subject to the death penalty.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:31 PM

Definition of Mutiny
"Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy among a group of people (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change, or overthrow a lawful authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure."
Which bit of that did they not do?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: keberoxu
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:36 PM

Leon Uris? Really? The author of the pro-Zionist "Exodus"? Surely someone somewhere has done better.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:37 PM

Nope - they went out because they were offered jobs, an easy war and meals every day, which many of them did not have at home.

There was plenty of well paid civilian war work available.
Most joined during and after the retreat when there was no hope of an easy or quick victory, and defeat much more likely.

Expalin the sudden U-turn - from support for Britain to a War of Independence that drove Britain out of Ireland in a matter of months.

The British misjudged the situation and Ireland sympathised with their martyrs.
Britain was not driven out of Ireland in months. Home rule had to wait for the end of the war when it would have happened anyway.
All the bloodshed of the Rising was irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 02:41 PM

Jim, your first BBC link supports my case not yours!

"Irishmen enlisted for the war effort for a variety of reasons. Some, just like their fellows in other warring states, joined up for the perceived justice of the cause. But in Ireland, which in 1914 was deeply divided between nationalist and unionist political groups, more local considerations played an important part for many individuals.

Nationalists, for whom the establishment of an Irish 'home rule' parliament in Dublin had been the principal political aim for most of the 19th century, were committed to the war effort by their leader, John Redmond, in September 1914.

This was on the grounds that the necessary legislation had been passed (though in fact it was suspended for the duration of the war), and that the 'freedom of small nations' (such as Belgium or Serbia) was that of Ireland as well. The plight of gallant, Catholic little Belgium, invaded by a militaristic aggressor, was disadvantageously compared with Ireland, achieving freedom (so Redmond argued) within the British Empire, rather like Canada or Australia."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 03:18 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the Leon Uris novel Trinity did a good job of telling the history of the troubles in Ireland. And although "Zionism" is not popular today, I think that the Uris book Exodus presented a valid perspective. There are two sides to the discussion in the question of Israel (let's not go there in this thread). Neither side is completely right, nor completely wrong. The same goes for Ireland.

But what's wrong with the novel Trinity and its description of Ireland?

Joe

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Apr 16 - 10:21 PM

Refresh. Keep it civil, folks. If you disagree, provide evidence to the contrary. If all you can say is that you're right and somebody else is wrong, why should anyone believe you, and what does anybody learn from your post?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 01:21 AM

"Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy among a group of people (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change, or overthrow a lawful authority to which they are subject. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), but can also occasionally refer to any type of rebellion against an authority figure."

What evidence do you have that there was any CRIMINAL conspiracy? Taking into account that it is perfectly legal for any officer to tender his resignation at any time. Nothing to do with this instance at all but it is also perfectly within the rights of any serving member of the armed forces to disobey any order that they believe to be unlawful.

Where did they openly oppose the Government of the day? Nowhere - the choice they were given was obey or face dismissal from the Army, 57 officers each personally elected to submit their resignations - face saving opportunity for the Army and Government of the day, as neither had to dismiss anybody.

As no actions were ordered and no changes demanded by those who submitted their resignations, the change bit doesn't hold water either.

Who exactly was overthrown by the officers who submitted their resignations? The men who were forced to resign their posts in the aftermath of the incident were forced to resign by their superiors, not by those who submitted their resignation at the Curragh.

So Mr Carroll:
No Military aggression - as you originally claimed
No Mutiny - as both Thompson, numerous articles including the one you posted and myself have stated
No overt action against Home Rule (I also believe that the Irish Home Rule Bill was given Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914).

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 03:31 AM

Joe, I have not read Uris.
Why do you think the book gives a balanced view?

I found this review which questions the objectivity.

"Social commentary, perhaps outright propaganda, is an integral element of this historical presentation. Each of the three factions in the political war is examined, but the native Irishmen obviously have thé sympathy of the author. Uris does manage to a great degree to avoid the depiction of the Irish as the quaint folk of the popular stereotype, but he cannot resist the image of an innocent and poetical people provoked to acts of violence by their greedy and unfeeling neighbors. "
http://www.enotes.com/topics/trinity

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:02 AM

"What evidence do you have that there was any CRIMINAL conspiracy? "
You really are claiming that none of this happened and high ranking members of the armed forces did not attempt to force Government policy on Ulster and "The Curragh Mutiny" was a figment of the imagination - aren't you?
Ah well - it takes all sorts!!
It was military aggression though no violence occurred - which nobody, not I, claimed it did.
That you appear to see such behaviour as the role of Her Majesty's Forces says what needs to be says what needs to be said. I think - We'll have our keep our eyes on an armed force capable of influencing Government policy - such things are military dictatorships made of.
"Where did they openly oppose the Government of the day?"
They gave notice that they would refuse to take part in action against Ulster if orders were given.
"The Curragh Mutiny" is part of British/Irish History as is'Bloody Sunday' - despite what the deniers say - go and look it up.
Joe.
Trinity, and its follow up are excellent and enjoyable novels which helped paint a somewhat romaniticised (i.m.o.) picture of life at the time, though they are works of fiction and cannot be relied on as history, nor did they pretend to be - the same with Exodus, of course.
The bit that always sticks in my mind is the effect that the priest's castigating the enjoyment of sex has on the family life of the two main characters - but that's me!
Have never read his follow up, Redemption.
Leon and Jill Uris produced an interesting modern photographic survey of modern Ireland entitled 'Ireland - a Terrible Beauty (1976) - worth looking up if you haven't read it.
For a novelised account of Easter Week, , I thoroughly enjoyed Peter De Rosa's 'Rebels.
One of the best eye-witness-account books on the Uprising is Agony at Easter by Scots/American, Thomas Coffey - a minute-by-minute account made up of interviews with people who were around at the time.
It carries a lovely story of a bunch of Liverpudlians who came across on the boat to join the fight, get off at the North Wall, board a tram-car and ask for "six tickets to the revolution please".
Keith - we've been over all this interminably and got nowhere - we are not going to change each others' minds so let's not **** up another thread - please!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:32 AM

Dick, Funny you should mention the N3 motorway. An old friend of mine (Steve Linnane) was Director of Archaeology for the Baronstown excavation prior to the motorway being constructed. If you want to look up his papers on the dig they can be found at:

DIG

Just for the record Steve and I were in the same class at school and drank together for some year after.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:34 AM

Typo alert M3 not N3

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:48 AM

a very self explanatory post where was that school,Borstal?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 05:23 AM

Going back to your mention of creating a rail network there are various issues that do not lend themselves to one.

For the most part the population outside the major cities (Dublin, Cork, Galway etc) live in fairly small, even isolated, communities that a rail network could not viably service. In order to commute a decent road network is essential.

Now I know down in West Cork where you reside such a network is long overdue but in other areas of the country numerous by-passes have been built to reduce travelling times. (although the N71 has been upgraded in some parts)

Going to the capital (and major port) has been made easier with the creation a system of motorways that facilitate transport. It is now possible to drive to Galway for instance in about 2 hours. Twenty years ago take would have taken 4 to 5 hours all subsidised by the EU.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 05:25 AM

You really are claiming that none of this happened and high ranking members of the armed forces did not attempt to force Government policy on Ulster and "The Curragh Mutiny" was a figment of the imagination - aren't you?

Not imagination.
Is anyone prepared to quit their job because they disapprove of the work a criminal?
Of course not.
That is all that was being considered.
No crime. No mutiny.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 05:34 AM

"s anyone prepared to quit their job because they disapprove of the work a criminal?"
The Army and the police hold a position of privilege in our society - they rely on the consent that those privileges give them and both are restricted in the actions they are allowed to take - the alternatives are a police or a military state - of course they are not allowed to intervene in Government policy
"But should the government go further and allow troops to enlist in a trade union ... and the right to strike?
It is illegal for a non-civilian member of the armed forces to do either. Britain is not breaching the European convention on human rights which allows for legal exemptions. And the relevant law in the UK is the Queen's Regulations, by which every serviceman and woman is bound."
GUARDIAN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 07:14 AM

- of course they are not allowed to intervene in Government policy

Of course they are not, and they did not.

They merely considered exercising their perfect right to quit.
Nothing wrong with that.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 07:25 AM

No nothing wrong with that, better to resign than refuse an order.

It's a pity the boys in the trenches didn't have that option.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 07:37 AM

"Of course they are not, and they did not."
They attempted to by threatening to refuse to accept the decision of the Government - leading members of the Army tried to force the Government to change their policy - they interfered with the running of the country - that is wrong, it is illegal and it could have set a horrendous precedent - a armed force with the power to defy or change government policy.
Look Keith - you have opposed the subject o this thread on every step - why not stop tip-toeing around that fact as state your position instead of constantly raising thes bling alleys.
As far as I am concerned, Easter Week was not just a courageous act to free Ireland from British rule - it was an essential act to stop the foot-dragging that had taken place over Home Rule.
Even a few months after the uprising, no agreement had been reached on ratifying the Bill.

"The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. This was decisive in sealing the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Asquith made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention chaired by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government.
The end of the war, in November 1918, was followed in Ireland by the December 1918 general election, the majority of seats being won by the republican separatist Sinn Féin party, then in January 1919 by the Irish War of Independence, so that the Act was never implemented. The future of Home Rule was determined by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It established Northern Ireland, with a functional government, and Southern Ireland, whose governmental institutions never fully functioned. Southern Ireland, following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, became the Irish Free State."

Easter Week was significant beyond Ireland in that it was a major step in bringing the predatory British Empire crashing in ruins.
It preceded the Russian Revolution by over a year and it inspired many other national liberation movements to stand up and be counted.
I doubt if there are many who would oppose the right of countries to govern themselves nowadays - it was a much-needed revolutionary step.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:06 AM

Why the rising was so unpopular, by John Gibney, currently Glasnevin Trust Professor of Public History and Cultural Heritage at Trinity College Dublin..

" some (home rule nationalists) went so far as to view the Rising as an attack on Home Rule as much as the British.
Then there were the views of those who were literally on the ground. Many of the insurgents who fought in 1916 recorded the hostility of the families of serving soldiers across the city (some went so far as to say that their British captors had saved them from angry mobs).
There was a widespread perception (shared by Redmond) that the Volunteers were in cahoots with the Germans; from that point of view, those who fought in the Rising were stabbing other Irishmen – sons, husbands, brothers – in the back, and doing so in relatively safe circumstances at home; as one irate lady on Bridgefoot Street shouted at the young Volunteer Sean McLoughlin, 'it's out in Flanders you should be, you bastards'.
Alongside this was the fact that the Rising had caused massive death and destruction, and disrupted everyday life in the city; Oscar Traynor recalled how he and his fellow Volunteers were accused by one irate Dubliner of being 'starvers of the people'. Hostility to the Rising on these various grounds was inevitable, and surely understandable.
It can't just be blamed on 'jackeens' either, for (some) Dubliners were not the only ones hostile to the Rising. Local authorities and the provincial press across the country condemned it and, as Conor McNamara of NUIG has discovered, in Galway a committee of concerned citizens pledged themselves to supporting the British authorities; the Redmondite Nationalist Volunteers even patrolled Galway City with weapons provided by the British army.
Condemnation of the Rising spread far beyond the city in which the vast bulk of the fighting took place. But such attitudes changed utterly in subsequent weeks and months."
http://www.independent.ie/incoming/just-why-was-the-easter-rising-so-unpopular-34563527.html

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:10 AM

- it was an essential act to stop the foot-dragging that had taken place over Home Rule.
Even a few months after the uprising, no agreement had been reached on ratifying the Bill.

There was no foot dragging.
The bill had been passed, and enactment only postponed because of the world war that was raging and going badly.

The Rising achieved nothing. Pointless bloodshed. Home rule was going to happen anyway.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:28 AM

Keith, could I suggest you actually read a few books on Irish history instead of relying a cut and pastes which do not allow anyone to make the kind of statements you are coming out with.

Start with Strongbow in 1169/70 then read about the following 747 years. When you have done so you MAY have an insight into the 1916 Rising.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:40 AM

Give it a rest Keith; we've already had our warning and you have had your evidence
Finished
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 08:57 AM

Dick,I email my mate about the excavation you referred to. Below is his reply which to my mind answers the concerns put by Christa Spannbauer quiet succinctly:

Hello, Hope all goes well with you.

You are right that I worked on the M3 project in Ireland and very interesting it was too. As regards Lismullen, I did some work on this but the director was Aidan O'Connell who now works at Archer Heritage.ie. The site was published as Harvesting the Stars: An Iron Age Temple at Lismullen (Wordswell) and the book got very good reviews. The whole M3 road project was controversial because of its proximity to The Hill of Tara and there was considerable protest at the time. However the route of the road is not that close and did not impact on the hill itself but only on the wider landscape (I'm not even sure whether you can see the road from the hill). Google earth it and see for yourself. There was European money involved in the project. All of the archaeological work was done to the highest of standards and was closely scrutinised by central government. The standards followed were very high including 100% resolution of all sites (i.e. everything was excavated) whereas in England a sampling strategy is adopted where anything as low as 10% is accepted. I'm not going to outline the full methodology of road archaeology here, but you will find lots of additional information on the NRA.ie website under archaeology. All the final reports used to be on this site but they seem to have gone now. Check out the contents of Seanda for general articles on the M3 and Lismullen in particular. Also Google Stuart Rathbone and see what you get as he entered into the public on-line debate with some energy.

At the end of it a great deal of misinformation was spread by those against the route - most of it wrong.

Hope this helps and a Merry New Year to you and yours

Steve

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 10:15 AM

Rag, I have not relied on any cut and paste.
I provided a link to a complete and recent article on the rising by an eminent Irish historian, with an extract in my post.

What is wrong with that Rag?

Jim, the only warning was to keep the discussion polite, which we have, and not to attack the poster as Rag has just done, but only to challenge what is posted, which Rag has failed to do.

Have a word with him, not me.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 10:21 AM

"im, the only warning was to keep the discussion polite, "
We've finished here - we probably did in 2014 - you failed to make your case then, you are still doing so now.
There really is no point.
If you have a point to make, make it and stop repeating things that have been proven wrong over and over again.
You have just been given exatly what happening in July 1916 and you coose to ignore it
"There was no foot dragging."
We are no cluttering up a decent discussion.
Please stop.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 10:33 AM

Raggytash, none of which backs up your completely inaccurate and incorrect statement about the infra structure in Ireland. the vast majority of the infra structure in ireland was built by the british , this includes the rail network and the canal system,and most of the road system.
the irish pulled up sections of the rail system at the same time as BEECHING ,INCLUDING THE RAIL SYSTEM IN WEST CORK.The EU HAS DONE NOTHING TO REPLACE THE BUTCHERED RAIL SYSTEM.
they have spent a small amount of money on the road system regardless of destroying a national heritage site, often ill advised and badly spent too, for example straightening out roads and destroying bends immediately before 30 mph limits][ example entrance to Ballydehob], encouraging motorists to go faster and yet putting up signs for them to go slower, the result of this is revenue for the garda in speeding fines.
Europe is now collecting our motor tax, and using that money to pay back a debt, no european money is being spent on maintaining our victorian british water mains, or sewer sytem, or repairing massive pot holes on minor and major roads.
Raggy tash your commmnnts are illinformed and inaccurate, europe has done little for an infra structure that was built by the British prior to 1914, NOTHING FOR THE RAILWAYS THE WATER SYSTEM SEWAGE SYSTEM , VERY LITTLE FOR THE CANAL SYSTEM AND NOT MUCH FOR THE ROADS.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 10:50 AM

stop repeating things that have been proven wrong over and over again.

If that is true Jim, state one!

displays a profound ignorance of history.

By the historians Greg?

Heather Jones, an associate professor in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

"The third clear problem involved in commemorating the Rising is the rather thorny fact that the militants who seized Dublin in 1916 had no democratic mandate. The last election before the Rising saw the vast majority of nationalist constituencies elect Home Rule candidates, in support of the campaign of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster for devolved government for Ireland within the United Kingdom. The majority of the nationalist population was satisfied with the passing of the home rule bill in 1912; it was due for implementation pending the end of the first world war. Even within the ranks of republicanism, the Rising was carried out by a small minority. "

"Ultimately, it is the fact that the 1916 Rising represents an endorsement of violence that is deeply problematic for modern Irish sensibilities, and which has been the subject of a great deal of debate in the press. Despite intelligence monitoring, the rebels' separatist violence came out of the blue. It was also extreme: they shot unarmed Catholic Irish policemen without warning. The public discourse around the centenary has increasingly emphasised the fact that the Rising caused considerable civilian casualties: 40 children died in the Easter Rising, a statistic long forgotten until the recent publication of a history by the broadcaster Joe Duffy.[2] In fact, civilians, many of them caught in the crossfire, made up the majority of the 450 rebellion dead, along with 132 soldiers and police and 62 rebels."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/commemorating-the-rising-history-democracy-and-violence-in-ireland

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 01:24 PM

Yes Hilo I can.

Try "Irish Histories for Dummies" and no I am not being sarcastic.

As an introduction to Irish History it is really not a bad starting point. It will give you much more of an insight than any of the cut and pastes from contributors here.

The book catalogue number is ISBN 0-7645-7040-4

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 01:27 PM

As was the case with The Famine up to the 150th anniversary, there have been in fact very few books specifically about the reasons for the Easter Rising - (plenty of eye-witness accounts and personal experiences), for various reasons, though there is not a history of the 20th century that does not give it pride of place as a great event in the creation of an independent Ireland.
This anniversary is proving the turning point.
Incidentally, as pointed out by Joe Duffy and other, the majority of children who died during Easter week, did so because of indiscriminate British bombardment and crossfire.
It is interesting to note that the youngest soldier to be killed in W.W.1. was aged 14 - he enlisted at 13 - he was from County Waterford, it's apparently OK to die for the Empire, but not for Ireland.
Had the uprising not taken place it would be quite likely that many of the children who died during the fighting might well have reached the age where they could have been conscripted.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 01:48 PM

Canal system?? What century do you think we are living in ?

Canals are a relic of a bygone age, great for taking a holiday on, I've enjoyed cruising on them myself, as a means to transport goods and services ....................... !?!?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 02:10 PM

I am offering this synopsis of the lead up to the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916 at Joe Offer's request.
In 1171 Henry II King of England declared himself Lord of Ireland. From that time until the Good Friday agreement was ratified by referenda in 1998 the claims of England/Britain to rule any part of Ireland was never freely conceded by the Irish.
Many, many times during those eight centuries the Irish took up arms to assert their right to self determination. Each insurrection was brutally surpressed and aggressive laws were enacted by the Crown to coerce the Irish into submission. With the failure of the 1798 Rebellion, the Irish parliament was abolished and Ireland was ruled directly from London
With the supression of the Fenian Rising in 1867 some of the leaders began to focus on political agitation rather than armed revolt, and one of the key demands was for Ireland's parliament to be re-established and for Ireland to return to Home Rule.
HOME RULE BILL
After the 1910 British General Election the Irish Parliamentary Party led by John Redmond, held the balance of power in the House of Commons and their price for supporting the Liberals in government was a Home Rule Bill. The Liberals conceded and Home Rule for Ireland was to become law in 1914.
RELIGIOUS DIVIDE
The 1911 census of population for Ireland records that 73% were Catholic and 24% were Protestant and while it would be simplistic and wrong to suggest that all Catholics were for Home Rule and all Protestants against. it would be fair to say. in general. that support for the Home Rule was very high amongst Catholics, but was opposed by the majority of Protestants (especially so in Ulster).
ULSTER VOLUNTEER FORCE
For many Ulster unionists Home Rule was regarded as being tantamount to Rome Rule. Carson and Craig, leaders of the unionists, organised a campaign in opposition to the Bill and called for a volunteer militia force of Orangemen and Unionists pledged to resist Home Rule in arms if necessary. In early 1912 the Ulster Volunteers Force was formed and in short time grew to 100,000 men. It was the avowed aim of this force to resist by every means including armed revolt any attempt by their government to enact Home Rule for Ireland.
CURRAGH MUTINY
In early 1914 intelligence services reported that the UVF were plotting to seize arms and ammunition from the arsenal in Carrickfergus. In March when it became apparent that the government was about to order the army to intervene sixty British Officers at the Curragh Camp (the main base for the British Army in Ireland) threatened to resign their commissions if they were ordered to take action against the UVF. This threat forced the Secretary of State for War, Col Seely, to guarantee that the army would not be used in Ulster. The position that the officers involved were not guilty of mutiny is an argument based on semantics in that it contends that they threatened to resign BEFORE they had received a direct order to act against the UVF.
LARNE GUN-RUNNING
In late April 1914 the UVF smuggled 25,000 rifles and 4 million rounds that they had procurred from the German Empire into Larne. The military and civic authoritys were aware of the landing, but took no action against the gun-runners.

The failure on the parts of the British establishment including; the cabinet, the military high-command, the civil authorities and the police to take any steps to curtail the illegal actions of the UVF was what brought nationalists to the realization that Home Rule would not be won without a fight.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 02:35 PM

Thanks Fergie.
Nothing in that challenges a single thing that I have said.

Neither Fergie, Greg, Rag or Jim have identified any error in anything I have posted, resorting to personal attack instead.

Jim, why do you say that the British fire was indiscriminate?
The heavy civilian casualties resulted from the rebels choosing to fight from heavily populated and overcrowded residential areas like North King Street.
They also put children in harms way by using them as couriers.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 02:43 PM

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 01:48 PM

Canal system?? What century do you think we are living in ?

Canals are a relic of a bygone age, great for taking a holiday on, I've enjoyed cruising on them myself, as a means to transport goods and services ....................... !?!?
you really are displaying you ignorance, canals are one of the most efficient forms of transportation, slow, but efficient as regarding the amount that can be transported in relation to fuel cost.
but let us put that aside for one moment, here are two other arguments why canal infra structure should be maintained for the tourist industry, and as a means of alleviating flooding and diverting water after very heavy rainfall.
however European money has not been used for that nor for railways or any other infra structure, with the exception of a few ill
advised road projects.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 02:53 PM

"Jim, why do you say that the British fire was indiscriminate?
Because it was by all reports - including eye witnesses,. do you have any information that it wasn't?
"The heavy civilian casualties resulted from the rebels choosing to fight from heavily populated and overcrowded residential areas like North King Street."
Where does that come from?
You'll have to drop Joe Duffy a line and let him know
Have you not seen the photographs and film showing the devastation caused by the artillery fire in the centre of Dublin - hardly from rifle fire.
"1916 RISING 19 images Created 18 Nov 2015

The Easter Rising was a rebellion carried out by separatist republican groups demanding Irish independence in April 1916, in the midst of the First World War. Most of the fighting took place in Dublin, where the insurgents seized a number of buildings. The British authorities, fearing the prospect of German involvement in the rebellion, bombarded central Dublin and the rebellion was crushed after six days. Much of Dublin's central commercial districts were destroyed by a combination of artillery, and fires caused by both the British bombardment and looters. These images form a record of the devastation in the immediate aftermath of the rebellion."

Independent Archives
"They also put children in harms way by using them as couriers."
As did the resistance during World War II and every other resistance movement throughout history trying to chagne society.
While Easter week was going on millions of young men were dying in the bloodbath of Europe - not to mention the civilians being slaughtered
Where are you getting all this from Keith?
"Well, Greg, you have not been there and done that."
Have you - you tell us where we can go for information
"You have presented no facts"
Have you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 03:29 PM

Keith,

You state

"Nothing in that challenges a single thing that I have said.", so I take it that you agree with the statement in my synopsis
"In 1171 Henry II King of England declared himself Lord of Ireland. From that time until the Good Friday agreement was ratified by referenda in 1998 the claims of England/Britain to rule any part of Ireland was never freely conceded by the Irish."
It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland and the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation. They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists.

Fergus

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 04:25 PM

"However, you have challenged information presented by others."
What information?
Ask them where they get their information?
How about responding to what Fergie has just put up?
"Jim, I have not made any disparaging comments on facts presented by others"
'Fraid you have - and put nothing up yourself other than a blanket blessing for the only two people on this thread who have taken their line.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Apr 16 - 09:23 PM

HiLo, I'm tempted to say that if you cannot contribute information to a thread, then you have no business posting or criticizing those who have posted. Arguments about the right or wrong conduct of posters, make no contribution to the discussion.
I said above that I learned most of what I know from the 1976 Leon Uris novel Trinity, and its 1995 sequel Redemption. These novels follow Fergie's outline very closely. Come to think of it, I've read quite a bit more about Irish history, mostly fiction. I suppose I've learned most of the history I know from novels, and I think that's not a bad thing. Keith asks why I thought the Uris novels gave a balanced view, and I'm not sure I would say they are balanced. I'd say they present a valid perspective, but there are many valid perspectives of this issue. The Uris novels presented what some people thought and felt during these momentous events, and they presented these thoughts and feelings very effectively.
The participants in this thread have presented a variety of perspectives. Most of them are valid, although some may not be popular.

Jim says that the Uris novels are romanticized, but I would submit that most of us tend to romanticize the causes we support - and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It's a matter of believing in our causes so we can bring about improvement, balanced with an understanding of other perspectives so we can learn to work together to accomplish something by peaceful consensus instead of by bitter conflict.

I've read lots and lots of novels by Uris, Michener, Ken Follett, Wouk, and by many others who write in a historical context. I tend to stay awake better reading novels, than I do reading history texts. And I think that novels do a better job of presenting what's in the minds and hearts of participants in historical events.

But no, learning history through novels will never make me a scholar. Greg and I, being Americans, are better off being in a learning mode in a thread like this one.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 02:40 AM

Fergie, I do know that England has been involved in Ireland for centuries.
Nothing in your piece challenges or contradicts anything said by me.

Jim, Artillery was used but was it indiscriminate? Any evidence?
I am shocked that you defend the use of children.
Are you denying that the rebels fought from crowded residential areas like North King's Street?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 03:04 AM

history is generally written by the victors,or in the case of opposing countries those that consider them selves victors
often the same incident is interpreted differently in different countries here is an example, my nephew started school in england and learned that the english won certain battles against the french, he continued his education in france and learned that according to french historians the french won those same battles.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 03:20 AM

"I would submit that most of us tend to romanticize the causes we support "
I agree entirely Joe - but it doesn't alter the fact that, when we do we tend to deal in our own personal emotions rather than facts.
I'm a sucker for historical novels - have read all the Sansom novels on English history and await the next anxiously, loved the Walter Macken trilogy on the Irish struggle, Liam O'Flaherty's 'Famine' still makes me seethe with anger.... but these are for emotional stimulation, not quotable facts.
That is what I feel about the Uris novels I have read (not just his Irish ones).
I remember presenting some facts about Irish Traveller origins on this forum and being accused of getting them from 'Ireland's Own' - not helpful in a discussion, and certainly not in an argument.
I would have no hesitation in recommending Peter De Rosa's 'Rebels' to anybody who wishes to dip their toe into 'Easter Week' - good history 'factionally' presented with flaws and not grounds for detailed argument.
As enjoyable and generally informative as these books are, they are not history proper; I would no more rely on them for detail than I would rely on Howard Fast's 'Last Frontier' or 'Freedom Road' for your history, though both are among my favourite books.
It's not the job of the novelist to present a 'balanced' picture, but on the other hand, historians can be just as unbalanced in their approach in what the choose to present or ignore, though not quite as unbalanced as some who quote them, (that's not a comment on anybody here, just a general observation on how history is constantly misused to feed agendas).
As I said earlier, there are very few books dealing specifically with Easter Week, not to the depth the subject requires - it's usually included as part of something else.
Hopefully, this anniversary will change that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 03:43 AM

"Saw a sikin for the first time yesterday in our back garden.
Collared doves, usually four (with the most boring though evocative calls) are regular visitor.
Robin's and wrens nest in the few bushed around the garden.
You can set your clock to the herons heading home each night.
Blue, great and goldfinches abound along with the extremely eccentric wagtails.
Look forward to the swallows (they've been sighted in our neighbouring counties of Galway and Kerry, but not made it to Clare yet).
Was delighted to see a sparrowhawk once perched on a fence about six feet from our window, but it didn't stop me shooing it off (unfortunately, not before it snatched a sparrow)
Autumn will bring the spectacular displays of starlings filling our sky and stopping the traffic.
Not too bad for a part of Ireland with no trees!
We're dealing with a bereavement at present - a hedgehog has crawled onto our pile of cut grass and died (think it's dead - will give it a few days in case it's still hibernating)
Saw (or rather, heard) two of them having it off at the back of the house one night - no shame!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 04:09 AM

How do hedgehogs mate?









Very carefully!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 04:21 AM

Whoops sorry - went to the wrong thread.
"Artillery was used but was it indiscriminate? Any evidence"
The dozens of statements of eye witness evidence - the massive damage that was done, the weapons used - even the Gunboat Helga firing shells from the Liffey - these can only be used 'indiscriminately' in the hope they might hit their target.
This quote from the 'Irish History on Line'
"Fearghal makes the point that it was the British who were responsible for the atrocities that we know about, such as the killing of 15 civilians on North King Street and the shooting of civilians in Portobello Barracks as well as the indiscriminate use of 'area fire' weapons like artillery and heavy machine guns. But both he and Padraig also make the point that the clumsiness of the British military was as much a product of their shock and disorientation at the Rising as any malice."   
I asked you where you got your "facts' - reply, came there none.
I do not "defend" the use of children - I merely point out that it is a consequence of this type of warfare and was used in wartime France both by French resistance Fighters and Britons parachuted in to support them - and every other conflict involving irregular and guerrilla tactics.
The rebels had no choice in where they fought - it was a desperately unequal battle and they did what they could.
What should they have done - rolled up their sleeves and challenged the army to a head to head in Phoenix Park
The rape, torture murder and mass destruction that took place by British troops in the Black and Tan period is carved into Irish history - that was within five years of the Easter Week Uprising
This town was one of three on this coast that was set fire to and pillaged in revenge for the Rineen Ambush, Lahinch and Ennistimon being the other two - you question this, go look it up.
Virtually the first act carried out by the Tans when they landed was the burning of heavily populated Cork City.
More than 40 business premises, 300 residential properties, City Hall and the Carnegie Library were destroyed by fire. Over £3 million worth of damage (1920 value; €172 millon in today's money) was done, 2,000 were left jobless and many were left homeless.
Now - where did your "facts" come from?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 04:25 AM

how are the wagtails eccentric, jim
how are they unconventional and slightly strange, do your wagtails sing like cuckoos?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 05:14 AM

"how are they unconventional and slightly strange,"
Have you ever watched them Dick - lovely eccentric birds - always remind me of John Gielgud, can't think why
Sorry - I posted this on the bird thread then inadvertently here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 07:30 AM

The dozens of statements of eye witness evidence - the massive damage that was done, the weapons used - even the Gunboat Helga firing shells from the Liffey - these can only be used 'indiscriminately' in the hope they might hit their target.

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

" Subsequently the Helga II gained an undeserved reputation for playing an essential part in the Rising. (Most of the damage to Dublin's city centre was caused by fire, particularly at premises like the Irish Times warehouse and Hoyte's Druggists and Oil Works, rather than by shelling.)"

"On 25 April 1916 the Helga sailed from Dún Laoghaire to shell Boland's mill, and on the following day fired over the loop line railway bridge at Liberty Hall. In total the Helga fired only 40 rounds during the Rising, "
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/tss-helga-ii/

"The log of the 'Helga' is rather succinct: "26 April. Proceeded up River. Stopped near Custom House. Opened fire on 'Liberty Hall' in conjunction with Military. Fired 24 rounds (8.00 am)."

"At the same time, British Army gunners had moved an 18-pounder field gun from Trinity College. They set up by the south quays by Butt Bridge at Tara Street, and proceeded to shell Liberty Hall as well. They had only shrapnel shells. These did not contain high explosive and would have the effect of a glorified but high-velocity cannon-ball."
http://www.theirishstory.com/2016/03/24/the-helga-and-the-shelling-of-liberty-hall/#.VxdkofkrKt8

No suggestion of indiscriminate shelling here either.http://www.rte.ie/centuryireland/index.php/articles/the-easter-rising-and-destruction-of-dublin

"Homes and businesses across the city were damaged by shelling of key rebel garrisons and widespread looting."
http://www.thejournal.ie/british-pathe-footage-dublin-1916-easter-rising-2683266-Mar2016/

Nothing to suggest indiscriminate British fire.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 07:37 AM

I suppose the Irish did all this with their rifles.


Dublin Damage 1916

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 07:42 AM

No Rag.
The rebels fortified buildings, and the British shelled them.
Buildings fell and burned.
If you have any evidence of indiscriminate British fire, produce it.

If you look at and read my links you will find that there was none.
Why not do that?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:06 AM

the indiscriminate use of 'area fire' weapons like artillery and heavy machine guns.

Artillery and machine guns were fired directly at rebel positions.
They were not used as area weapons. (Why no link Jim?)

I asked you where you got your "facts' - reply, came there none.

Do you not use the links I provide?

The rebels had no choice in where they fought -

Rubbish. No-one told them which buildings to occupy and defend.
It was entirely their choice, and they mostly chose residential areas.
They did not change their positions during the rising.

Why have you switched to the "Tans?" We are discussing the Rising. I have made no comment on anything else.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:14 AM

This becomes ridiculous
You scoop the net for a few minutes and disprove all the photographic evidence, all the eye-witness accounts accounts and everything that has appeared on our screens over the last few months.
The indiscriminate destruction is both obvious and well confirmed in Irish history and largely unchallenged.
I asked where you get your information (having already made your claims) so you hastily scurry around and come up with - well nothing really.
You've seen the damage that was not done by rifle fire, you know the weapons that can not be used in any way other than indiscriminately.
There is no reason to think the army did not act in any other way than described that is the way the responded to opposition to British rule.
You have been diven the details of the razing of Cork City and to the behaviour of the troops in Clare. - you choose not to comment.
You have attempted to denigrate the centenary we are celebrating here in Ireland with smoke and mirrors and the usual jingoism.
Where are you getting your information on for any of this apart from your lightning visits to the net?
Regarding the Home Rule Treaty, which you claim to have been signed sealed and delivered, I was re-reading Robert Kee's impressive, 'Ourselves Alone', volume three of his trilogy, 'The Green Flag'.
The agreement was that six counties would be partitioned till the end of the war, when a period of one year would be given to arrange for complete unification.
The new agreement, which Redmond and his fellow Parliamentarians rejected was for permanent partition.   
This is how Kee described the state of the Treaty in July, following the Uprising.
The Treaty was nothing like agreed to at the time of The Risisng.   
I have no doubt you will ignore this as you have everything else that has been put up.
Robert Kee is a British Historian who is an acknowledged expert on Irish political history.
Jim Carroll
"Though Carson stuck loyally to his new position, a massive opposition to the whole scheme for putting Home Rule into operation at all was now mounted by the English Conservative Party and many of its leaders inside the coalition cabinet. 'They are all in it, ' Lloyd George wrote disarmingly to Dillon, 'except Balfour, Bonar Law and F. E. Smith. Long has behaved in a specially treacherous manner. He has actually been engaged clandestinely in trying to undermine the influence of Carson in Ulster.... He told them there was no war urgency, no prospect of trouble in America I could not think it possible that any man, least of all one with such pretensions of being an English gentleman, could have acted in such a way. '48
But Lloyd George, without any such pretensions, was hardly acting better and both doubtless were doing what they thought best. Long had many other English gentlemen to support him. Lord Selborne at least resigned from the cabinet at the prospect of having to be a party to the immediate implementation of Home Rule. Bonar Law had to bow before the Conservatives of the Carlton Club, who were unable to give him their support for the proposals. On 11 July Lord Lansdowne, another member of the cabinet, finally forced Lloyd George's hand when he stated in the House of Lords that in his view any proposed alteration to the Act of 1914 would be 'permanent and enduring'. 49"

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:30 AM

You have given no eye witness report of indiscriminate fire.
Here is the YMCA Sackville Street.
Notice that the gunners did not just shoot at the building, but at the windows where the rebels fired from.
(first pic)https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=easter+rising+dublin+ymca&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3xJemp

Here is the Liberty Hall, shelled by both Helga and 18pdr artillery.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=easter+rising+dublin+liberty+hall&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=685&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:33 AM

"(Why no link Jim?)"
Because I named the source and am not in the habit of making things up, but there you go.
History on line (again)
"Do you not use the links I provide?"
All your "evidence has been an afterthought subsequently dug out to support former claims.
"No-one told them which buildings to occupy and defend."
They were a heavily outnumbered force who knew they were probably doomed to failure - their choice of venue was somewhere that would make te most impact.
Why did British soldiers choose to burn Cork City or Miltown Malbay or Lahinch or Ennistimon - that was a deliberate act of destruction and murder.
I have not "switched to the Tans - I was using the period to compare how the different groups of fighters behaved - both involved the behavior of British soldiers being used to suppress Irish independence and both were aspects of the Irish War of Independence.
You criticise one yet ignore the other - why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:36 AM

I have no doubt you will ignore this as you have everything else that has been put up.

I have made no case about events after the Rising.

My case was that the rising was not wanted by the people, and I have shown that to be true.
My case was that the rising was unnecessary and pointless because home rule had already been agreed.
I showed that was true also.

You have been unable to challenge or contradict either.

I challenged your claim that the British fired indiscriminately.
You have failed to substantiate that claim.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:39 AM

their choice of venue was somewhere that would make te most impact.

So you acknowledge the accuracy of my statement, "No-one told them which buildings to occupy and defend."

They chose overcrowded, residential areas with the inevitable consequence of mass casualties.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 09:41 AM

Here's some reading for you Keith about the Black & Tans. You will note in the section marked "Legacy" it refers to the War Crimes of the Black & Tans.

Black & Tans

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 10:14 AM

"My case was that the rising was not wanted by the people"
We have no idea that this was the case - those in Dublin who protested represented a tiny minority of Dubliners.
There were in fact plans for risings to take place elsewhere whih were botched, but Irish peole had been fighting for independence for centuries - the demand was ongoing.
Even those who supported the war did so because they believed it would bring independence - the Robert Kee passage (which you, of course have ignored) proved that this was not the case and they changed their minds when British brutality was demonstrated (no out of sympathy for the martyrs, but as a reaction to Britain with the mask off)
Within a matter of months the country was up in arms fighting for Britain to get out of Ireland.
Yopu respond to the devastation of British mortar fire with a few antiseptic pictures of your own and no comment.
They did not "choose" a residential area - they chose the main building of the main thoroughfare in Dublin city because that was where it would make the most effective statement - It was a demand for independence, not an attempt to kill people or destroy property - they occupied buildings as a gesture.
The indiscriminate destruction has been demonstrated by the photographs and is to be found in the many photographs - a few of which you have been given and choose to ignore.
I think we're finished here, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MartinRyan
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 10:34 AM

Not sure why this thread stayed above the line? Surely time for it to head to the home of blindfolded argument?

Regards

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 10:53 AM

I think that I'd like to learn the various perspectives on the Easter Rising. I'm sure there was a variety of opinions among the British and the Irish, and I think it's important for us to understand those perspectives. I think a lot of Americans sing Irish rebel songs without knowing their context. A thread like this should present that context, from all sides - not try to prove which side was right (or which Mudcatter was right).
I'll edit out or move the off-topic posts once this discussion dies down, but I do think it's important for us to have a discussion of the Easter Rising on the centennial of the event. I don't see value in having two threads on this topic, one combative and one non-combative.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 12:10 PM

"I'll edit out or move the off-topic posts once this discussion dies down,"
Finished with this particular spat as far as I'm concerned Joe - sorry to have bogged it down again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 12:16 PM

I will not discuss anything but the Rising here.
My case is that it was unwanted and unnecessary.

Unwanted.
"Why Was The Easter Rising So Unpopular" by John Gibney, currently Glasnevin Trust Professor of Public History and Cultural Heritage at Trinity College Dublin.

" Many of the insurgents who fought in 1916 recorded the hostility of the families of serving soldiers across the city (some went so far as to say that their British captors had saved them from angry mobs)."

"Alongside this was the fact that the Rising had caused massive death and destruction, and disrupted everyday life in the city; Oscar Traynor recalled how he and his fellow Volunteers were accused by one irate Dubliner of being 'starvers of the people'. Hostility to the Rising on these various grounds was inevitable, and surely understandable"

"Condemnation of the Rising spread far beyond the city in which the vast bulk of the fighting took place."
http://www.independent.ie/incoming/just-why-was-the-easter-rising-so-unpopular-34563527.html

Heather Jones, associate professor in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

"Heather Jones traces how this failed military insurrection against British rule – mounted by a small, unrepresentative minority of Irish republicans – "

"The majority of the nationalist population was satisfied with the passing of the home rule bill in 1912;"

"Even within the ranks of republicanism, the Rising was carried out by a small minority. "
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/commemorating-the-rising-history-democracy-and-violence-in-ireland

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 12:39 PM

Keith,
In response to my last comment you replied "Fergie, I do know that England has been involved in Ireland for centuries.
Nothing in your piece challenges or contradicts anything said by me."

This is what my piece said
"It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland and the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation. They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

Do you agree with this statement?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Mpdette
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 01:49 PM

No, Keith,

You're incorrect.

If there hadn't been a Rising then you Brits wouldn't have responded so heavy-handedly to it. Executing its leaders, especially a man who could not stand up, was a huge mistake and enhanced the Republican cause more than the Rising itself could ever have done.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Martin Ryan
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 02:08 PM

See you in 2017!

Regards

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 02:39 PM

Fergie,
"It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland and the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation. They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

Do you agree with this statement?

No I do not.
Bad things happened everywhere to everyone hundreds of years ago.
The Irish people wanted home rule but did not feel victims of "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."
The rising was deeply unpopular and unwanted, as I have shown.

Mpdette,
Executing its leaders, especially a man who could not stand up, was a huge mistake and enhanced the Republican cause more than the Rising itself could ever have done.

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

Thousands of Irish lives spared.

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

"Thousands of Irish lives spared."
Except the ones that would have been forcibly conscripted to fight in W.W.1.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 03:52 PM

Jim, from some angles, it does seem that the 1916 Easter Rising was a waste. To much of the world, it appeared that the Irish had a fair amount of self-determination already, and that they were going to have Home Rule within a very short period of time. The Rising resulted in the execution of the best and brightest of Irish leadership, and that was indeed a tragedy. One could argue that the British had no need to execute those men, and that is true; but one could also argue credibly that the Irish had no need to sacrifice their best leaders. At the very least, it seems that the Easter Rising was poor strategy.

Up above, somebody made an argument that I hadn't heard quite that way before - that the Rising was necessary to stem opposition to Home Rule from within Ireland. There's certainly credibility there - there certainly were some Irish who opposed Home Rule and worked to undermine it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 05:25 PM

most of the songs are were written from the irish point of view imo quite understandably, very few from the english point of view.
i mean who in their right mind would write a song which went like this, we occupied a country that didnt belong to us,we sent soldiers who were not fighting in the first world war and who were only prepared for trench warfare, not guerilla warfare, who did not know where they were going until they realised they were heading westwards instead of to france, who had no idea they would be fired upon when arriving in dublin, who had no idea there was about to be an easter rising. why not, you ask, because it would show how unprepared and incompetent the glorious british empire was,now do you understand why there were no songs from the british point of view , because it would illustrate how incompetent and unprepared they were, no glory n that is there

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 20 Apr 16 - 08:33 PM

Thank you Keith for your straight answer,

Which part of my statement do you not agree with;

1) It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland

2) the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation.

3) They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:08 AM

"Jim, from some angles, it does seem that the 1916 Easter Rising was a waste."
Keith has just demonstrated perfectly in his contempt for the Irish people and their achievements why it was not.
Ireland is at present celebrating the major step in achieving independence - it will spend the rest of the year in discussing, examining and celebrating what Keith has just described as "a contemptible joke" - that sums up Britain's attitude to Ireland and to anybody who dared to challenge the Empire's authority
then perfectly and in writing what he did, it sums up the Empire Loyalsts' hatred and contempt of their former subjects now.
Would you accept that The Boston Tea Party of 1771 "a contemptible joke"?
Within three months of the Rising Britain had about turned on the Home Rule Bill and added a clause that would guarantee Ireland a century of division, inequality, unrest and bloodshed which has lasted to the present day - permanent partition.
That's how definite The Home Rule Bill was.
Keith has not responded to that fact.
Had the rising not taken place, Irish youth would have been compulsorily whisked off to be slaughtered on the killing fields of Europe and, given the death toll there, would have been an unsustainable country - we had lost a third of our population to famine and enforced eviction half a century earlier, thanks to British greed and misrule.
Even as late as 1918, Britain tried to introduce enforced conscription - Easter Week had given the politicians the balls to say "no".
I have put up Lloyd George's statement about Home Rule - Keith chooses to ignore it.
If Ireland had "a fair amount of self-determination already", what was the Black and Tan Period about, or the fight for Independence, or the Civil War, or the further half century of struggle against injustice or inequality in the North, another "contemptible joke".
Easter Week not only eventually brought about Independence for Ireland, it set the Empire dominoes falling and was the beginning of the emd of the contemptible British Empire, that's how much of "a contemptible joke" it was.
I'm delighted that Keith finally came out of the closet and said what he said about Ireland and its traditions - long overdue.
I would love to be present if he came over here and told us that we are making fools of ourselves by celebrating "contemptible joke"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:12 AM

Fergie, I disagree with all three.


1) It was Britain's illegal and immoral occupation of Ireland and the aggressive and oppressive subjugation of the Irish people that was the root of the troubles in Ireland

The occupation was not seen as "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."
There was no popular movement against it.
The Irish people were happy with the peaceful progress to home rule.

2) the Irish people had every right to oppose that occupation.

They did have every right to, but they did not oppose it.

3) They did so in arms in 1916 and their right to do so does not have to be justified to historical revisionists".

No they did not. It was a tiny unrepresentative minority with no mandate from the Irish people.

Joe,
The Rising resulted in the execution of the best and brightest of Irish leadership

They were not "Irish leadership."
They had no mandate or support.
Only one had ever sought election, and came last in the ballot.
They were just self appointed hotheads.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:52 AM

Jim,
Except the ones that would have been forcibly conscripted to fight in W.W.1.

You are wrong again!
The conscription bill predated the rising.
There was never going to be conscription in Ireland, rising or no rising.

That did not stop 210 000 Irishmen joining the British Army in WW1.
By comaprison "the IRB (responsible for the rising)probably never exceeded 2,000 members"

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 03:58 AM

Jim, I only said that the rising was a contemptible joke, not the legitimate struggle for Irish independence.

The fact is that home rule was going to happen anyway.
The rising did nothing to hasten it.
Violence and death for no purpose.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 04:11 AM

"There was never going to be conscription in Ireland, rising or no rising."
The British attempted to introduce forcible conscription in 1918 - had Easter Week not happened, they would have introduced it earlier - why wouldn't they have.
"That did not stop 210 000 Irishmen joining the British Army in WW1."
And those same people turned around and kicked the world's strongest Empire out on its arse when it displayed its true nature.
I suggest you read this selectively and see why Irishmen joined up (and not just pick the bits that suit you) - it represents what all those who joined that bloodbath did - not the jingoistic claims that it was for the cause of freedom.
You were given six reasons why men (and in some cases boys) enlisted - you ignored them then and you will ignore them now.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/IrelandandtheFirstWorldWar/
Can't blue clickie it
I take your silence on your contempt for the Irish as confirmation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 04:16 AM

It's pretty difficult to put over 700 years of suppression into a post on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 04:26 AM

"It's pretty difficult to put over 700 years of suppression into a post on Mudcat."
How stupid do these people think the Irish are - putting teh effort they are norw doing into celebrating A contemptible joke
The jingoists have learned nothing sine the Empire went walkabout - still the superior race with all the answers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 07:19 AM

Keith thank you for some more straight answers,

I'm not in a position to deal with all you said at this moment, so I'll answer it section by section

You said - The occupation was not seen as "aggressive and oppressive subjugation."

Incorrect - In consequence of the "Land Wars" and the activities of the Land League. Ireland was in the years leading up to the rising the most heavily policed part of Britain, there were armed Police stationed in fortified barracks in almost every village in Ireland. The police had a reputation for brutality and an absolute intolerance of any activity that they considered "seditious". In addition the police were backed up by a system of "justice" that was presided over by establishment JPs, magistrates and judges that would sentence dissenters to punative periods of incarceration solely on the word on any police officer.
Th Dublin Metropolitan Police were hated by the ordinary citizens. the DMP carried batons and swords and patrolled the streets in groups. They delighted in smashing heads at the slighest excuse and many the innocent man was hauled off to spend the night in a cell and was then charged on the word of a DMP and condemned to months in prison. If you want to know how these bullies behaved look up the DMP and it's roll in the 1913 Lockout.
The British Garrisons were also feared and hated, they were brutal in the extreme and fired on innocent, unarmed civilians on many occasions. Read up on the activities of King's Own Scottish Borderers and their role in the event that has come to be known as the Bachelors Walk Massacre in 1914.

The majority of ordinary citizens feared the police and soldiers for good reason. They kept their heads down and submitted to the authorities because they knew what the cost of putting their heads above the parapet would be. They behaved in that fashion precisely because they lived under occupation and were ruled over by a vindictive, aggressive and oppressive regime that deliberatly kept them in subjugation.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 07:49 AM

Fergie, I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact.
If it were true, why was there no outcry or demand for independence?
Why did the IRB never attract more than a fringe membership?
Why did membership and votes for Sinn Fein collapse after 1908? By 1915 they had so little support that they went broke and could not pay their office rent.

Jim,
had Easter Week not happened, they would have introduced it earlier - why wouldn't they have.

Wrong again Jim.
Ireland was excluded from conscription BEFORE the rising.
Sure it was suggested in 1918, but rejected immediately.
There was not even conscription in the British North in WW2!

The rising achieved nothing, and certainly had nothing to do with Irish exemption from conscription.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 08:00 AM

Fergie, the issues of the Land Wars and Land League were all settled amicably and finally in the 19th Century.
It was not an issue by 1916.

The DMP were an Irish Catholic organisation. Not British.

The Batchelors Walk massacre was not an example of British oppression of the Irish.
The army was called out because German weapons were being smuggled into the country.
It was wrong that they fired on a crowd when they were returning to barracks, but they were not acting on higher orders. It was a heat of the moment thing.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 08:48 AM

"Ireland was excluded from conscription BEFORE the rising."
And after the rising Briain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription - fact.
"Sure it was suggested in 1918, but rejected immediately."
It was rejected by the Irish politicians who would have accepted it before the Rising - the Rising saved many thousands of young Irish lives - nothing to you maybe.
Blaming the soldiers for the Bachelors Walk massacre is simple abrogation of responsibility, just as blaming tho=e soldiers on the spot during the Bloody Sunday massacre was - the officers, and overall, the Government who put the army there were responsible in both cases - The British Govenment underlined that fact when they apologised for the Derry massacre.
Your behaviour here has demonstrated beyond all doubt why The British Empire was always has hated by the Irish people as it was - describing what Ireland is celebrating at the present time as "A contemptible joke" is beyond belief - having said it, refusing either to defend it or to withdraw it is.... well - word fail.
A question; do you believe that those at present celebrating the Rising, or those who have always cherished the event are simpletons?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 08:57 AM

! Land Wars and Land League were all settled amicably and finally in the 19th Century."
Not true again.
The official Land War protests lasted until 1911 when the West Meath MP who organised the Cattle Drives called them off, but in fact they continued in parts of Ireland right up to Independence - this County was one of the foremost in those events.
We recorded about half a dozen songs about the events made during the lifetimes of the singers
Go look it up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:06 AM

Keith.

Trying to educate you is like playing handball against a haystack.

You replied "The DMP were an Irish Catholic organisation. Not British."

The DMP = Dublin Metropolitan Police it was the title of the police service that controlled the Dublin area. It was comprised of Catholic and Protestant members and the senior offers were almost exclusively protestant and unionist inclined. I know this because, much to my shame some of my ancestors were members and they were all Church of Ireland and unionist by inclination. Believe me the thought that they were part of "an Irish Catholic organisation" would have made them guffah with mirth.

You also said "Why did the IRB never attract more than a fringe membership?"

Keith any person with a modicum of understand of Irish history would understand why the IRB had a small membership. The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) were a secret society whose membership was controlled by it's leadership. You could not join the IRB, membership was by invitation only.

I trust that you motives in being involved in this discussion are honest, but for somebody who holds such strong opinions on the subject of the 1916 Rising you seem to be almost wilfully ignorant of some of the key organisations involved.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:25 AM

Fergie, The DMP was an unarmed police force modelled exactly on the London MP.
I am sure that neither one behaved worse than the other by our standards.
British police were guilty of the same behaviour towards strikers in the early 20th Century.

The IRB may have been secret but if it was to have any hope of fighting the British out of Ireland, it would need many more than its tiny fringe membership to achieve anything.
But it could not recruit them.
Sinn Fein had the same aims but was not a secret organisation.
It published articles in The United Irishman and stood for elections.
Unfortunately no-one was interested.

Jim, is WIKI wrong on the Land League?
It says that the Irish Land question was resolved in 1903.


"The major land reforms came when Parliament passed laws in 1870, 1881, 1903 and 1909 that enabled most tenant farmers to purchase their lands, and lowered the rents of the others.[8] From 1870 and as a result of the Land War agitations and the Plan of Campaign of the 1880s, various British governments introduced a series of Irish Land Acts. William O'Brien played a leading role in the 1902 Land Conference to pave the way for the most advanced social legislation in Ireland since the Union, the Wyndham Land Purchase Act of 1903.This Act set the conditions for the break-up of large estates and gradually devolved to rural landholders, and tenants' ownership of the lands. It effectively ended the era of the absentee landlord, finally resolving the Irish Land Question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Land_League

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:41 AM

House Of Commons 1892.
"The Commissioner of Police reports there are seven superintendents in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and they are all Roman Catholics. "

"The Commissioner adds that the question of religion does not form any factor in the promotions in the Force. "

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1892/mar/28/dublin-metropolitan-police

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Fergie
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 10:44 AM

Keith,

Your ability to vacillate is remarkable, but not in a good way. Your dismissive attitude is tiresome and I'm done with wasting my time trying to have an honest discussion with somebody that seems unwilling to accept that their understanding of the issues are weak and seems to regard the state of ignorance as a virtue.

I'm out of here.

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

"t says that the Irish Land question was resolved in 1903."
The Land League was in no way the end of the land disputes which, as I said, continued up to Independence and hangovers of t those disputes continued into The Free State Period.
"The grazier system provoked the growth of the United Irish League and the so-called 'ranch war' of the early twentieth century[63]. Many landlords, particularly in the west and in the midlands, who had favoured the grazier system, once again found their estates under prolonged threat from agrarian agitators. In the post-1903 period, the U.I.L. demanded the break-up and distribution of estates belonging to landlords who were not willing to sell under
the terms of the Wyndham act. There was prolonged agitation on the Ashtown estate in Co Galway, for example,which lasted from around 1905 to 1914[64] . With the outbreak of World War I agitation temporarily abated on most estates as farming profits improved. Land sales under the land acts were suspended without provoking any great opposition. However, when the war ended and economic prosperity waned, smallholders and the landless once again began to clamour for the break-up of estates."
The disputes mentioned above occurred here in Clare, Kerry and parts of Limerick and took the form of rusting the big landlord's cattle, driving them through the towns then freeing them on open land.
You have insulted a large number of people here with your ignorance and arrogance and your habit of hstily scooping up bits you think make your case continues to spoil these discussions.
Yo once said you had read nothing of Irish history and were not interested enough to do so - it shows.
I'm British but my personal associations with Ireland go back to my childhood and my family history with Ireland is centuries old.
I know from personal contact that Fergie's knowledge of the subject is voluminous - far more than mine, yet you still think you know more than we do through your internet raids.
In describing The Rising as you have, vitrually single-handedly placed yourself above all those who are proudly celebrating the events of Easter 1916, reading anw writing about it as making dozens of programmes about it.
I ask again "do you believe that those at present celebrating the Rising, or those who have always cherished the event are simpletons?"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:12 PM

Sorry Fergie, but the fact is that none of your points stand up.
I "dismissed" them only by showing them to be false.
You have been taken in by propaganda in place of hard history.

Jim, I do not claim expertise in Irish history, but have backed everything I say with quotes from acknowledged experts.
Do you claim that you and Fergie know more than the professional historians whose statements refute your views?

Are you claiming that Wiki is wrong in this statement?

"The Ashbourne Act of 1885 started a limited process of allowing tenant farmers buy their freeholds, which was greatly extended following the 1902 Land Conference, by the 1903 Wyndham Land Purchase Act. Augustine Birrell's Act of 1909 allowed for compulsory purchase, and also allowed the purchase and division of untenanted land that was being directly farmed by the owners.

These Acts allowed tenants first to attain extensive property rights on their leaseholdings and then to purchase their land off their landlords via UK government loans and the Land Commission. The 1903 Act gave Irish tenant farmers a government-sponsored right to buy, which is still not available in Britain itself today."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_War

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:35 PM

"Are you claiming that Wiki is wrong in this statement?"
You have just been given the situation of the land wars - did I make them up or are they all propaganda, as Fergie's statements are?
One more time
"The grazier system provoked the growth of the United Irish League and the so-called 'ranch war' of the early twentieth century[63]. Many landlords, particularly in the west and in the midlands, who had favoured the grazier system, once again found their estates under prolonged threat from agrarian agitators. In the post-1903 period, the U.I.L. demanded the break-up and distribution of estates belonging to landlords who were not willing to sell under
the terms of the Wyndham act. There was prolonged agitation on the Ashtown estate in Co Galway, for example,which lasted from around 1905 to 1914[64] . With the outbreak of World War I agitation temporarily abated on most estates as farming profits improved. Land sales under the land acts were suspended without provoking any great opposition. However, when the war ended and economic prosperity waned, smallholders and the landless once again began to clamour for the break-up of estates."
And again, one more time.
"do you believe that those at present celebrating the Rising, or those who have always cherished the event are simpletons?"
Your continued arrogance is beyond belief
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:39 PM

Not just me!
Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is an Irish Jesuit priest who is currently teaching philosophy at Loyola University Chicago.

"On the first day of the Rising, the Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army (ICA) members deliberately killed some civilians and unarmed Dublin Metropolitan Police constables.

They staged the Rising in the most densely populated part of Ireland, even choosing the South Dublin Union, full of sick and elderly like its descendant St James's Hospital, as one place to fight. There were far more civilian (260) than rebel (82) or combined military and police (142)deaths, and responsibility for their deaths lies primarily with the leaders of the Rising."

"With no authority, the Rising's leaders declared a republic, nominated themselves as its government, and shot anybody in their way.

As is clear from what Pearse, Connolly and Clarke stated at the time, democratic elections were beneath them. They believed that the people did not want an independent republic: they were determined to start a chain of events that would, by political emotional blackmail, compel the Irish people to 'want' it.

Nor did they represent the Volunteers or even the IRB in full. As Pearse himself admitted, they subverted the Volunteers, lying to Eoin MacNeill about their plans. They excluded IRB leaders (like Bulmer Hobson) who did not agree with them. "

"Militarily insignificant, the Rising had no political effect on Britain, strengthened extreme northern unionists, and was politically devastating for the IPP, as Redmond and many others understood at once.

In the Rising, the unelected gunmen defeated the elected representatives. That wrought dreadful long-term damage to Irish political culture, as regards democracy, peace, politics rather than violence, the rule of law, human rights, tolerance and pluralism."
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/just-war-no

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 12:43 PM

A bit more to ignore
"From 1918 to 1920 a major part of the unrest in rural Ireland, as so often in the past, related to land. The purchase and division of estates under the Land Acts had largely ceased during the Great War and emigration was curtailed. Sinn Féin's victory in the 1918 election is likely to have raised expectations; the party agitated on the land question during the 1918 election, with de Valera and Cosgrave in particular campaigning against landlords and large graziers.11 Thousands of farm labourers joined the ITGWU, which launched a land campaign in 1919 aimed at securing better wages and conditions. Strikes were accompanied by cattle running, arson and land occupations. Smallholders, labourers and eleven-month conacre tenants began forcibly to lay claim to land. As Frank Gallagher, at the time publicity officer for the first Dáil, described the situation in his Four Glorious Years (1957):
Farm hungry men do not believe in gentle methods ... When the farmer objected his crops were sometimes burned, his family set upon ... Those who led the taking over of estates did not hesitate to shoot owners who stood in their way.
More often than not, as Gallagher admitted, Protestant-owned land was the target, with ancestral grievances justifying occupations. A Land Settlement Commission established by the Dáil reported that "claims are being based on the assertion that the claimants or their ancestors were formerly in occupation of the property" and that some claims were being "put forward in the hope of intimidating the present occupiers". As one person sent by the Dáil to investigate the situation described it: "…the fever [of agrarian agitation] swept with the fury of a prairie fire over Connacht and portions of the other provinces, sparing neither great ranch nor medium farm and inflicting in its headlong course, sad havoc on man, beast, and property".12
Based on his reading of the Dáil Commission's reports, Diarmaid Ferriter describes many rural areas as on the verge of social anarchy:
Obduracy could be fuelled by long-term sectarian hatred or in many cases abject poverty, while those seeking land frequently organised themselves into ad-hoc committees to orchestrate agitation, or simply to plead for a fair hearing. Many locals deprived of land took it upon themselves to evict Protestant neighbours without recourse to arbitration.13
- See more at: http://www.drb.ie/essays/getting-them-out#sthash.I0YrcOh4.dpuf"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 05:01 PM

Just to comment, tho committed to neither side, that the venerable Keith'n'Carroll Show has here transmuted into a sort of intellectual game of tennis, with each side serving to the other views of various indubitable authorities, who however start from heterogeneous & irreconcilable attitudes & partis pris (I think that the correct plural)...

This one, as they say, could run & run.......!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,joe at airport
Date: 21 Apr 16 - 07:07 PM

So, are there any facts that we agree upon?

• Was the British occupation of Ireland legitimate?
  Can we even agree that it was an occupation?
• Would Britain have granted home rule without the Easter rising?
• Is Ireland better off because of the Easter rising?

Yes, this discussion has been a bit combative, and we've had to clean up a number of off-topic posts; but I've learned a lot from it. It was my call to keep this thread in the music section since it began her and since so many songs have sprung from the Easter Rising. I know some people think it should be in the BS section, but I can't see how it's the end of the world either way.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 03:17 AM

"This one, as they say, could run & run.......!"
No it can't Mike - everything has been said and we are apparently down to the unchangeable opinion of a Jesuit Priest - where can we possibly go from here?
Would Britain have GRANTED (now there's a word to consider in post-Empire days) Ireland Home Rule - it still hasn't; six counties still remain as part of the remnants of Empire - a fact that is still the cause of disharmony, bloodshed and death nearly a century after Independence.
If Easter Week was a waste of time (a "contemptible joke" as Keith so eloquently put it), where does that leave the present day Irish people who are putting a great deal of time and effort into celebrating it as Ireland's first major step to freedom - with little more than a sense of humour, it would appear.
We have all been "taken in by propaganda in place of hard history" - a nation in denial - Keith's cut-'n-pastes have proved that beyond any doubt - who are we to argue with The Jesuits?
Must drop a line to the Pres., Michael D,, who just gave a very moving speech on Roger Casement on Banna Strand, poor deluded man!
This has been Post Empire Loyalist jingoism at its very worst - I wonder how Joe and his fellow-Americans would have reacted to 1777 being described as a "contemptible joke" - not well, I imagine.
It would appear that there are those who still have not got over the passing of the Empire.
There is enough here for people to make up their own minds - let's move on eh.
I was particularly impressed with the spirit of friendship and acceptance of this Guardian article - says what should be said nicely, I thought (can't blue-clickie again - must be something I said).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/25/the-guardian-view-on-the-easter-rising-centenary-irelands-history-lesson-for-britain
Onward and upward.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 03:50 AM

Points well taken, Jim. Still, I wonder whether the matter was at a point in 1916 where it could have been handled by diplomatic processes instead of by more bloodshed. Would the tactics of Gandhi have been more effective?

But I suppose that Gandhi's tactics came almost half a century later (although he also used them in South Africa earlier).

I guess it boils down to the basic question of pacifism: are the methods of war the most effective way to achieve justice?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 03:53 AM

Good article, Jim

Clicky here.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:01 AM

BS - despite the Peadar Kearney.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:01 AM

Was the British occupation of Ireland legitimate?

In 1916, Britain was a united kingdom of England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
None was occupying any other.

Can we even agree that it was an occupation?

No.

Would Britain have granted home rule without the Easter rising?

It had already granted home rule, postponed only because it was fighting and losing a war for the very existence of Britain, including Ireland, as a free democratic state.

Is Ireland better off because of the Easter rising?

The rising achieved nothing, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and led to the deaths of a couple of thousand more in the civil war.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:16 AM

Jim, opening sentence of Dave's Article,
"Although it was widely disapproved by Irish opinion at the time, "

Do you still dispute that, which is one of my two points?

Your stuff about land wars is easily shown to be irrelevant to the rising.


"The major land reforms came when Parliament passed laws in 1870, 1881, 1903 and 1909 that enabled most tenant farmers to purchase their lands, and lowered the rents of the others."

" Act of 1903.This Act set the conditions for the break-up of large estates and gradually devolved to rural landholders, and tenants' ownership of the lands. It effectively ended the era of the absentee landlord, finally resolving the Irish Land Question."

"The 1903 Act gave Irish tenant farmers a government-sponsored right to buy, which is still not available in Britain itself today."

All sorted long before the rising.
If it had still been an issue, the rising would not have been an almost exclusively urban event.
There were no tenant farmers in metropolitan Dublin!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:22 AM

Jim, you accused me of Post Empire Loyalist jingoism.

Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is an Irish Jesuit priest who is currently teaching philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, and holds identical views.

Is he also a post empire loyalist jingoist?
No.
Those views are reasoned and supported by all the historical facts.
You have produced nothing to challenge any of them.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:45 AM

Give the others a chance Keith - all our points have been covered over and over again and we've taken up far too much space n this forum as it is.
Joe
"are the methods of war the most effective way to achieve justice"
I'm not the one to answer that - ask the Kenyans and the people of the Congo or Palestine or India who followed on the heels of Ireland in shedding their blood for independence; or more recently, the Vietnamese - did pacifism work for them - would turning the other cheek change the fact that the Palestinians are gradually being flushed out of existence as a people?
I am not a nationalist, Irish or British and I consider myself an instinctive pacifist, as, I believe, most human beings to be, but I believe we are forced to react to circumstances rather than our own philosophical beliefs.
My father was a pacifist, yet he went off and killed Spaniards for what he believed in.
If I had to choose one of the heroes of Easter Week it would, without hesitation, be Connolly, not because he "died in the chair", but because he wanted to change society and not just its leaders - "neither English nor Irish landlords" I love that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 04:51 AM

"BS - despite the Peadar Kearney."
Didn't notice that when I scanned it in Guest.
I occasionally drink in the "Peadar Kearney" in Dublin, when I'm there - they spell it properly and it used to be a nice singing pub for elderly locals.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 05:00 AM

"Those views are reasoned and supported by all the historical facts."

You are not in possession of ALL the historical facts. Your FACTS are cut and pastes from the Internet. Selective at least. When, and only when, you have read extensively on Irish history from 1170 to the present day will you be in a position to make such a statement.

I too am out of here.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 05:53 AM

Your FACTS are cut and pastes from the Internet. Selective at least.

Essays and articles by historians who know more than all of us together.

I notice that you still can not identify a single one of my FACTS that you challenge, or produce a single one of your own.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 06:04 AM

Jim, opening sentence of Dave's Article

Dave's Article??? The article has bugger all to do with me. All I did was provided a clicky to a link to an article that Jim had already provided a link for. That is an historic fact that can be proved by many eminent people...

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 06:19 AM

"I notice that you still can not identify a single one of my FACTS that you challenge, or produce a single one of your own"
For ***** sake Keith - your 'fact' have been torn to shreds over and over again
The changes and about-turns of the Home Rule Bill - the many reasons Irish (and British) people enlisted - the devastating photographs of indiscriminate shelling - the behavour of the British towards opponents (you won't even respond to the Tans, the fact that the land wars continued till after independence.....
You have ignored all this and continue to chant 'I won' in parrot fashion
Your priest may or may not be a jingoist, but he represents a minority opinion here in Ireland ad it is what it is - an opinion, nothing more.
Your insulting behavior towards the Irish people as a whole and your refusal to either qualify or withdraw those insults marks your case out for what it is - sheer archaic jingoism.
If Ireland would have got Home Rule without Easter Week - why didn't they get it - why was there a civil war and a near century of persecution forced n the Northern Catholics - why wasn't Independence implemented immediately after the war and the six counties added a year later, as the signed treaty stated - none of this took place and still haven't beer ratified?
Now will you go away?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 06:31 AM

"This one, as they say, could run & run.......!"
No it can't Mike · 0317 AM

....

Oh? seems to me to be having a pretty good go, Jim...!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 06:41 AM

What can you do Mike - silence doesn't seem to work
I get a pit pissed off with triumphalism with no basis.
Sorry - I suppose it's much easier to snipe from the sidelines.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 07:18 AM

Sorry Mike - didn't mean to snap
Troublesome priest, and all that
Jim CaRROLL

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 08:26 AM

If Ireland would have got Home Rule without Easter Week - why didn't they get it -

They would have. It was already agreed but there was the small matter of WW1 that had to be dealt with first.

FACT.
The Home Rule Act was already passed.
FACT.
Home Rule was assured
FACT.
The Rising had almost no popular support.


The Rising achieved nothing but thousands of unnecessary Irish deaths.

your 'fact' have been torn to shreds over and over again

If that is true, identify a single one.
My case is just that the rising was unnecessary because home rule was already assured, and the people did not support it.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 09:11 AM

the many reasons Irish (and British) people enlisted

I quoted historians who researched their actual motivation.

the devastating photographs of indiscriminate shelling

There are no such photographs.
The shells were fired directly at the occupied buildings, and at the actual windows from where the rebels were firing.
See the pictures I provided of the Liberty building and YMCA.

Lar Joye, curator of military history at the National Museum of Ireland,
"Most of the damage to Dublin's city centre was caused by fire, particularly at premises like the Irish Times warehouse and Hoyte's Druggists and Oil Works, rather than by shelling."
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/tss-helga-ii/

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 10:43 AM

"Those views are reasoned and supported by all the historical facts."

Absolutely, Professor! - and also supported by all historians (live ones, that is) whose books are available in regular bookshops & etc & etc........

It don't never change, do it?   ;>)

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 12:14 PM

"The Rising achieved nothing but thousands of unnecessary Irish deaths."

The death toll was hundreds rather than thousands,the majority civilians many of whom were killed by army fire.
The figures come from Wikipedia link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising


Almost 500 people were killed in the Easter Rising. About 54% were civilians, 30% were British military and police, and 16% were Irish rebels. More than 2,600 were wounded. Many of the civilians were killed as a result of the British using artillery and heavy machine guns, or mistaking civilians for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire in a crowded city. The shelling and the fires it caused left parts of inner city Dublin in ruins.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 12:25 PM

Keith has frequently quoted Fr. Seamus Murphy, S.J. I found an interesting article by Murphy in the Irish Times. It's worth a read:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-rising-of-easter-1916-is-live-and-politically-radioactive-1.2492815

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 12:34 PM

Thanks Joe.

Derrick, I was including the civil war.
Earlier today (4.01AM) I acknowledged that the rising had "only" killed hundreds.
I said, "The rising achieved nothing, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, and led to the deaths of a couple of thousand more in the civil war."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 12:43 PM

Murphy in Irish Times.

"Far more serious is the attempt of the Rising's leaders, without authority from the living Irish people (as opposed to the imaginary authority of the dead generations), to establish a new state and themselves as its government with power to start a war and execute citizens. That can't be laughed off.
Furthermore, the Rising is not like the Battle of Clontarf (1014), a 'dead' event with no contemporary political relevance: it is the template for the two-headed monster run by the IRA Army Council, and for its feral children, the Real and Continuity IRAs."

"To celebrate the Rising is to celebrate their anti-democratic elitism and bloodlust."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 12:53 PM

Jim, we can finish this.
I only argue two points.

The Rising did not have popular support.
The Home Rule Bill had already been passed.

You denied both but they are established, hard, historical facts.

Do you still deny them?
If not, we are done.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 12:55 PM

!"To celebrate the Rising is to celebrate their anti-democratic elitism and bloodlust.""
The opinion of a Jesuit Priest - a minority of - what exactly?
Had Ireland not risen, Britain would have exercised its right to send
Irish youth to the front.
On the first day of the Somme, a matter of a few weeks of the rising, over 19000 young British men lost their lives and 8,000 were wounded - in one day.
Now that's what I call "bloodlust".
Fr Murphy's Church supported the war calling for "Irishmen to support Catholic Belgium".
Catholic Belgium was responsible for the deaths of 10 million Congolese and the amputation of hands of unnumbered plantation workers
Bloodlust or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 16 - 01:10 PM

"
I only argue two points"
WHAT?
Not again!!
You have argued every single aspect of this uprising up to the point of maing out that those celebrating it as gullible morons (racist to say the least)
The Home Rule was stamped to death by the Irish Parliamentarians because it had been altered - you have had the Lloyd George quote.
It was viciously attacked in Parliament by British Tories
It was not actually accepted by Britain until 1922 following a war of Independence and then in a deformed state.   
Each time you repeat this nonsense you confirm the stupidity of your case.
How do you no it had no support - did people carry out a survey to find what the country as a whole thought - where are your figures.
A few Dubliners around the GPO at the end of the Rising protested - many more assisted the rebels throughout the fighting, geiving them shelter and misleading the soldiers.
Many hundreds of Dubliners used the Rising to loot busnesses and shops in the vicinity - in fact the rebels attempted to stop this from happening.   
Within months of the Rising the people totally supported the Rising and mounted the Irish War of Independence.
How exactly do you suggest that the Rebels should have called for support for the Rising - a public ballot maybe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 03:39 AM

Fergie, where and when did Joe Offer ask you to deliver YOUR definitive History of Ireland in just a few paragraphs? Do you really expect it to accepted as the full story?

Let us have a few of your glaring omissions shall we?

Henry's expansion westwards into Ireland was no different and no less "legal" than the westward expansion of the Celts from central Europe - basically that was how things were done then - you fall into the trap of judging events and mores of a bygone age through 21st century perspectives. You omit to mention Irish raids on England and Wales, were these to be ignored? the "English" did not "invade" Ireland but lesser sons of Norman Knights did to carve out land for themselves - Nothing new in that for "Normans" who branched out from Normandy into the British Isles, down through Italy, on to Sicily and into the middle-east (Aleppo in Syria was a "Norman" city).

As to the various "Irish Rebellions" down through those 800 years if you look into them you will find that they were mainly instigated either by Spain or France who promised much but delivered little - The "Great" Chief O'Neill's rebellion was motivated by pure self-interest, its object was not to win freedom for Ireland but to deliver it to Spain as a colony with O'Neill in the position as Viceroy. Scotland was no different and there were far more Scottish Rebellions than Irish and they came much closer to success, again the foreign power promising "assistance" delivered little or nothing leaving the general population to suffer the consequences - rebellions when they happened tended to coincide with European Wars in which England or Great Britain was involved.

No mention of the collusion of the Nationalists and the Germans between 1914 and 1916, no mention of failed attempts to smuggle arms into Ireland to arm the nationalists in time of war - or should that have been ignored too?

The Royal Navy's intelligence branch by breaking German ciphers (Main reason why the Nationalists Gun running attempts failed) knew that something was about to happen in 1916 and had their advice been taken and had the leaders been arrested then the Easter Rising would never have happened.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 03:56 AM

"I've read quite a bit more about Irish history, mostly fiction. I suppose I've learned most of the history I know from novels, and I think that's not a bad thing." - Joe Offer,

You are right Joe it is not a bad thing - it is absolutely appalling. By what you state above you have read no history at all - instead you have read what undoubtedly are heavily biased STORIES about historical events - whale of a difference, particularly if you are then going to base any serious argument on what is fiction. If you are going to study any historical event you have to look at it from all perspectives, not just that of someone writing a work of fiction. You have to look at those events objectively, history has no romantic aspect.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 04:01 AM

Fergie, that translates as my club is bigger than your shillelagh therefore I win.

It also nicely avoids having to mention all the repressive measures that were put into place over centuries of suppression to prevent the indigenous population from .... lets see ......... owning land, having an education, having a vote, speaking their own language, being able to practice law, even wearing green at one stage together with countless other restrictions, designed to for one purpose and one purpose only, to subjugate the people.

Therefore all the Irish population and all the Irish diaspora must be grossly misinformed and grossly mistaken to be celebrating the centenary of the 1916 rising.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 04:14 AM

"Artillery was used but was it indiscriminate? Any evidence"
The dozens of statements of eye witness evidence - the massive damage that was done, the weapons used - even the Gunboat Helga firing shells from the Liffey - these can only be used 'indiscriminately' in the hope they might hit their target."

Intelligence and reports from the Nationalists led Government Forces and Police present to believe that civilians had been evacuated. There was no clear way of identifying civilians from "Volunteers".

No heavy artillery was deployed no heavy artillery was used. Heaviest gun was the QF 12 pounder on the Helga which was 3" - had they wished to do so the British could have used a Dreadnought or Battle Cruiser with 15" guns to reduce Dublin to rubble, they didn't, the only artillery used were light field pieces and the devastation caused was to clear fields of fire.

This having been my "specialisation" while in the Navy I can tell you with 100% certainty that no naval gunfire is indiscriminate and no shot is fired in the vague hope that it MIGHT hit the target. Indirect naval gunfire is corrected by observers onto target and that is done very rapidly, in Dublin the rebels held an area under full observation by Government forces, each rebel strongpoint could be identified on any city map and from that information the gunnery officer on the Helga would have an initial range and bearing to target - it really is quite a simple exercise in applied mathematics Jom.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 04:41 AM

There is a difference between being indiscriminate and being accurate.

Can you tell us the percentage of your practise artillery firing was accurate:

1. from the first shot

2. overall.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 04:44 AM

3. Would those figures have been achievable in 1916

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 05:00 AM

Yes Rag.
The guns were fired directly, not just at the occupied buildings but at the actual windows the rebels fired from.

Jim,
Had Ireland not risen, Britain would have exercised its right to send
Irish youth to the front.

Nonsense Jim. Ireland was excluded from conscription before the rising.
No shortage of volunteers though.

The Home Rule was stamped to death by the Irish Parliamentarians because it had been altered - you have had the Lloyd George quote.
It was viciously attacked in Parliament by British Tories

More nonsense Jim.
The British parliament passed the act before the rising, and Ireland was quite content with it .
What happened after the rising was the fault of the rising.

The Rising did not have popular support.
The Home Rule Bill had already been passed.

You deny both but they are established, hard, historical facts.
What does that make you Jim?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 05:30 AM

Of course Keith, that's why incendiary rounds were used. Not that fire regards property you understand, it tends to burn indiscriminately.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:25 AM

"Nonsense Jim. Ireland was excluded from conscription before the rising."
Been here-done that Keith.
Britain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription in Ireland in 1918 - what part of that fact do you have a problem with?
Had Ireland not opposed British rule, there would have been no reason whatever that it should have been left out of the bloodbath - why should they have been left out while the rest of British youth was being slaughtered?
"The British parliament passed the act before the rising,"
And altered it in July 1916 to make the partition of the six counties permanent - it was originally intended that these counties (originally the whole of Ulster, but altered when it was realised that this would give the Catholics a majority in the North) would be partitioned until a year after the war ended.
Even the Parliamentary Irish rejected the re-written treaty - Redmond described it as "a betrayal"
The Republicans who took part in the Rising did so because they realised that Britain had no intention of ratifying any treaty that did not meet its own interests.
You have been given all this before, what part of this do you have problems with; if none, why are you raising it again and again and again.....?
Britain was finally forced to concede a form of Independence, at the threat of an alternative of "a signature or war", which lead to immediate Civil War in the 26 Counties, built in financial, political and land-owning injustice, inequality and hardship for the Catholic third of the six counties, and a near-century of unrest and bloodshed.
What problems do you have with any of this?
The Rising did not have the support of those in the immediately vicinity, (I told you this years ago), but there is no indication whatever of how the rest of Ireland felt - they were never asked.
It doesn't matter anyway - within a matter of months the Rebels had the complete support of the Irish people, a support which led to a full-scale war of independence which ended overall rule in Ireland by the wealthiest and most powerful Empire the world has known being kicked out ignominiously by poorly armed irregular fighters.
The Rising has since been considered the turning-point in Irish history by the Irish people as a whole.
You, who have stated you know nothing of Irish history and have never read a book on the subject, have taken onto yourself to describe the Irish people as a whole as gullible and misled in their beliefs and written-off that fully accepted Irish turning point with contempt - what does that make you Keith?
You said earlier that "we can finish this."
Your stated contempt for the Irish people and their knowledge of their own history wil never be "finished" until you withdraw your appalling statement or qualify it - it verges on racism to suggest that an entire nation is gullible enough to have been misled by propaganda on its own history and that you, with your declared ingnorance and disinterest, know more than they do.
If anything, your stated contempt has been written into the history of this forum in your own words.
"Fergie, where and when did Joe Offer ask you to deliver YOUR definitive History of Ireland in just a few paragraphs?"
And where did anybody ask you to sum up a over a millennium of Irish history in a couple of sentences, particularly in your as usual talking-down-to tone?
Your points might just be better made if they weren't delivers in such a contemptuous tone (in the new spirit of not insulting people, which you have regularly complained about)
To compare Henry VIII's forcible re-conquest of Ireland to the tribal movements of the Bronze Age is risible, to say the least.
If it was "legal" it was so because the laws of the day were made by a monarch who believed himself appointed by God and who took it on himself to torture and burn religious opponents in order to have his marriage annulled.
British rule has been maintained in Ireland ever since by force of arms, massacres and open oppression - all perfectly "legal" of course.
Your "naval experience apparently makes you an "expert" on the type of weaponry available in 1916 - sure it does!!
In which case, all the destruction that took place must have been caused by rifle fire - risibility appears to be your 'thing' today!
The Irish did not "collude" with the Germans - they took the weapons that the Germans offered - no collusion - no offer of support for Germany.
The Russian people did exactly the same at the time of their revolution.
If you don't know the facts of the situation, please don't hestate to ask.
Joe's point is far from "absolutely appalling" - many people's knowledge of Ireland come from reading such novels, most people's interests don't even stretch that far - your own arguments don't exactly leave much of an impression of study or understanding of the subject.
I assume that, by your description of those novels as "biased" you have read them yourself - or is this just another plucked-out-of-the-air conclusion?
Uris''s novel (only read the one) is actually fairly balanced as such writings go - he did a similar job on Israel, though there, he tended to be more openly partisan - no harm in that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:41 AM

Britain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription in Ireland in 1918 - what part of that fact do you have a problem with?

It was passed in April 1918 and would have taken months to implement.
By June 1918 the tide had turned and American troops were pouring in so there was no need to conscript a single Irishman.
Casualties were very light in the final months of the war anyway.

Conscription for the rest of Britain was passed before the rising in March 1916, and Ireland was excluded.

The rising had no bearing on conscription in Ireland.
It would have been opposed in Ireland anyway.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:51 AM

No one seriously interested in history gets their knowledge of history from novels. " many people's knowledge of Ireland come from reading such novels" . On what basis do you make that claim Jim. and then there is your mention of bias in novels and suggesting that books could only be judged if one had actually read them. Fair point Jim, then you accuse Uris of being " more openly partisan in his novel on Israel , even though you have not read it. odd logic that.
I have tried ( twice deleted) to make the   point that there is a difference between popular narrative and history. historical novelists often deal only in popular narrative, Uris , and yes I have read him, does this,. Uris is neither a very good writer or a very good historian, so learning history from him is a dubious exercise at best and , at worst, an intellectually lazy way of attempting to acquire knowledge.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:52 AM

"It was passed in April 1918 and would have taken months to implement."
It shows without doubt that the willingness to sacrifice Irish lives was always present and it most would not have taken months to implement - Ireland would have been subject to the emergency laws operating in wartime.
This it one tiny aspect of what I have just written and I have no intention of allowing you to divert this discussion from what I wrote.
I suggest that you might start with your racist contempt for the Irish people and why you appear to believe yourself to be more knowledgeable than they are on their own history - then we can nit-pick
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:17 AM

Jim, I love Ireland and all things Irish, and have some lovely Irish people married into my family.
Your accusation of racism is a disgusting personal attack.
Please just address what I actually say instead of making up lies about me as a person.

Rag, the use of incendiary shells in Dublin is disputed.

"there were no incendiary shells used in Dublin in 1916 contrary to popular belief. "
http://conflictandthecity.ie/abstract/dublin-fire-brigade-rising-revolution-2/

"In the folklore of the Easter Rising, the Helga is said to have brought about the destruction of the city, raining incendiary shells down on the rebels from her fine vantage point on the River Liffey. In reality, there were no incendiary shells (they hadn't been utilised anywhere by April 1916), and the Helga fired only forty shells during the course of the rebellion. "
https://comeheretome.com/2016/03/30/the-day-the-helga-sank/

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:38 AM

"No one seriously interested in history gets their knowledge of history from novels."
Joe never claimed to be seriously interested and is no different from the vast majority of British, or, I suspect, America people who read little o the subject but who are periferably interested in the subject and get their understanding from various sources, in America's case, quite often from personal family experiences.
As far as this topic is concerned, as I have pointed out, up to now there has been little published and readily available specifically dedicated to it - the case was true of the Famine up to the 150th anniversary of the event.
Uris is an excellent novelist and recognised as such - I would need a little more evidence that he was not a good historian - many novelists are because of their research into detail.
He uses Irish history as a background for storytelling, whereas "Peter De Rosa" uses a storytelling technique to recount actual historical events.
For about a century there was only one substantial work on the Great Irish Famine - written by an Englishwoman, yet there were numerous novels, many giving an extremely vivid picture of the time, which filled in the gap.
Liam O'Flahert's 'Famine' is probably the best of these and its effect was life-changing to many people - a novel.
Reading Uris is certainly not a "lazy way" or learning, especially when there was so little else, though it may be a silly way to try to become an expert, which Joe never claimed to be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:59 AM

More on shells.
Michael Barry.
"The 'Helga' fired 24 rounds from its 12-pounder deck gun. These were high-explosive shells, i.e. which explode on impact. One account tells that the first shell hit the bridge.

At the same time, British Army gunners had moved an 18-pounder field gun from Trinity College. They set up by the south quays by Butt Bridge at Tara Street, and proceeded to shell Liberty Hall as well. They (army gunners)had only shrapnel shells. These did not contain high explosive and would have the effect of a glorified but high-velocity cannon-ball."

http://www.theirishstory.com/2016/03/24/the-helga-and-the-shelling-of-liberty-hall/#.VxthtfkrKt-

Author and historian Michael B. Barry studied in Trinity College, Dublin.
Michael has written several books including 'Victorian Dublin Revealed' and 'The Green Divide, an Illustrated History of the Irish Civil War'. His recent book 'Courage Boys, We are Winning, an Illustrated History of the 1916 Rising' is a best seller. It has been described in the press as the best illustrated book on the 1916 Rising, and has gone into reprint.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:09 AM

You really are not going to respond to any of the points made, are you
Why should anybody take seriously a self-confessed disinterested ignoramous who believes that anybody who disagrees with him is a "gullible, propaganda-deluded moron?
Not this gp-dm certainly.
Come back when you have something Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:16 AM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm how did all those fires start then, must have been pyromaniacs about eh Keith?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:51 AM

Jim , you missed the point. Also, I am left to wonder how you know how "the Vast majority" of people obtain historical knowledge. I am not sure who recognizes Uris as an "excellent" novelists, but I will take your unsubstantiated word for it. Many others, of course, would disagree. I would suggest that you read more than one of his books, then read some history and see where he goes off the rails a bit. You seem to have a very superficial knowledge of him. Do read him , then pass judgement.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:03 AM

" "the Vast majority" of people obtain historical knowledge"
It was never taught in British schools - may have been different in the U.S.
The subject is patently a dark area outside Ireland - what other sources are there?
The ignorance of Ireland was aptly demonstrated throughout the 'Troubles' in Britain - even the two magnificent series on our televisions largely skipped over the rising - the U.T.V. one not even that.
The British public's view of Ireland, from my experience in two cities (I don't count my native Liverpool) tends to be at the Bernard Manning level, generated by at least a century of hatred propaganda.
Have read most of Uris's novels, but mine is only an opinion, as is yours.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:07 AM

"Most of the damage to Dublin's city centre was caused by fire, particularly at premises like the Irish Times warehouse and Hoyte's Druggists and Oil Works, rather than by shelling." Your quote Keith, so tell me how all these fires started.

Then you can tell me about the Imperial War Museum which you have avoided. then you can tell me about the Black & Tans which you have avoided, then you can tell me about the incendiary shells that were used in 1915 using Thermite that you maintain were not used.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:13 AM

History does not have to be taught in schools in order for people to have a curiosity and a knowledge of it. I think you underestimate people Jim. I am not suggesting that everyone is an ardent student of history, Irish or otherwise but I do know that people who are genuinely interested in a subject read widely and thus inform themselves.
I thought you mentioned in an earlier post that you had read only one of his novels, hence my reluctance to give credence to your views of him. I must have misunderstood you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:46 AM

"I think you underestimate people Jim"
As someone of Irish extraction who lived in London throughout 'The Troubles' - I think I do not, but there again, that is my personal experience, yours may be different - be happy to consider it if you put it up.
On several occasions I experienced the prejudice towards the Irish - the 'T'ick Paddy' image being among the most common.
It was beautifully summed up for me by a customer when she told me, "we have Irish neighbors so we always have to check under our car before we turn the engine on".
There's a wonderful book - may still be available, entitled, 'The Same Old Story', a history of prejudice towards the Irish - quite horrifying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 10:04 AM

RAGGYTASH some info on the black and tans January 1920, the British government started advertising in British cities for men willing to "face a rough and dangerous task", helping to boost the ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) in policing an increasingly anti-British Ireland. There was no shortage of recruits, many of them First World War army veterans, and by November 1921 about 9,500 men had joined. This sudden influx of men led to a shortage of RIC uniforms, and the new recruits were issued with khaki army uniforms (usually only trousers) and dark green RIC or blue British police surplus tunics, caps and belts. This mixture gave rise to their nickname, the Black and Tans (in Irish, na Dúchrónaigh), from the name of a famous pack of foxhounds from Limerick, the Scarteen Black and Tans, whose colours were and are similar. The name stuck even after the men received full RIC uniforms.

The new recruits received three months' hurried training, and were rapidly posted to RIC barracks, mostly in Dublin, Munster and eastern Connacht. The first men arrived on 25 March 1920. The government also raised another unit, the Auxiliary Division of the constabulary, known as the Auxiliaries or Auxies. This group was made up of ex-army officers. The Black and Tans acted with the Auxiliaries in the government's attempts to break the IRA.

CONDUCT IN IRELAND
Members of the Black and Tans were paid the relatively good wage of 10 shillings a day plus full board and lodging. With minimal police training, their main role was to strengthen the military might of police posts, where they functioned as sentries, guards, escorts for government agents, reinforcement to the regular police, and crowd control, and mounted a determined counter-insurgency campaign. The Black and Tans and the Auxies became known as Tudor's Toughs after the police commander, Major-General Sir Henry Hugh Tudor. They were viewed by Republicans as an army of occupation because of these duties. They soon gained a reputation for brutality, as the RIC campaign against the IRA and Sinn Féin members was stepped up and police reprisals for IRA attacks were condoned by the government.

Constable Alexander Will, from Forfar in Scotland, was the first Black and Tan to die in the conflict, during an IRA attack on the RIC barracks in Rathmore, County Kerry, on 11 July 1920.

The Black and Tans were not subject to strict discipline in their early months in Ireland and as a result, the deaths of Black and Tans at the hands of the IRA in 1920 were often repaid with arbitrary reprisals against the civilian population. In the summer of 1920, the Black and Tans burned and sacked many small towns and villages in Ireland, beginning with Tuam in County Galway in July 1920 and also including Trim, Balbriggan, Thurles and Templemore amongst many others. In November 1920, the Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town and let no food in for a week. In addition they shot dead three local people. On 14 November, the Tans abducted and murdered a Roman Catholic priest, Fr Michael Griffin, in Galway. His body was found in a bog in Barna a week later. Finally, the Black and Tans sacked Cork city, on the night of 11 December 1920, the centre of which was burned out.

In January 1921, the British Labour Commission produced a report on the situation in Ireland which was highly critical of the government's security policy. It said the government, in forming the Black and Tans, had "liberated forces which it is not at present able to dominate". However since 29 December 1920, the British government had sanctioned "official reprisals" in Ireland — usually meaning burning property of IRA men and their suspected sympathisers. Taken together with an increased emphasis on discipline in the RIC, this helped to curb the random atrocities the Black and Tans committed since March 1920 for the remainder of the war, if only because reprisals were now directed from above rather than being the result of a spontaneous desire for revenge. (see also Chronology of the Irish War of Independence).

However, many of the atrocities popularly attributed to the Black and Tans were probably committed by the far more brutal Auxiliary Division; some were committed by Irish RIC men. For instance, Tomás Mac Curtain, the mayor of Cork, was assassinated in March 1920 by local RIC men and the massacre of 13 civilians at Croke Park on Bloody Sunday was also carried out by the RIC although a small detachment of Auxiliaries were also present. Moreover, the regular British Army also committed atrocities, burning the towns of Mallow and Fermoy for example. However most Republicans did not make a distinction, and "Black and Tans" was often used as a catch-all term for all police and army groups.

The actions of the Black and Tans alienated public opinion in both Ireland and Britain. Their violent tactics encouraged both sides to move towards a peaceful resolution. Edward Wood MP, a future Foreign Secretary, rejected force and urged the British government to offer the Irish an offer "conceived on the most generous lines". Sir John Simon MP, another future Foreign Secretary, was also horrified at the tactics being used. Lionel Curtis, writing in the imperialist journal The Round Table, wrote: "If the British Commonwealth can only be preserved by such means, it would become a negation of the principle for which it has stood". The King, senior Anglican bishops, MPs from the Liberal and Labour parties, Oswald Mosley, Jan Smuts, the Trades Union Congress and parts of the press were increasingly critical of the actions of the Black and Tans. Mahatma Gandhi said of the British peace offer: "It is not fear of losing more lives that has compelled a reluctant offer from England but it is the shame of any further imposition of agony upon a people that loves liberty above everything else".

About 7,000 Black and Tans served in Ireland in 1920-22. More than one-third of them died or left the service before they were disbanded along with the rest of the RIC in 1922, an extremely high wastage rate, and well over half received government pensions. A total of 404 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary died in the conflict and more than 600 were wounded but it is not clear how many of these were pre-war RIC men and how many were Black and Tans or Auxiliaries.

Those who returned to civilian life sometimes had problems re-integrating. At least two former Black and Tans were hanged for murder in Britain and another wanted for murder committed suicide before the police could arrest him.

LEGACY
Due to the ferocity of the Tans' behaviour in Ireland and the atrocities committed, feelings continue to run high regarding their actions. "Black and Tan" or "Tan" remains a pejorative term for British in Ireland, and they are still despised by many in Ireland. One of the most famous Irish Republican songs is Dominic Behan's "Come out Ye Black and Tans." The Irish War of Independence is sometimes referred to as the "Tan War" or "Black-and-Tan War." This term was preferred by those who fought on the Anti-Treaty side in the Irish Civil War. The "Cogadh na Saoirse" medal, which was awarded to IRA Volunteers after 1941, bears a ribbon with two vertical stripes in black and tan.

QUOTE
If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there—the more the merrier.

Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.
—Lt. Col. Smyth, June 1920.
the black and tans were not in existence at the time of the easter rising in 1916

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 10:16 AM

"the black and tans were not in existence at the time of the easter rising in 1916"
The Black and Tans were formed from soldiers who had found themselves unable to settle following WW1 - many of them had been traumatised by their experiences and in normal circumstances, would not have been considered fit for duty.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 10:41 AM

"Irish, and have some lovely Irish people married into my family"
He forgot to mention that they are Northern Protestants who have described some of the Extremely belligerent Orange Marches as "a pleasant day out".
Only part of the information again, I'm afraid.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 11:06 AM

Thanks Dick, A pretty good resume. I already know what a set of complete bastards the Black & Tans were. I am aware of their burn, plunder and murder approach to places like Clifden. Perhaps Keith will read the post you placed and consider for once the brutality of the British towards the Irish. He seems to think most of it is made up and that both groups rubbed along together quite well, all rather jolly.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 12:20 PM

Jim, my own son is married to a Southern Catholic girl, and their son is being brought up as a Catholic.

I thought I had answered all points relevant to the Rising.
Please say which you are referring to.

Rag,
The quote you gave was not me.
It was Lar Joye, curator of military history at the National Museum of Ireland.
I think he knows more than we do.
Then you can tell me about the Imperial War Museum which you have avoided.
What do you want to know?
then you can tell me about the Black & Tans which you have avoided,
No. This is about the rising.

then you can tell me about the incendiary shells that were used in 1915 using Thermite that you maintain were not used.

I did not say they were not used. I said it was disputed, and quoted three historians who said they were not.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 12:29 PM

"First use of Thermite shells
2 July 1916. Thermite is an incendiary; thermite shells were designed to set a target ablaze, and were fired by field artillery. They were first used by the gunners of 30th Division, firing on Bernafay Wood on the Somme, on 2 July 1916."
http://www.1914-1918.net/firstsnlasts.htm

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 12:50 PM

"Jim, my own son is married to a Southern Catholic girl, and their son is being brought up as a Catholic."
You mentioned them in relation to the sectarian marches whiuch you described as "pleasant days out" - I assumed that came from them, but if it was all your own work, fine.
Doedsn't make too much difference to your disparaging of the Irish people though - you said what yo said and you have yet to withdraw or apologise for it and explain it.
I presume your daughter-in- law ifds one of the deluded ones, or is she special?
You have answered none and you know it - you continue to ignore all the points and repeat your nonsense.
You have shot your bolt on this one Keith, you obviously have no intention of responding and are down to "I thought..." again an old tactic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 01:05 PM

Just give up, lads. It is important for some people to 'win'. Let them have their moment here in the full knowledge that such a victory is entirely hollow.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 01:22 PM

Your "naval experience apparently makes you an "expert" on the type of weaponry available in 1916 - sure it does!!

Tell me Jom do you know why in the British Isles we have Ordnance Survey Maps? Can you tell us all about how they came into being in 1791?

To obtain what is known as the "Firing Solution" for any piece of artillery you have to know the position of the target, the elevation of the target and the gun platform respectively and the horizontal distance between gun and target. You then have to find a thing called "the error of the day" which takes into account humidity, temperature, wind speed and direction and barometric pressure all of which were perfectly capable of being measured then as they can be now. Now back in 1916:

Any OS map of Dublin City would give the position of any target
The tide tables for Dublin would give the height of the gun platform (In this case a moored ship) while the OS Map would give height above sea level as well as the horizontal range between the Helga and whatever building was being targeted. The ballistic characteristics of the gun are a known quantity and the competence of the gunnery team known (Their training after all would be to hit a moving target from their own moving ship - In the case we are talking about both target and ship are stationary making it even simpler) - as previously stated a simple matter of applied mathematics - no-one would have to be an expect to state the above, all it takes is common sense. As someone else pointed out the Patrol Ship Helga fired 40 shots over the period of the Rising - Again from personal experience a hand served 4.5" QF Gun with an experienced crew is capable of firing 24 rounds per minute, the Helga was fitted with a 3" QF Gun firing fixed ammunition so her rate of fire would have been even quicker. As far as knowledge of gunnery goes - yours would appear to be non-existent.

By 1917 the performance of each gun firing over a prolonged period was known so that as the barrels heated and the rifling wore down the elevation could be adjusted to ensure that the shells fired did not fall short.

By the way the Henry I was referring to was Henry II NOT Henry VIII. He gave permission for an expedition to be sent to Ireland to curb raids from Ireland on the British mainland. By force of arms which was the way disputes were settled in those times the Kings of Ireland swore an oath of fealty to Henry II. Note Kings plural so Ireland was not a united country in an attempt to establish a uniform peace a High King was elected this however was by no means successful.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 01:46 PM

"Tell me Jom do you know why in the British Isles we have Ordnance Survey Maps"
an you tell me why you insuist on talking down to people - you really don't know enough to do so?
You are among the first to shout when people are insulting yet you seem incapable of recognising it in yourself.
As I said, it must have been all those nasty man with rifles who destroyed all those buildings
Have you any source for your claims - you never put them up?
Doesn't matter which King it was - the devastation of Ireland and the killing of its people was ongoing for the centuries Ireland was occupied - right into the 20th century - though they managed to score a personal best with The Famine.
Now - try to remember your place in the pecking order of things.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 02:07 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm how did all those fires start then

Fires where? In the middle of a built up area of a city in 1916 in the following buildings the Irish Times warehouse and Hoyte's Druggists and Oil Works. All of which contain highly flammable material, tell me Raggy were there any gas mains in this part of Dublin? Any coal fires? any coal fired boilers? I can think of many sources of ignition even if you cannot. But no none of these could possibly have started a fire it must have been "The Brits" using incendiary shells - utterly risible. Tell me Raggy what would an anti-submarine Patrol Boat be doing with incendiary shells? For what possible reason would she carry them or fire them? The Helga would have carried and fired AP or HE rounds. Oh another source of ignition Raggy is transfer of Kinetic Energy (Example: A Battle Class Destroyer was used as a target for an inert deadweight Sea Dart Missile, the ship was closed down as she would have been had she been at action stations with cameras and sensors placed in every compartment of the ship. This dead weight missile hit the main deck just below the bridge the fuel of course did start fires in easily identifiable locations, the transfer of kinetic energy however lifted the Operations Room deck to within 3 feet of the deckhead and it started fires throughout the ship). Solid AP shot would have the same effect and High Explosive rounds would start fires too.

Now then tell us all about these incendiary shells Raggy? What guns fired them and what were they used for? Absolutely no naval application and no Army application either for the conditions and circumstances that prevailed on the Western Front (All that mud and rain - just WTF are you going to set alight?) You mentioned Thermite which first appears to have been used in the Second World War NOT during the First World War.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 02:20 PM

I am curious about this pecking order Jim..you have gone off in that direction before. Could you explain that to us or is it just your default position when you have facts presented to you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 02:37 PM

Nice one Jom - another brilliant example of you shooting yourself in the foot again.

Jim Carroll - 23 Apr 16 - 01:46 PM

"Tell me Jom do you know why in the British Isles we have Ordnance Survey Maps"
an you tell me why you insist on talking down to people - you really don't know enough to do so?"

Merely asking you a question Jom, which you obviously are unwilling to answer, or do not know the answer and are covering your lack of knowledge with bluster and deflection. On this particular aspect of the subject I clearly know more than you.

"As I said, it must have been all those nasty man with rifles who destroyed all those buildings

What no gas, no fires, no oil-fired lamps, no candles, no flammable materials to catch light?

the devastation of Ireland and the killing of its people was ongoing for the centuries Ireland was occupied - right into the 20th century

If one was to pull ones head out of ones arse Jom and do a bit of non-fictional reading you will find that the rulers you accuse of this devastation treated the people of Wales, England and Scotland no differently.

Now as for an actual example of someone talking down to someone how about this:

Now - try to remember your place in the pecking order of things.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 03:03 PM

"Now as for an actual example of someone talking down to someone how about this:"
Nothing wrong with retaliation as I'm sure you are aware as an ex (whatever!)
It seem your grasp doesn't extend to irony either - and you still talk down to people..
"I can think of many sources of ignition even if you cannot."
Many of the civilians were killed as a result of the British using artillery and heavy machine guns, or mistaking civilians for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire in a crowded city. The shelling and the fires it caused left parts of inner city Dublin in ruins."
From Wiki - Easter Week' entry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 03:51 PM

By the way, I was referring to your attack on Joe when I referred to fiction, which I never quote as evidence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 04:32 PM

Please remember to tone the animosity down, and stick to the facts.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out what's the truth in this matter. Nathaniel Kahn directed and produced a 2003 film titled My Architect: A Son's Journey. The movie has a quote from Louis Kahn (the father) that goes something like this: "Everyone speaks the truth. It may be their truth, but nonetheless, it is the truth."

So, in this thread, we have various people expressing various conflicting truths about an event that took place a hundred years ago. Is it possible that there is truth in all these perspectives? I think so. Parliament passed an Irish Home Rule bill in 1914, and I'm sure many were surprised that the Irish would have an uprising (er, "Rising") in 1916. It's interesting to see that some people above were perturbed to see this event referred to as an "uprising." I would suspect that supporters saw it as a "Rising" (title case) and opponents as an "uprising" (lower case). Both terms are valid, within their particular perspectives.

And then I wonder what percentage of Irish people were satisfied with British rule. I've certainly heard many complaints here about the Irish government, particularly regarding its unholy alliance with the Catholic Church. According to posts from some Irish Mudcatters, the Irish government has been corrupt from the very beginning. Would Ireland have been better off as a semi-autonomous entity tied to the UK in the same way that Scotland is?

I would think that this centennial is a good opportunity for us all to examine the movement toward Irish independence with an open mind, learning the lessons that can be taught. I see no need to fight the battle again - but I can see great value in examining the event and learning from it.

When I worked as an intelligence analyst, I quickly learned that it is of utmost importance to learn to see things from the perspective of the opposition. Loyalty to one's own side may have some value, but I think a broader perspective is far more valuable.

And despite strong opinions to the contrary that are expressed here, I will continue to believe in the value of learning history from high-quality works of fiction. I read 4-6 nonfiction history books a year to balance things out, but fiction often gives me deeper insight.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:36 PM

Interested to hear that there is a "pecking order" on this forum Jom, does Max know about it - fortunately for all other members you are the only person who seems to think one exists and if it is all the same to you I will continue to blissfully ignore it.

One interesting point regarding this "crossfire" you mention was that "crossfire" in which British troops were firing at British troops or was it "Crossfire" where British troops were exchanging fire with Irish Volunteers? If the latter could you explain how it was only shots fired by the British troops that killed civilians - the rebels occupied a tiny part of the city and they had evacuated most of the civilian population from it before the fighting started - the area the rebels were firing into was the rest of the city which had not been evacuated therefore more civilians in the line of fire of the Volunteers.

Joe any argument based on fiction is inherently weak. In discussing any historical event there are certain reference points that are fixed.

The Irish Home Rule Bill WAS passed in the summer of 1914 and it received the Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914 so Home Rule was coming once the Great War had ended no matter what, nothing could have stopped it.

The Nationalist cause and any will to carry on any armed struggle was dying on its feet Pearse himself said it needed a blood sacrifice to revive it - hence the Easter Rising. The British Government felt that it had no option but to deal with the leaders harshly as they had visited and colluded openly with the enemy in time of war. Personally I believe that the better course would have been to imprison the leaders and expose their treachery. Ireland in being given Home Rule as envisioned was being offered Dominion Status as enjoyed by Australia, South Africa and Canada, nothing like Scotland which was and still remains as part of the United Kingdom. Those actively supporting the rising numbered less than 10,000, those who actively supported the British Government in their pursuit of the war vastly out numbered 210,000 men who all volunteered to fight. Not one single man was conscripted in Ireland. Keith A is correct in saying that had conscription been forced on the population of Ireland by it being introduced in April 1918 then not one man would have seen active service the process of organising the drafts and training them would have taken too long (Example in England: Harry Patch conscripted in September 1916 deployed to France in June 1917 - I make that 10 months so someone conscripted in Ireland in April 1918 would not have got to France until January 1919, almost three months after the end of the war). Keith A is also correct in stating that while conscription may have been considered in 1918 as a result of the German Spring Offensive of that year it was very quickly discounted and abandoned, the US troops who had crossed to France would have been combat ready long before any conscripts raised in the summer of 1918 in the British Isles.

The numbers tell their own story almost six days of fighting in a built up area in which field artillery, machine guns and rifles were used and this resulted in 485 fatalities - 260 civilians out of a population of around 306,000 (0.008%), Government forces and police 143 out of a force of 16,000 (Less than 1%), Rebel forces 82 out of a force of 1,250 (6.56%) - considering what the carnage could have been the numbers indicate proportionate restraint (The recent attacks in November in Paris last year killed 137 in just over two-and-a-half hours). Had there been no rising not one single person would have been killed by troops, police or rebels that Easter and not one building would have been destroyed.


No military aggression against Home Rule as first suggested in 1914, but having views based on works of fiction and television drama it is amazing what some "believe" and hold to be "fact" - it also might account for the over emotive language used

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:40 PM

It remains absurd that this thread is retained in the "music" section. It's presence there undermines the credibility of this forum - such as it retains.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:41 PM

Joe, you do not learn history from fiction, that is why it is called. "Fiction" ! I have been both a student and teacher of history for many years, history is hard work and requires intense study and an acute awareness of the difference between concepts such as bias, neutrality, objectivity and factual information, novelists are not bound by any of these considerations and are often driven by populist narrative. that is why, for the most part, they cannot be taken seriously by historians.
If one wishes to study history, read history, if one wishes to discuss literature, discuss novelists, but don,t confuse the two.
as a result of reading this thread I have read more Irish history and years of study will be required to fully understand it but this has been an interesting introduction .

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 06:58 PM

" undermines the credibility of this forum" ,, easy for guest to say. many " guests "are avid readers of music threads but are deprived of civil debate in the so called bs section. your anonymity does not do much for the forums so called " credibility"!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:11 PM

Take another look at fiction, HiLo and Teribus. For most of us, it is far more important for us to learn the culture, thinking, and life of an era. Nonfiction can go only so far in portraying these things in a way that affects people. For historical fiction to be credible, it must not betray the facts of the events within which the story is set.

Internet culture is obsessed with winning arguments, not with coming to understanding. Rather than accumulating facts and figures with which to win arguments, I want an understanding of how people felt about what was happening around them, and fiction can often convey that far better than nonfiction. I don't read to collect ammunition to win arguments. I read to come to understanding.

I wouldn't advise a steady diet of fiction, but I do think it has an important place. I suppose my fiction/nonfiction balance is about 50-50. That feels about right for me.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:42 PM

For most of us, it is far more important for us to learn the culture, thinking, and life of an era.

And who on earth guarantees that that is what you get when you read a work of "historical fiction"? How do you know that it reflects the culture, thinking and life of an era if you have not bothered to study the social history of the period.

Classic example: How many people believe that stand up "go for gun gunfights" took place in "The Wild West" because of fiction and cinema? Plain truth and fact is they were a myth, not one single such fight ever happened. I suppose someone will tell me that "Braveheart" was a representative depiction of the life of William Wallace and accurately reflects the culture, thinking and life of that era in Scottish History.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:45 PM

Thank you for your courtesy, GUEST,HiLo. The anonymity is because I no longer care to have my name associated with what I regard as a dishonestly run forum. I use that description carefully and coldly, having been involved in Mudcat since Max took The Digital Tradition under his wing all those years ago.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:48 PM

Joe Offer, that is a very good, measured post. I am increasingly staying clear of threads that involve Keith and Teribus precisely because those people appear to have no concept of the culture, thinking and life of the eras they profess to have so much knowledge of, yet no empathy with. It's a bloody hard case to argue, ultimately rather pointless. When it comes to the Easter Rising, there is no Keith-stroke-Teribus black and white, though, reading this thread, you'd think it was so simple. The last hundred years of Irish history has been defined by those events, not to speak of political and community fallouts. Maybe you have to live there. The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. The fallout is a different matter altogether.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 07:51 PM

I read a lot of fiction Joe, historical as well as other types, I am very appreciative of its, merits. good social historians provide much by way of cultural and social content. I do not think these arts are in opposition to each other but they do serve different roles and neither should be regarded as a sole source for Windows on the past, However, when I want to "know" history, I read history when I want to be entertained I read novels .
I totally disagree with your assertion that not fiction can go only so far in revealing the aspects of the past that touch people.. Read some good social historians Joe,
Internet "culture" is also obsessed with instant wiki scholars who think Wikipedia is the apex of all knowledge, when actually it is the revealer of great ignorance. it is not really hard to tell who studies things and who wikis them.
As for who wins and lloses, that's not confined to the Internet , that,s what happens when the poorly informed embark upon "debate" rather than discussion.
just my thoughts on things.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:11 PM

Teribus, there is no guarantee that either non-fiction or fiction is accurate. That's up to the reader to decide, by reading critically from a number of sources that represent a number of perspectives. Reading book reviews from credible publications, is also helpful.

I travel extensively, and I appreciate my travels more if I have read extensively about the place I'm going to visit. That helps me form preliminary ideas about the area, which I confirm or refute with what I learn in my travels.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that for the most part, history is political history. Too many people see political events and the sum and substance of a place, and I disagree. Politics affects people only to a certain level. Most of everyday life has nothing to do with politics. I think that most Irish people of 1916, were more concerned about earning a living and raising their families, than they were about who held political power.

Too much emphasis on politics and political arguments, gives one a distorted perception of reality.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:17 PM

Well some of us have sufficient study skills to sort the wiki wheat from the wiki chaff. I am very sceptical of people who summarily dismiss wiki. Reading wiki is like reading any other non-fiction, except that wiki has millions of people poised to instantly rebel if something falls short, me included. You don't get that with esteemed historical tomes, which can often be in severe danger of turning into unopposed received wisdom. Let's call it the Keith 'n' Bill syndrome. When you look back at a particular era, it's a good idea to take note of historical tomes. After all, we admire scholarship. But that is severely two-dimensional without taking account of the feelings, the culture and the daily lives of ordinary people. Sometimes, just sometimes, fiction can inform. You wouldn't diss Dickens, would you?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:18 PM

Hello Steve, just want to comment briefly on your post re " water underThe bridge". I don,t think the past is ever water under the bridge, nations, cultures and so forth are a bit like the Robbie Burns man , "Nursing their wrath to keep it warm!" old hates and grudges, misconceptions and distorted memories motivate much that goes on in the world, the study of history won,t cure it but it might help us to understand it, don,t you think ?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:20 PM

Bloody hell, Joe, stop saying things that force me to agree with you! 😉

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:28 PM

What I was saying, HiLo, is that what happened happened. The fallout over the subsequent hundred years is what we should be discussing. When I say water under the bridge, I'm not saying that we should forget and not learn. But, to listen to K and T, you'd almost think that the last hundred years hadn't happened. The thing is, what has happened doesn't fit very well with their view that the rising was a useless waste of time.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:41 PM

Sorry, slip of the big digit on small device. Joe, you really need to read more history, it isn,t all political. there are many writers of good social and cultural histories, histories of music, art, architecture, many wonderful histories of food, what people eat and why... Histories of architecture, games, sports, fasihion. It is all there to be read and enjoyed. Then there are letters, diaries., newspapers and thousands of essays by ordinary people about things as diverse as keeping pigeons to what to put in a proper pasty. These are the histories of ordinary life, written by men and women who had little notion that they were keeping cultural records, they were just living life and that is good history.
"

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 08:43 PM

Yes, Steve, I do see your point and I agree.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:02 PM

Well Steve, I may well diss Dickens but if Jane Austen said that Mr. Darcy arrived in Mercedes, I,d believe her.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 23 Apr 16 - 09:51 PM

A theatre production Tim Van Eyken has been helping on

Jermyn Street Theatre,
London SW1Y 6ST

Easter Rising and Thereafter

Tue, 26th - Sat, 30th April (28th sold out)

"....part drama, part revue, part session. Incorporating poems, songs and speeches by W.B. Yeats, Dominic Behan, James Mangan, Louis MacNeice, Walter Savage Landor, Roger Casement, Winston Churchill, Sean O'Casey and others, it reveals the contrasting takes of the Easter Rising, the War of Independence, the Civil War and their legacies for Britain and Ireland. Shedding light on this often skewed period of history and in so doing, illuminating it."
http://www.jermynstreettheatre.co.uk/show/easter-rising-and-thereafter/ 

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:39 AM

No doubt all that is good, HiLo - but so is fiction. Can you honestly tell me that novelists like Hemingway and Faulkner and Steinbeck and Harper Lee, did not convey history with extreme quality, accuracy, and effectiveness?
Surely there must be novelists who chronicled the 1916 Easter Rising.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:57 AM

"Can you honestly tell me that novelists like Hemingway and Faulkner and Steinbeck and Harper Lee, did not convey history with extreme quality, accuracy, and effectiveness?" Joe
.,,.

I query that 'accuracy', Joe;

in that the fiction-writer's 'accuracy', designed to motivate the narrative of his invented world while retaining the reader's interest by such devices as suspense, mystery, ambivalences of characters' motivations, humour, & so on,

will surely not be of precisely the same nature as the 'accuracy' of the true historian, whose aim is purely to try & establish the facts of the matter to the best of his abilities & interpretations,

hoping to gain the agreement of his readers -- & esp his fellow-students of history -- with such interpretations & theories & hypotheses as he may propound.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:02 AM

... and those novelists you name had all, surely, a political agenda & tendentious purpose in their creativity. To call a fiction writer 'creative' will be praise. To apply the adjective to a professional historian could be, at least ambivalently, pejorative --

would you not agree?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:07 AM

... hope I am not too much beating this point to death: but the novelist's use of history will be of selective service in the pursuit of his narrative impetus, while the historian will just be endeavouring to establish as objectively as possible what the facts of the historical events actually were.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:08 AM

"Is it possible that there is truth in all these perspectives? "
As far as Ireland is concerned, every event is being examined in the minutest detail this year and presented to the public with a seriousness and skill that has impressed me.
I was reading about the exhibition of log books of the firemen who were on the spot at the time and documented the damage done by the artillery - dug out for the first time - aeem to confirm the extent of the damage done by artillery fire.
I caught the end of a news item on a march that took place yesterday to commemorate the support given by local people at the time of The Rising - I didn't know about that.
This anniversary, like that of The Famine, has inspired the re-examination of an event that Irish people have tended to take for granted.
There has never been any question of the rights and wrongs of kicking Britain's arse out - that has always gone unchallenged (except by Kevin Myers maybe!!)
The details of the rising have always been known but seldom put together other than as part of The War of Independence as a whole.
Somewhat typically, the authorities in Britain have largely ignored the event in the true spirit of begrudgery (good Irish word), much on display here by a couple of its supporters,
In six years time all will start all over again when Ireland celebrates Independence - hope I'm around to see that one.
"Surely there must be novelists who chronicled the 1916 Easter Rising."
There are, and there are several excellent plays, some written by people like O'Casey, who were around at the time, but if you want to understand Easter week, you really do have to go to the documented and researched information - there will be plenty to choose from in the next few months.
There are a few excellent, extremely readable books of eye witness accounts of Easter week: the best I have come across is 'Agony at Easter' by Thomas Coffey
Another worth looking out is 'Dublin 1916', made up of essays covering the events, including one by Hannah Sheehy-Skeffington (widow of the murdered pacifist) and a fascinating letter of support from Sylvia Pankhurst - first published in 1966, and edited by Roger McHugh.
"Interested to hear that there is a "pecking order" on this forum Jom, does Max know about it "
I gave you an example of virtually every post you make in response to anybody who has the temerity to disagree with you - seems to have hit a raw nerve - good! might lead to your responding to people as if they - just might - know as much as you do.
Let's see!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:18 AM

Steve, all that has happened since the rising has been effected by the rising.
My case has been very simple.
The rising was unnecessary because home rule was already agreed and assured.
That is a plain fact.
All those hundreds of deaths, including the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels, achieved nothing.

Also that the rebels had no mandate from the people of democratic Ireland.
They appointed themselves as leaders and shot anyone who challenged them.
The people were against them. That is a plain fact.

It is highly probable that but for the rising a peaceful transition to home rule and full independence was achievable, sparing Ireland the bloody horror of the civil war and thousands more Irish dead.

Jim,
It is true that I do not discriminate between Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants.
That is the mark of a sectarian bigot.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:27 AM

Murder in cold blood.
An unarmed policeman, James O'Brien from Kilfergus, Co. Limerick. blocked the gate of Dublin Castle to a large body of rebels.
They could easily have overpowered him, but "Captain" Connolly chose to shoot him down with his pistol at point blank range.
The first killing of the rising.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 05:17 AM

"Murder in cold blood"
This becomes intolerable.
Not only has Keith written of teh entire Irish nation (including his own daughter-in-law presumably) as gullible and ignorant of their own history and swayed by propaganda, but he is now accusing them of celebrating murder by treating the Uprising as they are now doing - racism in the extreme.
Can I suggest that, if this thread is to be allowed to continue, such openly inflammatory posts are deleted.
There can be no better evidence of why The Rising was necessary than this display of post-Imperial jingoist hatred.
You want so talk about murder Keith - look up "Sheehy-Skeffington" and how his murderer was 'punished'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 05:34 AM

Internet culture is obsessed with winning arguments, not with coming to understanding. Rather than accumulating facts and figures with which to win arguments, I want an understanding of how people felt about what was happening around them, and fiction can often convey that far better than nonfiction. I don't read to collect ammunition to win arguments. I read to come to understanding.

So what happens on a discussion forum when what you read about something is just simply totally wrong? Do you just let it pass and allow the myth to stand, or do you attempt to inform and correct it?

Two examples out of many on this thread alone:

The Curragh Mutiny in March 1914 that wasn't even a mutiny was an act of military aggression - put plainly and simply - IT WASN'T.

The Irish Home Rule Bill of 1914 was thrown out and defeated - put plainly and simply - IT WASN'T it received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914.

The only way to correct and destroy a myth, no matter how dearly held, is present the facts and figures that show the myth to be exactly what it is and the best source for accumulating the required facts and figures is from Historical works, NOT works of fiction. On numerous occasions on threads on this forum I have been told by one particular poster that because it was depicted in a Television drama then whatever was being shown MUST HAVE HAPPENED in real life - totally ridiculous.

I also find it rather telling that when confronted by the actual facts and figures that confront the myth, those supporting the myth never address or counter those facts or figures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with winning arguments it has everything to do with establish truth and that is truth from a whole range of perspectives.

If you are studying or discussing the period and era of the Easter Rising then what happened afterwards is irrelevant as none of that could have had any bearing on the event under discussion.

Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interests.

The Easter Rising was only one of a number of factors that led to a landslide election victory for Sinn Fein in the 1918 election and in the following War of Independence and the Irish Civil War that followed on from that it was The Irish Free State/Irish Republics claim to the North that was the source that fomented all subsequent bloodshed in Ireland - thankfully that constitutional claim has now been abandoned

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:09 AM

"Do you just let it pass and allow the myth to stand,"
No - you argue it out without denigrating an entire nation - you have proved nothing so far and each time you are knocked down you walk away and start something else - a war of attrition.
"aren't you being a bit bullyingly censorious?
No Mike - Keith is the first to cry thread drift whenever he is in trouble and has suggested more than once that those who aren't Britisjh have no right to criticise Britain.
I am suggesting that deliberately inflammatory and racist statements be deleted in order that this discussion can be continued.
There has been a fair amount of interesting and valuable information exchanged here- it would be an awful shame to spoil that.
The Irish people are not stupid and ignorant of their own history and suggest they are reduces this discussion to the Bernard Manning.
Nor was the Easter Rising "Murder, pure and simple" - if anybody wants to discuss looting, rape, torture and mass-murder they need only open a thread on The Black and Tans
I'll be gone from here in the morning; off to Liverpool (no doubt to meet up with some stupid, ignorant fellow-Brits who will be celebrating Easter Week as we are) - I would hate to leave to a deliberately closed thread.
"If you are studying or discussing the period and era of the Easter Rising then what happened afterwards is irrelevant as none of that could have had any bearing on the event under discussion."
Everything that happened after Easter Week - especially the War of Independence and the gun-point signing of the treaty is vital to this discussion - it vindicates the need for and the success and weaknesses of the rising.
To remove such discussion would be simple manipulation.
"Ah but Michel there is the Carroll pecking order to be taken into account"
Nice to see my humour hit home Terri - try Germolene -always good for sore spots.
Jim Carroll

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

"Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interests."

Nothing like a nice bit of theory. Lots of what-ifs there.

The recording and interpretation of history is replete with partiality, imperialism, political tendentiousness and revisionism. And some very good work. Squabbling about sources says a lot about your own desire to see things the way you've already decided. Dickens was a storyteller who told us a lot about the ordinary lives of Victorians. Woody Guthrie was a storyteller who told us a lot about the privations of exploited people. A storyteller isn't a liar any more than a biased historian is a liar. The latter can be somewhat harder to detect. Your hardback book with luxury dustcover sitting on the shelf of a respected bookshop could be a prime part of the deceit . Easy enough to select as your main source if you're of a certain mind. The hardest thing is to ditch your preconceptions and let all of them grab your attention equally. A PhD in history never made an honest man of anyone.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:57 AM

If Terribus's statements are to be taken seriously he needs to address every poing thet has been put up which, I believe, proves the contrary.
The treaty was accepted but not ratiied because of the war - there was every reason to believe that it never would be given the opposition to any form of Home Rule in the British Parliament - Tories still continued to attack it after it had been passed and The House of Lords had to be over-ruled.
When it was re-presented in July it had been radically altered, making partition permanent rather than being ended one year after the war ended.
Britain only surrendered sovereignty afre a bloody War of Independence and even then, a treaty had to be forced through by a threat of War.
That Treaty was the cause of a year-long bloody Civil War and the repercussions of the enforced partition are still being felt
That'll do for a start
Jim Carroll

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

Jim,
Not only has Keith written of teh entire Irish nation (including his own daughter-in-law presumably) as gullible and ignorant of their own history and swayed by propaganda, but he is now accusing them of celebrating murder by treating the Uprising as they are now doing - racism in the extreme.

Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is an Irish Jesuit priest who is currently teaching philosophy at Loyola University Chicago.
He holds exactly the same views on the rising as I do, and the Irish Times is happy to publish them.

Are the Irish Times and Fr Murphy also racist in the extreme against Irish people, or are you just wildly lashing out because you have no other argument?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:25 AM

"Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interest"
this comment is debatable, we simply do not know whether home rule would have happened or not.
irelands has not even now got full independence.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:30 AM

For someone who stated that they were "staying clear of threads that involve Keith and Teribus" you seem to be having a great deal of trouble doing precisely that.

Teribus: "Was the Easter Rising a useless waste? Yes it was to everyone except those who wished to promote armed struggle (Exactly the same could be said about "The Troubles"). Would Ireland have gained home rule and then total independence had there been no Easter Rising yes it would the Bill was already on the statue books. Would the North have still elected to break away, yes in all probability it would as it's industry, commerce and culture was more aligned to the mainland than that of the South and they would naturally look to their own best interests."

Steve Shaw: "Nothing like a nice bit of theory. Lots of what-ifs there."

Oddly enough Shaw - not one single WHAT-IF to be seen in what I stated, only piece of conjecture there regarded the decision of the North to part company from any united independent Ireland and that is hardly conjecture as that is exactly what they did in fact do in 1921.

Some posters here seem desperate to move the discussion on three years to highlight the atrocious behaviour of the "Tans" but those self same people feel it appropriate to pass over the reasons the "Black and Tans" and the "Auxiliaries" came into existence. These were the result of Sinn Fein winning the 1918 election and their failure to outrightly condemn the murder of a policeman lawfully engaged in escorting a delivery of explosives to a quarry that was attacked by members of the IRA (who obviously needed those explosives for some perfectly legal and peaceful purpose no doubt). The failure to condemn the action prompted an "open season" on anyone wearing the Crown on their uniforms and as their elected government in Ireland did not protect its "servants" charged with the maintenance of law and order recruitment plummeted and alternative arrangements had to be made. The actions of the RIC, the Tans and the Auxiliaries were rightly condemned both in Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain which caused them to be first withdrawn and then disbanded. Here we come to the value of fiction versus historical fact the outrage at Croke Park is attributed in fiction and in popular belief to the Black and Tans the fact of the matter was that not a single member of the Black and Tans was present in Croke Park that Sunday - Regular members of the RIC accompanied by a small detachment of Auxiliaries carried out the massacre. Still no matter eh? Never let fact get in the way of a good story. And that is where I part company with most here on this forum - I believe that if you are going to tell a story then at least have the integrity and honesty to get it right. Ask Mr Carroll for the date Kitchener was forced to resign - then go to the history books and find out that he never did resign and that he was never forced to resign. Mr Carroll however knows better and will still persist in claiming that Kitchener was forced to resign. One of the reasons I have long since given up entering into any discussion with him as even when proven to be completely wrong he conveniently ignores all presented and recorded fact.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:42 AM

Do we know whether or not Ireland would have been granted Home Rule? Yes of course we do, it was one of the items of business to be addressed put at the top of the Westminster Governments order of business after the end of the Great War - don't take my word for it consult Hansard and any history book covering the topic at the time.

Carroll should read up on Parliamentary procedure the House of Lords having objected the Irish Home Rule bill for the Third time in 1914 means that as far as the House of Lords went that was the end of their objections and the Bill would receive Royal Assent irrespective of their objections and that is what DID IN FACT HAPPEN.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:45 AM

""Tans" but those self same people feel it appropriate to pass over the reasons the "Black and Tans" and the "Auxiliaries" came into existence. These were the result of Sinn Fein winning the 1918 election and their failure to outrightly condemn the murder of a policeman lawfully engaged in escorting a delivery of explosives to a quarry that was attacked by members of the IRA (who obviously needed those explosives for some perfectly legal and peaceful purpose no doubt)."
Two yeas of rape, mass murder, torture, terrorism and pillage because of the "failure to outrightly condemn the murder of a policeman lawfully engaged in escorting a delivery of explosives to a quarry"
Are you joking?
The Tans were sent in to soften up the Irish people to accept a forced-though treaty which partitioned Ireland - like the executions of the Rising leaders, it failed miserably and backfired.
The treaty was eventually forced through at gunpoint.
I know somebody has already put this up but worth a revisit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:18 AM

"For someone who stated that they were "staying clear of threads that involve Keith and Teribus" you seem to be having a great deal of trouble doing precisely that."

I said I was increasingly staying clear. My posting record will confirm that. I didn't say I promised to stay clear or that I would permanently stay clear out that I would always stay clear. It makes a difference. The thing is, Teribus, it's precisely that kind of twisting that makes most people here mistrust your take on historical records. What with you trying that kind of thing on, and Keith with his Wheatcroft moments, and both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:37 AM

Steve, I am going to disagree with you on several points. Your observation that a PhD in history does not make one honest is true, of course. There are both good and bad historians, as there are good and bad in any walk of life. I suspect that you have not read much history and that you underestimate readers of history. Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop. In fact, much of good historical research goes unnoticed by the general public.
I also disagree with your comments about "obvious" right wing bias on the part of Teribus. For the most part he presents facts, some of which are largely ignored by those opposed to him. Again, I think you have not read much history Steve or you would not be so quick to dismiss many writers of history as biased or worse. Just an observation, not meant to insult you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:42 AM

A bit tendentious, Steve, tho, eh, implicitly to equate 'king-and-country·dom' with manifest dishonesty.

Eh wot·wot·wot !!

〠

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:51 AM

I'm not dismissing historians as a body of people. I am saying that we can see things in the round far better if we take on board not just the professional historians we personally favour (plenty of name-dropping in these threads) but also the ones who grate with our personal politics, as well as contemporary chroniclers and writers who we may not think of as historians but who can speak to us about the lives of ordinary people. Too right I haven't read much history, but I have read much. I know how to discriminate, thank you. It's a study skill that goes across the board, not confined to history. There are people singing in amateur choirs and playing in local village orchestras who understand Handel and Beethoven far better than many a professor of music.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:52 AM

That is not what I did, Michael.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:54 AM

"I suspect that you have not read much history "
Can we concentrate on the history that has been presented rather than what people "suspect" others do or do not know, which, as far as I can see, we have been warned about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 09:04 AM

Oh, wasn't it Steve? -- then kindly explain what you meant by

"both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLoI
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 09:05 AM

Tell me how you discriminate Steve if you have not read much history ?It is a study skill that goes across the board, well, no it is not. I would think that a fairly wide knowledge of a subject would be essential in making judgements, as in any discipline.
Jim, you have missed my point ...again.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 10:52 AM

"we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Perhaps you can remember an untrue word?
I think not, and certainly not from me on Wheatcroft or anything else.

Will you finally substantiate one of your baseless assertions Steve?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:09 PM

Do you believe a word that Jim says Steve?
While you are trying to remember anything untrue from T and I, read T's list of historical falsehoods asserted by Jim.

You can add to that list his claim that the rising prevented Irish conscription.
In reality the act that brought in conscription for everyone else in Britain was passed before the rising, and it specifically and uniquely excluded Ireland.
So nothing to do with the rising.

Joe, you said that you had learned a lot from this thread. Can you give us a couple of for instances?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

"Do we know whether or not Ireland would have been granted Home Rule? Yes of course we do,"
this is just your opinion, but is not based on fact, the fact that a bill is on the statute book does not mean it will be passed or rejected, it is something we will never know., it is akin to predicting which horse will win a race or whether it will be a non runner. no one can predict the future

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:50 PM

Absolutely right, Dick.

"Perhaps you can remember an untrue word?
I think not, and certainly not from me on Wheatcroft or anything else."

That's completely untrue for a start. You must think we have very short memories. You completely misrepresented the man then brazenly denied it, and Teribus backed you to the hilt. I suspect it was more a case of his closing ranks than feeling enthusiastic about you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:10 PM

Oh, wasn't it Steve? -- then kindly explain what you meant by

"both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Michael, don't do this please. The comment you're taking issue with was inextricably connected to the bit you didn't quote about Teribus's twisting of my words. They do have that bias, both of them, vide their extensive posting history sycophantically defending those wax-moustachioed society toffs who sent millions to their deaths in the Great War. But my beef was with the twisting of my words. Get a grip, Michael, and don't waste my time.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Dr. Modette
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:24 PM

It's great fun (not!) watching a bunch of Brits agonise about our history.

Meanwhile, many thousands of us have been out on the streets today celebrating and commemorating those who died in 1916.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:34 PM

We're not agonising about your history, some of us. We're right with you. But denial and revisionism cast long shadows. That's what this unseemly tussle is about. Know thine enemies!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:37 PM

Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop.

Just those who insist that historians can only be taken seriously if they have books published in high street book shops by any chance?

Just asking...

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:06 PM

"Get a grip" right back to you, Steve. Whatever the motivations or context, or whoever the "both of you" you apostrophise, your

"right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say"

will bear no interpretation other than that which I put on it, of dishonesty implicit in any "king-&-country" postulation. Can't see how you can deny it.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:36 PM

That's entirely your problem. I did explain it to you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:45 PM

Dave, with all " due" respect, you have a great gift for missing the point! you constantly go back to previous threads, please try and focus on the discussion at hand.
also , I will observe that "left wing " ideology is also rife with bias.
An ideology, left or right is not what the study of history is about, those ideologies are what politics and social science are about. just my take on it based on many years of close study.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:57 PM

No, but you'd have to be far more saintly than any modern historian you choose to name in order to execute that study without all manner of bias creeping in.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:07 PM

Name a few Steve! I am curious who you have read ?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:00 PM

Well you might as well be telling me that I can't comment on Liverpool matches because I haven't actually played for the first team. Absurd.

You will not find me commenting, ever, on the quality of historical sources. Why not? Because I don't read any, that's why. I don't step beyond the bounds of my very limited knowledge. Prove that I do, if you dare. But you appear to have this problem, thinking that I'm not able to extrapolate from my scientific background, which requires a good deal of automatic scepticism about everything I'm told, to any other topic. Well, I assure you that my grounding is quite sound. Unlike science, and unfortunately for those history buffs who would like to claim exclusivity, there is nothing technical about reading history. A non-specialist is perfectly capable of reading even the most testing historical tome with little difficulty, given a sufficient degree of curiosity and desire for background knowledge. So please don't come the "how many history books have you actually read, Steve?" bullshit. Irrelevant. If I glean that you don't agree, be very wary of ever saying anything about science at all. I just might be on your case, and you won't have a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:12 AM

The empower has no clothes! unlike your good self Steve, I do not pontificate on subjects I have little knowledge of.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:59 AM

Of course it should read "emperor". , sorry !

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:11 AM

The last ten messages or so had nothing to do with the Easter Rising, so I deleted them. Keeping this thread in the music section is an experiment, to see if we can have civil and on-topic discussions of controversial topics here if they are related to music. I undeleted most of the messages after I moved the thread to the BS section.
-Joe Offer, Music Editor-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:50 AM

We were talking about history Joe God, you just don,t get it do you? I think it is both a shame and a disgrace that you have so much power to control debate here. you yourself engaged in this fairly civil discussion relating to history. not all of YOUR posts have dealt exclusively with the Easter rising.
I do wish two things, restore what you have deleted and and stop being so hypocritical.
I do not expect this post to last , but I hope it remains long enough that others may comment

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 03:09 AM

I was hoping this thread could be kept in the music section, since so many songs sprang from the Easter Rising. Alas, this thread has deteriorated into the usual squabbling, so I have to admit defeat.
I kept the music posts in the music section, and moved the rest to BS.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 03:45 AM

Good Soldier Schweik - 24 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

The 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914 - that having been signed meant that it would be put into effect, the fact that the country was at war delayed that implementation - those are the clearly established facts and they are a simple matter of record.

The matter would not go back to the Commons or to the Lords, it is British Parliamentary procedure today as well as back then that the Lords only get the chance to "amend" Bills proposed by the Commons for three readings after which they go through irrespective of what the House of Lords thinks - again that is well recorded fact to anyone who knows anything about the British Parliamentary system.

The above being true means that having received Royal Assent in 1914 and under a separate Parliamentary Bill which delayed implementation until after the war, then Irish Home Rule was a done deal as far as the Westminster Parliament was concerned - no matter of opinion enters into it. Implementation of Irish Home Rule was in fact the first thing the elected Government turned its hand to after the 1918 elections - again clearly established fact that can be easily checked, it is a matter of Parliamentary record.

Steve Shaw - 24 Apr 16 - 08:18 AM

" we often find we can't believe a word you say."

In that case why don't you check what is being said? You never have come back with any facts to counter what has been said, which leads one to believe that you either didn't check, or that you did check and found the information given correct? The other alternative is that you are just arguing for the sake of it based on perceived personalities - I think that it is the latter that is in fact the case.

But just for the record I have never supported any political party in my life, I have however seen the damage to our country wrought by them and am perfectly capable in forming my own opinion as which ones have been the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 04:17 AM

Why don't you just become a member, HiLo, then you can tell me which point I am missing?

Is it the point that we should not be hoodwinked by glossy history books in shops or the point that we should only believe glossy history books in shops?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:32 AM

Steve, if you are going to throw muck at members, saying you can not believe a word they say, you should be prepared to justify the accusation.
Really you should not attack a person at all, just what they actually say.
You were given examples of someone else's false statements, who you chose not to attack.

Will you now give an example of untruths from T and me?
If not you should withdraw the slander.

Wheatcroft.
You accused me of dishonesty because I only partially quoted him, when I had quoted the passage in full just 2 days before.
So there was no deception and no dishonesty at all, and that was back in 2014!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:41 AM

Dick, of course it is true that any act of parliament can be overturned by another, but in practice it does not happen, certainly not within a couple of years.

When the bill was being passed Britain had no intention of becoming involved in any war between Germany and France, so it was assumed by all involved that it would come into force at once.

The people of Ireland were content to get the war out of the way first and then have the peaceful transition of power that everyone except believers in blood sacrifice wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 09:55 AM

"Will you now give an example of untruths "
Don't know about T -you claimed to have responded to all my questions - you have responded to none.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that telling porkies
You have denigrated the entire Irish nation and refuse to qualify your attacks -- not lying as such, but certainly evasive dishonesty.
Terrytoon doesn't usually lie as such - just makes prononcments and retires into silence when shot down......
Sorry, but you did ask (and I didn't mention your posting under a false identity!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 09:59 AM

Quite right Bridge - no go tell the Spartans

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 10:02 AM

PS If something erroneous or false is written down it is not slander it is libel. Yet another error.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 10:09 AM

when shot down Carroll?

Give me an example please

Tell us all once again that the Curragh Mutiny which wasn't was an act of military aggression

Tell us once again that the 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill never got Royal Assent because it had been kicked out by the Tories and the House of Lords

Tell us once again about Lord Kitchener being forced to resign

There are myriad examples of you shooting yourself in the foot and being "shot down" as you put it.

Classic in your last post whereby you accuse Keith A of lying then state immediately afterwards that he was not actually lying.

You are great at flinging out baseless accusations yet seem terribly reticent when it comes to providing examples when requested to do so - don't worry Carroll you are not the only one on this forum guilty of such behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:12 PM

How many do you want
No heavy artillery in Dublin
Wealthy pre-word War One Liverpool
Democratic Britain in the early 1800s
The obscene profits on ceramic poppies
Te withering away of the State being part of Marxist doctrine.
I asked you for a link to your claims on the weapons sizes - and answer came there none.
Your habit of going into purdah whenever you are challenged is well-known - and you never - never link your claims.
You make your pronouncements then do a runner, which is what I said
We all make mistakes, but nobody actually makes things up..
The Home Rule Bill was actually kicked out in July 1916 by the Redmondites in Parliament because it had been altered, making Partition permanent, and was eventually accepted at gunpoint in 1922 after two years of War of Independence - that forced acceptance led to a further year of Civil War.
I asked Keith if he had any problem with this fact - he demurred -perhaps you will be more forthcoming
The Curragh was a Mutiny according to the dictionary definition of the term - a threat to obey orders, whether the carried out that threat is immaterial - the defied a Government order, which is why it was, and to an degree, it is known as The Curragh Mutiny.
You were given this but you seem to have retired to you room in a sulk.
Yours in anticipation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:12 PM

How many do you want asks Jom:

No heavy artillery in Dublin

There was no heavy artillery in Dublin Jom the 18 pounder mentioned is a piece of field artillery. As you know S.F.A. about artillery please feel free to do a bit of research. Heaviest naval gun was even smaller. Those are the facts Jom. If you wish to dispute them then come back with some substantive and verifiable detail.

Wealthy pre-word War One Liverpool

The period 1902 to 1919 was one of major expansion and along with that went wealth and job opportunities.

Democratic Britain in the early 1800s

1832 is hardly the early 1800s but none the less the Reform Act brought in that year was a significant stepping stone on the path to Parliamentary reform the democracy we now enjoy.

The obscene profits on ceramic poppies

This was one that you got amazingly wrong the poppies I believe raised millions for the six nominated charities. It was you who got the costs wrong, it was you who made the claims that they were made for profit. Please consult the Royal British Legion for the real facts about the ceramic poppies - but as usual you won't be arsed to actually get to the truth.


Te withering away of the State being part of Marxist doctrine.

Completely lost me on that one

I asked you for a link to your claims on the weapons sizes - and answer came there none.

What weapons, what claims? When was this asked of me? In context with what?

The Home Rule Bill was actually kicked out in July 1916 by the Redmondites in Parliament because it had been altered

What you state there is a Parliamentary impossibility. The Redmondites were not in power and as that is plainly true then they could not enact or repeal anything that already had Royal Assent.

The Curragh was a Mutiny according to the dictionary definition of the term - a threat to obey orders, whether the carried out that threat is immaterial - the defied a Government order, which is why it was, and to an degree, it is known as The Curragh Mutiny.

What order was disobeyed or defied? None was ever given that is why even in the link that you yourself provided it clearly stated that "The Curragh Mutiny" was not a mutiny at all.

Now come on Jom tell me when you have "shot me down"

Still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
Don't know about T -you claimed to have responded to all my questions - you have responded to none.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that telling porkies

No it is not, because I believe that I have answered.
As I asked you before, please say what you think I missed.

You have denigrated the entire Irish nation and refuse to qualify your attacks

I have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 05:17 PM

You have so! Nyah Nyah!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:23 PM

Yes, Keith, 2014. Yes you did quote from the Guardian article. Later, presumably hoping we wouldn't bother checking, you blatantly misrepresented it, putting words into Wheatcroft's mouth that he never uttered, let alone meant. You twisted and turned, you told us you were only "speaking generally" and you did not recant or apologise. Further, your ally Teribus (who actually went a bit quiet on you, having realised what you'd done) eventually came out and gave you his very lukewarm support. If I make a mistake here I acknowledge it to the forum and, if necessary, apologise. In every instance, that makes it go away, I've found. The fact that you won't ever do that speaks volumes about your reliability and honesty. The whole sorry episode didn't exactly reflect well on Teribus, either. This is not throwing muck. This is stating the truth of the matter that you refuse to acknowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 07:17 PM

"The empower has no clothes! unlike your good self Steve, I do not pontificate on subjects I have little knowledge of."

Nonsense. I don't know how many times I've put my hands in the air and admitted that I'm no historian. I don't "pontificate" on substantive matters of history, though I do reserve the right to question those self-professed experts hereabouts who've read a few hardbacks, watched a couple of series on the telly and who think they know it all. Unfortunately, you included. Let me just remind you again that you can, to some extent, blind people with science, what with all the technical stuff (I could probably lose you in a heartbeat on plant anatomy and physiology, using every big word in the book), but you can't blind people with history. It's accessible to all people of reasonable education (people who may not be history PhDs but who are not fools) who are perfectly capable of looking things up and who refuse to simply take "authoritative" statements from the likes of you, Keith and Teribus at face value (sorry to embarrass you by bracketing you with those reprobates: I promise never to do it again). From hereonin, I shall be watching carefully for signs of your pontificating on things I perceive that you know little about. And you know what I'm like.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:42 AM

No Steve.
I quoted the passage in full, and the discussion of it continued for two day with constant referring back to it.
Of course I did not quote the whole passage every time, because everyone knew what it said.

You were desperate to get something on me, you had no knowledge of the history we were discussing (as now!) so you tried to make something out of nothing.

You just claimed, "we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Often?
You have to go back to 2014 to find an example that is not an example anyway!

Your accusation was just an empty smear, because you have nothing else to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:46 AM

" It's accessible to all people of reasonable education (people who may not be history PhDs but who are not fools) who are perfectly capable of looking things up and who refuse to simply take "authoritative" statements from the likes of you, Keith and Teribus at face value (sorry to embarrass you by bracketing you with those reprobates: I promise never to do it again)."

Ah but that is just it Shaw - You who according to your own words haven't read anything - while you may be perfectly capable of looking things up you NEVER ACTUALLY DO THAT.

As stated previously:

1. You are too damn lazy to look things up and check the information being given. Which means that you are just out for an argument and there is absolutely no point in engaging with you in the discussion.

2. You have in fact looked things up and found the information provided correct but have not the honesty or integrity to actually admit it.

By the way when it comes to pontificating lad - you take the biscuit.

Yes we do all know what you are like Shaw we've seen the pattern before - you are now in the "lets get this thread closed" mode.

Wittering on about some pedantic rant you went into two years ago FFS is that really all you can come up with? I'd say that you really do need to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:49 AM

Rag,
PS If something erroneous or false is written down it is not slander it is libel. Yet another error.

Yes it was.
I tend to think of these exchanges as conversations not correspondence, but an honest mistake.
I am often guilty of them, but never lies like when you "quoted" some historians but altered their words to reverse the meaning.
I would rather lose a debate than stoop to such tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:12 AM

Talking of not responding to point Teribus I posted a few questions a day or two back to which you have not responded I suggest there is a difference between being indiscriminate and being accurate and asked:

Can you tell us the percentage of your practise artillery firing was accurate:

1. From the first shot.

2. Overall.

3. Would your figures have been achievable in 1916.

On another issue we were all asked to be polite to each other, thus I am calling you Teribus, I am calling Keith, Keith. I have noticed both you and he still refer to me as Rag or Raggy neither of which are my pseudonym and you still refer to Jim as Jom. I can easily revert if I have too.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:20 AM

Rag, we all abbreviate long names, and I will continue to do so.
Keith is a massive abbreviation of mine.

Re artillery, in Dublin in was used in the direct fire role.
The gun was pointed at the target and fired using its sights.
A building is an unmissable target. They would have aimed at the actual windows being used as fire positions.

Look at the pictures I linked to of Liberty Hall and YMCA.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:42 AM

So let me get this right professor. There's a ship moored on the River Liffey that you are saying could fire directly into windows behind which the rebels were placed in Sackville Street.

If I were you professor I would check that with Teribus, I think he may advise you otherwise.

I've attached a nice photograph and an interesting paragraph or two about the ship just for you. You may want to notice the reference to incendiary shells, but there again you may not.

HMY Helga

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:46 AM

"I would rather lose a debate than stoop to such tactics"

Brilliant.


OK lads, form an orderly queue, no pushing at the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:54 AM

Which means that you are just out for an argument and there is absolutely no point in engaging with you in the discussion.

Yet you do constantly engage with him in discussion. Seeing as this is a folk music related site I will quote a song.

Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:24 AM

That 'explanation' Steve claimed to have been definitive at 0636 on the 24th, claiming it was 'my problem' if I didn't follow it, appears to have been less than satisfactory to others as well as me - vide eg Keith & Teribus ½-doz or so posts back. Perhaps his thinking in this particular instance has been a trifle less than of A++ standard in that hyaline clarity that we have all so uniformly come to expect of him --

teeheeheehee behind the ☞

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:50 AM

"By the way when it comes to pontificating lad - you take the biscuit."

Well, how typical of this fellow not to see the irony of his saying that! 😂

Pedantic rant? Well, it was no rant. It was a patient dissection of Keith's outrageous misrepresentaions of his source, which unfortunately for him I also happened to see, in which he persisted over a period of weeks, which exposed him for the unreliable fraud that he is. Pulling someone up for claiming that his source said something that was blatantly neither said nor meant is not pedantry. Perhaps you should look the word up. And you clearly didn't go back to check - it wasn't "two years ago," it was less than eighteen months ago. I think your historian friends would be embarrassed by your poor attention to detail, and it certainly doesn't encourage us to take anything you tell us at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:55 AM

Michael, you should have recognised by now that things I say that Keith and Teribus don't find satisfactory are never going to make me lose a wink of sleep. As for you, I've spent enough time on that matter and as far as I'm concerned I've explained it as much as I'm prepared to. Now find something else to get your dentures into, why don't you. End of.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:59 AM

Thanks for the Link Raggy (Term of endearment) but readers of stuff on the internet should not believe everything they read, incendiary shells apart here is another glaring error from the link you supplied:

"Ravaged by sniper fire, machine guns, nine-pound guns from Trinity College and 18-pound shells from the gunboat the Helga, the insurgents were forced to abandon the GPO and set up headquarters in 16 Moore Street."

The guns mounted on HMY Helga were 12 pound QF guns firing fixed ammunition. According to reports she fired on Liberty Hall and on one of the bridges which he hit with her opening fire, Liberty Hall a building used to print James Connolly's newspapers was also used up until the start of the rebellion to make bombs, grenades and bayonets for the Volunteers. As both Liberty Hall and the Bridge were located on the river Helga would have been firing on direct line of sight. The 18 pounders referred to were Army Field pieces. The Helga would not have carried incendiary ammunition as it has no naval gunnery application.

As to addressing your questions Raggy, would it make even the slightest bit of difference if I did answer them? Been down that route with you before and found it pointless, in any case they were all rather irrelevant having no relation to what was being discussed. By the way indiscriminate fire is when you just blaze away in a general direction for an indeterminate time with no attempt made to identify or hit a specific target. Targeted fire is when you identify, aim and correct if need be to hit a specific target, for a specific purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:11 AM

Steve, I had already quoted the passage in full, and deceived no-one about what Wheatcroft said.
I had no need to. The whole article supported my case.

You just had nothing else to offer in reply.

Rag, your link was to something published by the Collins Society.
Did you expect any objectivity?

The Helga also fired only at visible targets. Liberty Hall actually and it did not burn down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:15 AM

"As to addressing your questions Raggy, would it make even the slightest bit of difference if I did answer them? Been down that route with you before and found it pointless, in any case they were all rather irrelevant having no relation to what was being discussed. By the way indiscriminate fire is when you just blaze away in a general direction for an indeterminate time with no attempt made to identify or hit a specific target. Targeted fire is when you identify, aim and correct if need be to hit a specific target, for a specific purpose"

Yes Terriblossom it is pertinent because both you and I know that lobbing 12 or 16lb shells about in a built up area may not just kill and maim the intended target but that innocent civilians can also be killed and injured.

They may not even hit the intended target which is the reason you refuse to be drawn on the subject.

I do note identify, aim and correct, in other words the "target" is not necessarily the only thing damaged. That is indiscriminate in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:21 AM

Another link for you and territowelling, professor.


Link

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:51 AM

Rag, from your link,
"On the 26th of April, positioned on the Liffey, she raised her 12 pound artillery guns over the Loop Line railway bridge and fired at her first target Liberty Hall, the Head Quarters of Citizen Army. Her shots were less than accurate and her shells destroyed much of the surrounding buildings and beyond. She also targeted the GPO and Bolland Mills which Eamon De Valera had occupied."

Has anyone but Ann Robinson(?) suggested that Helga fired at GPO?
She provides a pictire of Liberty Hall after the rising which shows it holed by shells but not burned, and surrounding buildings damaged but not "destroyed" as she claims in the text.
So not very reliable.

Here again is the essay by a curator of the National Museum of Ireland, published in the leading journal of Irish History.

"Subsequently the Helga II gained an undeserved reputation for playing an essential part in the Rising. (Most of the damage to Dublin's city centre was caused by fire, particularly at premises like the Irish Times warehouse and Hoyte's Druggists and Oil Works, rather than by shelling.)"
"On 25 April 1916 the Helga sailed from Dún Laoghaire to shell Boland's mill, and on the following day fired over the loop line railway bridge at Liberty Hall. In total the Helga fired only 40 rounds during the Rising, and it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the fire from her guns."
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/tss-helga-ii/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:00 AM

Another Link

This one is brilliant terribombast, the gunner aboard the Helga missed the intended target with about 10 shells. So much for aim, correct etc .

Professor, you possibly don't know Dublin very well but look up the relevant positions of the Liberty Hall and Percy Place.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

"I do note identify, aim and correct, in other words the "target" is not necessarily the only thing damaged. That is indiscriminate in my book."

Thankfully "your" book means S.F.A., and is based upon total ignorance and confirms my initial reaction to your idiotic questions and that you actually have no idea between the words deliberate targeted fire and indiscriminate fire. And WOW what a barrage eh? the massive total of 40 shots fired over a period of six days - good heavens that averaged out would mean an incredible one shell every three-and-a-half hours, and by the way didn't one of your pals state that Liberty Hall was abandoned by the Rebels early on? Wonder why? I'd call that a successful engagement wouldn't you (Can't think why I ask, after all you according to that book of yours wouldn't have the foggiest notion).

By the way the first shot fired by the Helga was targeted at a bridge which it hit, but then you would have known that had you bothered to actually read up on it, but there again you and your pals never do.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

Dentures, Steve? Why, despite my vast age, the teeth in my 〠 are still my own.

What was that you were bawling someone out over a few posts back, about checking facts before making assertions? Proper old biscuit-taker yr·dear·ole·self when the fit comes on you, innit!

teehee·ad·∞ n'all'tha'..................

☺☺☺☺≈M≈☺☺☺☺

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:24 AM

& I'll decide for myself when it's "end of", tanx v much justa same, without any unsolicited arrogation from so impertinently pre-emptive an organism as your·goodself, my good man...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:28 AM

Ah I get it! Deliberately targeted fire is when you try to hit a target and miss. Sod the consequences of that action, we TRIED to hit the target. We failed miserably but at least we knew what we were trying to do when we missed the target.

According to the last link I put on the gunner TRIED about a dozen times and only actually hit the target once.

Brilliant that, gives me faith in everything you bullshit about. Back to the drawing board Terribombast, go and play with your toy soldiers again.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:10 AM

I was speaking metaphysically when I referred to your dentures, in order to draw more attention to that great age you endure which seems to have the unfortunate effect of making you flog dead h End of again End of again

And Keith, you can repeat a lie a thousand times but you will never make it true. Your reputation is in tatters. Who do you think you're kidding?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:12 AM

Yikes! Ill try again.

I was speaking metaphysically when I referred to your dentures, in order to draw more attention to that great age you endure which seems to have the unfortunate effect of making you flog dead horses. End of, yet again.

And Keith, you can repeat a lie a thousand times but you will never make it true. Your reputation is in tatters. Who do you think you're kidding?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:13 AM

Call the apostrophe police!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:14 AM

"No heavy artillery in Dublin"
You've been given s link that says there was and the firemen's log books put the damage they were dealing with down to heavy artillery - you wwere given evidence of all this.
You may, of course, know more than they did, but, in your inimitable fashion, still omit to supply a link to any of your claims, so we have to take you at your word - I don't.
"Wealthy pre-word War One Liverpool"
Again - no link.
The period was one of mass poverty and deprivation - don't need Government supplied figures for this one My parents were born in the early 1900s and my grandparents on both sides, spoke of their situation regularly.
Both Liverpool and Dublin were massively poor citied - the link I provided from Queens Uni. in Belfast specified as a reason fo volunteering for WW1 was the poverty and mass unemployment (alonng with other reasons).
But again, you appear to know more and again, you provide no linkd.
I provided a link to a University study of pre-war conditions in Liverpool - ignored and contradicted without proof of your own.
"Democratic Britain in the early 1800s"
The period of "reform " you mention saw the most controversial land enclosures in history, The Poaching Wars, the transportation of The Tolpuddle Martyrs for attempting to set up a Trade Union, the Highland Clearances were in full swing in Scotland, evictions of tenants forced many of them to emigrate to Canada in their hundreds of thousands, pretty much the same as with Ireland and the mine and mill owners were taking advantage of the mass emigrations to drive down wages and to stop the rise of the new Trades Unions.
Half the adult population of Britain had no vote and attempts by women to change that situation gave rise to police violence, imprisonment, forced feeding and humiliation - women only got the vote by agreeing to join the British campaign to decimate Britain's youth on the killing fields of Europe in WW1.
A democratic heaven, you might say!
"The Redmondites were not in power and as that is plainly true then they could not enact or repeal anything"
I didn't say they were capable of either - I said the described the Treaty they had previously supported as a "betrayal" because it had been altered to make partition permanent.
Stop distorting what I say.
The obscene profit in ceramic poppies was presented as a linked fact.
"No it is not, because I believe that I have answered, as I asked you before, please say what you think I missed."
You have now had it put up and you still haven't answered any of them
Britain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription in Ireland in 1918 - what part of that fact do you have a problem with?
Had Ireland not opposed British rule, there would have been no reason whatever that it should have been left out of the bloodbath - why should they have been left out while the rest of British youth was being slaughtered?
"The British parliament passed the act before the rising,"
And altered it in July 1916 to make the partition of the six counties permanent - it was originally intended that these counties (originally the whole of Ulster, but altered when it was realised that this would give the Catholics a majority in the North) would be partitioned until a year after the war ended.
Even the Parliamentary Irish rejected the re-written treaty - Redmond described it as "a betrayal"
The Republicans who took part in the Rising did so because they realised that Britain had no intention of ratifying any treaty that did not meet its own interests.
You have been given all this before, what part of this do you have problems with; if none, why are you raising it again and again and again.....?
Britain was finally forced to concede a form of Independence, at the threat of an alternative of "a signature or war", which lead to immediate Civil War in the 26 Counties, built in financial, political and land-owning injustice, inequality and hardship for the Catholic third of the six counties, and a near-century of unrest and bloodshed.
What problems do you have with any of this?
The Rising did not have the support of those in the immediately vicinity, (I told you this years ago), but there is no indication whatever of how the rest of Ireland felt - they were never asked.
It doesn't matter anyway - within a matter of months the Rebels had the complete support of the Irish people, a support which led to a full-scale war of independence which ended overall rule in Ireland by the wealthiest and most powerful Empire the world has known being kicked out ignominiously by poorly armed irregular fighters.
The Rising has since been considered the turning-point in Irish history by the Irish people as a whole.
You, who have stated you know nothing of Irish history and have never read a book on the subject, have taken onto yourself to describe the Irish people as a whole as gullible and misled in their beliefs and written-off that fully accepted Irish turning point with contempt - what does that make you Keith?
You said earlier that "we can finish this."
Your stated contempt for the Irish people and their knowledge of their own history wil never be "finished" until you withdraw your appalling statement or qualify it - it verges on racism to suggest that an entire nation is gullible enough to have been misled by propaganda on its own history and that you, with your declared ignorance and disinterest, know more than they do.
If anything, your stated contempt has been written into the history of this forum in your own words."
You have to provided answers to these question, you just keep repeating the same denials, as you still are - you claim you have answered them - this is simply untrue.
I have specifically asked if you have any problems with the facts I provided - are they true, did I make them up - If you have answered any of these and provided proof - where are your answers - not here?
I have asked you over and over again if you believe the Irish people to be stupid and ignorant to have been so fooled into supporting the Rising and in your own words "murder in cold blood" - if you have answered, where have you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:24 AM

Just an ickle hint, dear ole Steve -- Check on distinction between metaphysics and metaphors... Or it'll be a Marvell if you don't get Donne...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 08:03 AM

I have often heard that people become child-like as they get on in life, especially in their later years. Is this why they sometimes revert to child-like speech and behaviour. I have to say it is rather tedious and doesn't say very much for their intelligence really.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 08:15 AM

I note your recent sense of humour bypass surgery, Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 09:09 AM

☺

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 09:48 AM

Steve, I was repeating a truth not a lie.
Wheatcroft believes what I believe, his whole article supported my case, and I quoted the whole of the passage in question.
My reputation stands. No-one has ever found a lie of mine. I would much rather lose a debate than sink to that.

Do you have anything else on me?
You said "often."
Not true is it Steve.
A lie.

Rag,

According to the last link I put on the gunner TRIED about a dozen times and only actually hit the target once.

The writer asks us to believe that instead of engaging the rebels, those gunners blazed away at a flag pole!

Also that the shells somehow braked and fell into the Liffey!

Also that the Helga returned fire at the gun, invisible as it was among the buildings, which would be impossible.

He reports many other things he would have no way of knowing.

It is a good story, but much of it is fantasy.
A soldier's yarn, or a composite of many such yarns.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:14 AM

I find the concept of winning or losing a debate with people you do not know or care for, on an internet forum that does not matter, quite absurd. While most people like to discuss things in a lively way and are prepared to give and take a little, there are others just want to win at any cost. Therein lies insanity and the root of most of these arguments. There are also those who like to fan the flames but when they get their fingers burned they run off crying to Mummy. It takes all sorts I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:17 AM

Jim, an 18 pounder is heavy in that you would not want it to run over your foot, but it is not "heavy artillery."
It is a field gun.
http://www.dennisstinton.co.uk/artillery-ww1

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:18 AM

Idiot. The shells that fell into the Liffey came from their own troops returning fire.

Are you capable of reading anything without getting it wrong.


Don't bother to respond to that I already know the answer.


Now just ask yourself where the shells that missed the flagpole exploded?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:33 AM

No Rag. You need to read it again.
According to the story, it was shells from the one pounder, fired up at the flag, that landed in the Liffey.
That gun has a range of 4 500 yards, over 2 miles, and fired at a high angle that is how far they would go.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:36 AM

"Steve, I was repeating a truth not a lie."

Did you or did you not say that AJP Taylor's book was fraudulent, according to Wheatcroft? YES.

Did Wheatcroft say that AJP Taylor's book was fraudulent? NO.

Conclusion??

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:51 AM

Yes Professor the 1lb shells were fired by British troops and landed in the Liffey just where the Helga was lying and she fired back with 12 pounders. Shells going all over the place but as teriblossom would tell us all very disciplined and fired with precision following exacting procedures.

My arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 11:21 AM

Dear Jom (A name he gave himself Raggy By the way - I rather liked it and retained the use of it)

This is heavy Artillery and the link below shows where it was deployed please use the link provided to show where Heavy Artillery was deployed in Dublin in 1916:

British Heavy Artillery 1914 to 1918

Now here is what was used in Dublin in 1916, they are Field Artillery pieces + a 12 pounder Naval QF Gun + a Naval 1 pounder Gun:


Naval 12 pounder


18 pounder Field Gun

Naval 1 pounder Gun - note shoulder rest



See the difference Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 11:52 AM

"This is heavy Artillery and the link below shows where it was deployed please use the link provided to show where Heavy Artillery was deployed in Dublin in 1916:"
Not again - you've had the statement based on the Firemen's logs.
I responded to all your points - as this seems to be the only one you want to challenge - I assume we have agreement on the rest.
"A name he gave himself Raggy By the way "
Another example of your small-mindedness - don't you find it a little pathetic to substitute typos for argument - which we are all prone to - you use my typo because your imagination doesn't extend to creating your own, Terrybyte - .
"I rather liked it and retained the use of it"
"Jom" - utterly earth-shattering -
Keith has not responded to one single point I have just put up - confirmation of his on-going claim of 'honesty'
Try again:
"26 Apr 16 - 07:14 AM"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 12:18 PM

Jim, a fireman may not understand the difference between heavy and field artillery.
There was nothing bigger than an 18 pounder in Dublin, and that is a field gun.

Steve, having given the full quote, I later conflated the two different disparaging words he used to dismiss each author into one.
No deceit. No change of meaning.
He rubbished both, and supported the findings of present day historians which was my case.

Rag, so I was right and the idiocy was yours.
An apology is in order.

The story teller said that the one pounder fired at the flag atop Bolands Mill tower from 400 yards.
Those shells would go far beyond the Liffey.

The story teller also says,
"the one pounder's return shot coming so close to hitting the Helga that the resultant explosion soaked their crew!"

There is less explosive in such a shell than a handgrenade.
The spray would not reach the deck, never mind soak the crew.
The whole yarn is fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 12:22 PM

Jim,
Keith has not responded to one single point I have just put up - confirmation of his on-going claim of 'honesty'

That is because I am not aware of any unanswered points.
I KEEP asking you put them to me.
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 01:20 PM

Congratulations, Keith, for changing the English language in order to make "rather vulgar" mean the same thing as "fraudulent." While you're at it, would you also like to make "lie" mean the same thing as "truth?"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 01:44 PM

Some other bits from Raggy's link:

Dubliners cheered the British troops dragging the 1 pounder gun landed from the Helga into position to fire on the rebels.

Who was it that hoisted the flag on a top to deliberately mislead and misdirect fire thereby potentially putting civilian lives at risk - Eamon DeValera wasn't it Raggy? But as your link states - No lives were lost in the Artillery dual your link describes.

The link showing Liberty Hall shows that the gun-fire from the Helga wasn't too shoddy judging by the entry holes that can be seen.

Jom, as Keith A states Firemen probably had no idea what Heavy Artillery was, remember in 1914 the British didn't have any and unless the Firemen of Dublin kept themselves abreast of the changes being wrought in the army of Great Britain then there was no reason why they would know the difference - Sort of like you and Raggy they'd be clueless.

Now tell us all what Heavy Artillery Units of the British Army were deployed in Dublin on the 24th April 1916.

You have still to demonstrate where and when you have shot me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 01:51 PM

Steve, I had already quoted the separate words of dismissal he used to rubbish them.
I did not change the meaning.
He rubbished and dismissed them both, as I did, and endorsed the findings of current historians, as I do.

His whole article endorsed the case I was making.
I had no need to misrepresent him, and I did not.

And that was in 2014, and its all you can put up against me.
My reputation is intact Steve.
Your accusation, "we often find we can't believe a word you say." can not be substantiated, like so many assertions you make.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:18 PM

"The obscene profit in ceramic poppies was presented as a linked fact."

Come on then Jom provide us with a link that supports your preposterous claim with regard to the Ceramic Poppies.

Here are some actual facts 888,246 poppies made, cost of manufacture, packing and transport ~£8 million (Cost per poppy £9). All poppies sold for £25 each generating £22,206,150 leaving ~£14 million to be split between six nominated charities by the Royal British Legion.

"Charities benefiting from the Tower of London poppies are set for a £1 million boost after George Osborne announced he will waive the VAT from the sale of the ceramic flowers."

The British public did not lose out as this £1.1 million would be made up with resulting fines levied on Banks caught up in the Libor Scandal. So Jom Charities benefited to the tune of over £15 million. Now what obscene profits are you wittering on about

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:29 PM

I'd give up if I were you, Steve. If you tell a lie enough times some people will believe it. You and I and many others know the truth and all that matters is that you know really.

I can't recall how often I have used this quote. Just once for ake, twice for someone else and the rest for Keith. Are you sure your in-laws speak the same language? :-D

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
   
Lewis Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:36 PM

Just remind me cherriblossom about how good the accuracy and precision of shelling a known target is. .What was it you said, something like aim, amend,correct and then hit the target. Precision I think came into it somewhere

I have a bit of a problem when one part of the British forces are raining shells down on another part of the British forces. Especially when you consider that one part of the British forces where in fact tethered on a stretch of quite a narrow river in full view of the population of the city they were trying to subdue.

Exactium my arseium. Couldn't hit a barn door at five paces. Hope you could do better when you were doing the firing, although I somehow doubt it.

Go back to playing at being soldiers, you seem to be slightly better at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:44 PM

Hey Cherryblossom you still haven't responded to my earlier questions.

Can you tell us the percentage of your practise artillery firing was accurate:

1. From the first shot.

2. Overall.

3. Would your figures have been achievable in 1916.

Don't bother with the last one I think everyone knows the answer to that already.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:50 PM

Yet another own goal Raggy:

"in full view of the population of the city they were trying to subdue."

Would that be the population that was cheering the British troops on Raggy? The population that DeValera purposely put at risk, while at the same time claiming to represent - I'd have told him to f**k-off and represent somebody else, in 1916 preferably German?

Ranging for NGFS? Two possibly three shots to direct the guns onto target then once the order "Fire for effect" is given there can be anything up to 60 shells on their way to the target before the next shell lands. Even HMS Belfast tied up in the Pool of London when in commission could manage 120 6" shells - I believe that she was once used to stop an attack by a Panzer Division that was threatening one of the landings in Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:40 PM

Not answering the questions yet Cheeriblossom. Trying to fudge and deflect as per normal.

The British troops with a gun apiece were firing at each other
.............. wonderful military joined up thinking and co-ordination there.

Not just for one shot apiece but for numerous shots apiece and neither managed to hit a static target a matter of a few hundreds yards away.

(That is each other, not the flag which, bless 'em, they did manage to hit once, three cheers for the Royal Navy hip, hip ..... OK don't bother)

Yet another example of the might of the British Empire in all it's glory.

What the hell HMS Belfast has to do with this particular discussion I don't know .......... except for it is another feeble attempt to deflect criticism away from your beloved, but inept armed forces.

Go back to your toy soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:57 PM

" Yet another own goal Raggy: in full view of the population of the city they were trying to subdue."

Exactly that Cherrycola. The British forces were trying to subdue the city.

The views of the resident population counted for naught whether they supported the rising or not. I doubt if a consensus of opinion was taken ............... unless you of course, with your wonderful insight into military intelligence, know different.

PS Do not know what an oxymoron is?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:30 PM

The British troops with a gun apiece were firing at each other
.............. wonderful military joined up thinking and co-ordination there.

Not just for one shot apiece but for numerous shots apiece and neither managed to hit a static target a matter of a few hundreds yards away.

(That is each other, not the flag which, bless 'em, they did manage to hit once, three cheers for the Royal Navy hip, hip ..... OK don't bother)

Oh dear, how sad, never mind Raggy another own goal based on ignorance. As far as gunnery goes you know nothing, and even when you supply the link you completely fail to understand what it very clearly stated. Just for you I will take you through it. It is no surprise to me at all that no-one was killed and that HMY Helga even although tied up alongside the wall was not hit.

Go back and read what I said was required to obtain a "Firing Solution". Then piece together how many elements the gunners firing did not have.

Both the Soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters and the crew of the Helga thought that they were under fire from rebel artillery. Neither the Sherwood Foresters or the crew of the Helga knew where this perceived rebel artillery fire was coming from and guess what Raggy? If you don't know where your target is you stand no chance of hitting it.

Without any shadow of a doubt fire from Helga's 12 pounder hit Liberty Hall, Bolands Mill and Sackville Street. The fire on Liberty Hall (Helga's longest engagement) lasted only three and a half hours.

The fires in Sackville Street were initially started not by artillery fire but by looters, in the following days both sides started fires to cover their movements and to hinder attacks. The fire in the Irish Times was started when rolls of print paper caught fire after the building was hit by a HE shell, the Druggists when oil caught fire, there is no evidence at all regarding incendiary shells being used. The majority of soldiers deployed from England were straight out of training and had been waiting at Watford to be deployed in France.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:41 PM

The views of the resident population counted for naught whether they supported the rising or not. I doubt if a consensus of opinion was taken ............... unless you of course, with your wonderful insight into military intelligence, know different.

Certainly the views of the population meant nothing to the rebels.

As to a consensus Rags who was it the citizens of Dublin were cheering as they hauled that gun through the streets? When food supplies started to run low throughout the city who was it that opened the warehouses and distributed food to where it was needed? Give you a hint it certainly was not Pearse, Connolly & Co.

When they abandoned the GPO and moved into Moore Street they again deliberately put civilians at risk as when they moved in the civilians tried to flee, unfortunately nobody on the rebel side cared enough to let the soldiers know that, finally to prevent further loss of civilian life and in an impossible situation Pearse and Connolly decided to surrender - after six days the rebel Irish Government made a decision with the best interests of the people in mind - six effin days too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 03:56 AM

"Both the Soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters and the crew of the Helga thought that they were under fire from rebel artillery. Neither the Sherwood Foresters or the crew of the Helga knew where this perceived rebel artillery fire was coming from and guess what Raggy? IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR TARGET IS YOU STAND NO CHANCE OF HITTING IT"
(Terribus quote, my capital)

So, they were just firing at something they thought might be vaguely over there somewhere.

Now MOST people would describe that as indiscriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 04:11 AM

Rag,

I have a bit of a problem when one part of the British forces are raining shells down on another part of the British forces

Eye witnesses sometimes lie, and myths are created.
He claims that the gunners, suddenly provided with a game changing weapon, use it to blaze away at a flagpole instead of the rebels.
Why?

He says that the shells landed near the Helga which is ridiculous. They would have landed two miles further on.

He says the spray soaked the crew. Such puny rounds could not even splash the deck.

The log of the Helga would report coming under fire if it really happened.
It does not. The whole thing is a fantasy. A lie on which a myth has grown.

Log of Helga
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XxV4CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=log+of+the++helga+dublin&source=bl&ots=DXOF7sGF7f&sig=-Y1GA

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 04:14 AM

A definition of indiscriminate fire by Mr Teribus from a day or two back "By the way indiscriminate fire is when you just blaze away in a general direction for an indeterminate time with no attempt made to identify or hit a specific target"

Hmmmmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 04:22 AM

When you can produce the log of the Helga and not some snippets from another cut and paste maybe someone will take notice professor.

By the way Teriblossom seems to think they did shell Sackville Street I'm sure you said they didn't.

Quote from Cherryblossom "Without any shadow of a doubt fire from Helga's 12 pounder hit Liberty Hall, Bolands Mill and Sackville Street"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 05:17 AM

Thanks for that link Keith very interesting.

Raggy please indicate where I state that I believed the tale about the Sherwood Foresters and the crew of the Helga exchanging fire? You crowed about it and gleefully wittered on about how they couldn't hit a stationary target - I merely offered you an explanation as to why under such circumstances they wouldn't hit each other.

Toddle off to a nice quiet place and sit down and read your "Volunteers" story one more time and this time read it with a healthy dose of scepticism, ask yourself how he while under fire in a city centre that was under fire and under siege manage to:

1: Observe what the Sherwood Foresters were doing from their position whilst simultaneously being able to observe what the gunners on the Helga were doing.

2: How was he capable of witnessing respective fall of shot simultaneously.

You see Raggy it simply does not add up to any sentient human being, but makes a great story for the gullible.

According to RTE's chronological account of the Easter Rising:

Tuesday 25th April 1916 HMY Helga opened fire at Bolands Mill at 20:15 hitting the upper floors and damaging them

Wednesday 26th April 1916 between 08:30 and 12:00 HMY Helga fired on Liberty Hall. The building was destroyed and the guns of HMY Helga were turned on targets in Sackville Street. I have no reason to believe that RTE or their researchers lied in formulating their summary of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 05:36 AM

"Both the Soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters and the crew of the Helga thought that they were under fire from rebel artillery. Neither the Sherwood Foresters or the crew of the Helga knew where this perceived rebel artillery fire was coming from and guess what Raggy? If you don't know where your target is you stand no chance of hitting it."

Your quote Terribombast, it would seem that you too believe the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 05:45 AM

Nice bit of selective cut-n-paste there Raggy - Now look at all of it:

never mind Raggy another own goal based on ignorance. As far as gunnery goes you know nothing, and even when you supply the link you completely fail to understand what it very clearly stated. Just for you I will take you through it. It is no surprise to me at all that no-one was killed and that HMY Helga even although tied up alongside the wall was not hit.

Go back and read what I said was required to obtain a "Firing Solution". Then piece together how many elements the gunners firing did not have.

Both the Soldiers of the Sherwood Foresters and the crew of the Helga thought that they were under fire from rebel artillery. Neither the Sherwood Foresters or the crew of the Helga knew where this perceived rebel artillery fire was coming from and guess what Raggy? If you don't know where your target is you stand no chance of hitting it."

Now where in any of that do I state that I believe that it actually happened?

Also please refrain from sidestepping MY questions - Tell us how it would be possible for your volunteer to see what he said he had seen.

As to fires being started by British Artillery fire Raggy. Looting started on Sackville Street at 15:30 on Monday 24th April 1916, the fires were started by looters in Sackville Street around 20:30 that night - OK then Raggy when did the British bring up their first piece of artillery? About a day later wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 06:01 AM

I think the proof of the pudding is YOUR statement:

"Neither the Sherwood Foresters or the crew of the Helga knew where this perceived rebel artillery fire was coming from ............"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 11:36 AM

Pray tell Raggy what proof? The statement you quote proves nothing. I stand by what I said. I was responding to your idiotic:

"Not just for one shot apiece but for numerous shots apiece and neither managed to hit a static target a matter of a few hundreds yards away."

Hardly a few hundreds (sic) yards away, and I was explaining to you why under the circumstances fancifully imagined by your "volunteer" that neither gun crew could possibly hit the other - no firing solution. There was no indiscriminate fire Rags if there had been then a damn sight more than 260 civilians would have been killed. No heavy artillery Jom because if there had been then a damn sight more than 485 people would have been killed. No incendiary rounds as none existed in the whole of Ireland in April 1916. No blue-on-blue friendly fire incident as described by Raggy's volunteer.

Now then Rags tell us how it would be possible for a man under fire to witness what he said he witnessed? If you cannot do that then that puts his whole story into question doesn't it?

Jom's gone awfully quiet of the poppies and the obscene profits hasn't he? Mind you he is not alone. Fergie has remained silent since he was asked to tell us when and where Joe Offer asked him to pen his tuppence worth and Thompson doesn't seem to be able to tell us where he got his wildly exaggerated figures from (30,000 British troops whereas the actual number deployed to Ireland was 15,000 + 1,000 policemen of the RIC in Dublin at the time. At the height of the fighting the 1250 volunteers were engaged by 4,000 British troops) and where the 1.2 million Arabs came from who fought for the British Army in the First World War - 500,000 of them getting killed would you credit it - I certainly don't but then I don't just spout about being sceptical - I actually check-out statements made by others.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 11:46 AM

Hmm. Your "checking" can get a little sloppy at times, as I demonstrated at 04.50 am yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 12:26 PM

Hilarious Shaw - Is that really the best you can come up with?? The instance that caused you to start dancing on the head of a pin was one where - if you had read the previous posts - it was blindingly obvious the pint that Keith A was making.

Better get onto Jim Carroll for going on about the Black & Tans terrorising Ireland for two years - in actual fact is was less than 15 months - What a crime eh? As stated previously you want go get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 01:26 PM

Any observations on the Rising Steve?
Nothing from you so far.

If you only come here to foment off topic arguments by making inflammatory and false accusations against anyone who disagrees with your fellow lefties, you are just trolling.

Please post about the rising and not about contributors.
(Likewise Greg and DTG)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 01:57 PM

Well, Keith, I didn't know you were a moderator now! Inflammatory, no. I have stated only facts. False, never. Anyone can view that thread and see exactly what you did. You made a grossly inaccurate characterisation of what your source said (yes, yes, you quoted it in full, then you later went on to put words into his mouth that he neither said nor meant - when are you actually going to come clean, Keith? Do you actually want people to trust what you say or not?) and you refused to back down. It's important, Keith, in any context at all in which you're being taken to task because it shows that you are unreliable in the extreme. Perhaps you were once a Sun reporter. It's what they do all the time. As for the rising, I've already said that those events informed Irish history from then right to this day, a point disputed here by some whose agenda is firmly anti-Irish republican. And I'm certainly not getting into squabbles about who fired what at whom and from where. I've been to Dublin, seen the bullet holes and sated my fired-up curiosity. That's as much as I care to share with you two ill-tempered fellows, but it's on-topic, no?

If you want to make a "blindingly obvious" point, Teribus, it's best to make it blindingly accurately, not blindly inaccurately. You KNOW that Keith misquoted but wouldn't correct himself, don't you? Yes, of course you do. Unfortunately, you define yourself by those who you choose to close ranks with. I wouldn't mind betting you get road rage too.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 02:05 PM

Hmmmmmmm I don't think I've mentioned a VOLUNTEER witnessing anything. That's a figment of YOUR imagination.

Just as a point of information Bolands Mill is about 700 metres from the river. I could possibly stroll that, even with my aged impediments, in less than 15 minutes.

If as is stated in the article the "engagement" took over an hour I could have been there and back twice.


I do hope you're not going to go follow the inane path of the professor and attempt to prove the unprovable. We know where that dead end stops.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 02:10 PM

Ah! One more thing. If I was a young man I could probably clear that distance in about 3 minutes (or less)

Not that I'd want to with British troops using sophisticated techniques of aim, target, correct or whatever it was you stated.

No way I might get hit !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 16 - 03:14 PM

"Better get onto Jim Carroll for going on about the Black & Tans terrorising Ireland for two years - in actual fact is was less than 15 months - What a crime eh?"

Well that's about as bad as your sixteen months turning into two years when it came to the timing of Keith's Big Fib! A statement that, like all the others, you never failed to "check-out!" And you think I'm hilarious. Hey, do you think we could do a Morecambe and Wise double act?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 04:42 AM

The incident which was described in the link you provided and which you were so happy about is:

1: Not verified

2: For a number of logical and physical reasons totally unbelievable

If you wish to believe fairy stories - fill your boots - only please do not expect others to be so gullible and don't react so childishly when your dearly held myths are challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 04:51 AM

Nothing from you either, Keith. You just quote other peoples work

Not true at all Dave.
I expressed my views in my first post, but Jim rubbished them so I backed them with the findings of historians.

Have you expressed any views on the rising at all?
Do you have any?
You, Steve and Greg only come to the thread to stir up off-topic arguments.
Why do you do that? It is trolling.
Please stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 05:01 AM

I know it's hard when your heroes are shown to be men of straw. This is just another example of the ineptitude (at times) of the British Military machine. You will just have to learn, like the rest of us, to live with it.





Doesn't stop a few of us from having a giggle though.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 06:29 AM

I expressed my views in my first post, but Jim rubbished them so I backed them with the findings of historians.

Here are your first two posts on the thread, Keith.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:13 AM

This BBC TV programme also questions the idea that Home Rule was advanced at all by those acts of violence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075f1f2

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: Easter Rising
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 03 Apr 16 - 04:15 AM

"In 1916, at the height of WW1, armed insurgents rose up against the British in Dublin, the empire's second city. Using secret documents, cabinet papers, intelligence reports, military orders, diaries and letters, Michael Portillo pieces together the story of this uprising from the British point of view.

Was Dublin just another battle at a time of war where military justice was immediate and brutal or, by their actions, did the British men who wrote these documents hasten the end of an empire? Did an unlikely band of Irish rebels, led by playwrights and poets, do more to advance the cause of Irish freedom in five days than nationalist politicians had done in the previous 50 years, or did they damage the cause and condemn the island to a history of violence? Michael looks for the answers. This is the story of Ireland's Easter Rising as told by British politicians, soldiers, spies and bureaucrats."

So, a link to a program by Michael Portillo and a write up of that program with nary an opinion between them! Not indulging in those little pastry products stuffed with pig meat again are we Keith? Or is it, as I suspect, a new meaning of either views or first post that no one but you has considered yet? As to

Have you expressed any views on the rising at all?

No, have you? and

Do you have any?

Yes, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 08:21 AM

Even harder Raggy when your heroes are shown to be liars and tellers of tall and improbable tales upon which their "fame" is based. As to ineptitude Liberty Hall abandoned within four hours, De Valera hunkered down and forced to play no real part in the events of the week while he put the lives of innocent civilians at risk in order to save his little band, the "Rising" brought to nought in under a week with less than 500 people killed. I think that showed remarkable restraint considering that this battle that basically raw recruits straight out of training took part in was fought in the centre of a city with a population of about 310,000. But never mind Raggy never let facts get in the way of your fairy tales, but everytime those fairy tales and myths that you love so dearly are trotted out I will be there to knock them flat, couldn't care less about making any attempt to convince you or your pals of anything as you are blessed with a monstrously closed mind, but others reading it will be a damned sight better informed.

Oh by the way I do not think you would be allowed just to wander where you please in the middle of a battle so my question still stands how could your volunteer witness what he said he witnessed and how could he observe fall of shot from two different guns firing in opposite directions. Bolands Mill is set back from the Liffey isn't it Raggy? De Valera put a flag up on a near by tower to mislead and misdirect fire from the Helga away from his men and his position which would mean that from the Liffy Helga's gun would firing in what direction? For the fall of shot from Helga to be mistaken for rebel fire where would the Sherwood Foresters have to have been. You see Raggy old son you simply cannot be in two places at the same time and there simply was no vantage point in the area from which you could witness the guns or fall of shot as described in the link you provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 08:38 AM

Ah you mean people wouldn't be allowed to wander round, that's possibly why YOU mentioned:

"As to a consensus Rags who was it the citizens of Dublin were cheering as they hauled that gun through the streets? When food supplies started to run low throughout the city who was it that opened the warehouses and distributed food to where it was needed? Give you a hint it certainly was not Pearse, Connolly & Co."

Or perhaps it was why you mentioned:

"Dubliners cheered the British troops dragging the 1 pounder gun landed from the Helga into position to fire on the rebels"

The SAME gun that later fired in the direction of "rebel" fire.

Your "facts" don't add up do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 10:30 AM

Thanks Dave.
I should have said my fourth post, first day. Sorry.

"Home rule had already been agreed.
It was not brought forward by one day.
The killing was all for nothing. There could have been a peaceful transition and no civil war.
The fools, the fools."

I have never denied that my views on history are informed by reading history.
That is what normal, intelligent people do.
(But not you apparently!)

They are still my views.
Where do you get your views on historical events Dave?
Are they just whims?

Steve, I can not remember you expressing a view on the rising.
Will you remind us?
Was it just one post out of all your others not about the rising at all, but just stirring up off-topic arguments with anyone who disagrees with your fellow lefties.

That still makes you a troll, and you are still trying to restart an off-topic argument.
Please stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 11:04 AM

It's important that readers of this thread know that you are not reliable. And no, I'm not doing your homework for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 11:17 AM

"Your "facts" don't add up do they."

Not to you they don't Raggy, but they would to others who bothered to read about the Easter Rising. Tell me again Raggy the Volunteers under Connolly and Pearse, they did assemble in the centre of Dublin and they did occupy buildings didn't they? They read their proclamation and then sat back and waited. I take it that the groups of men assigned to various positions were ordered to remain at their posts just in case those nasty Brits came along. And that gets us onto the other participants those Nasty Brits who having had to be rushed into Dublin would be on the move and would be free to move about as required in order to attack the more or less static volunteers occupying buildings. So with regard to your last post I have not got the foggiest clue about the point you are trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 12:47 PM

Another fact relating to the Joemulvey link you supplied Raggy - your link states that this supposed "artillery duel" took place on Thursday 27th April 1916, and was initiated because Helga fired on Bolands Mill whereupon De Valera raised a Green Flag on an adjacent Tower to misdirect fire from the Helga. Unfortunately Raggy the only time the Helga fired on Bolands Mill was at 20:15 on the evening of the 25th April, now does that register? She did not fire at all on the 27th and after hitting Bolands Mill on the 25th she did not fire on Bolands Mill again. The Sherwood Foresters with the 1 pound hand served and aimed gun from the Helga in 12 shots managed to hit the flagpole at a range of 400 metres - now what diameter was that flag pole Raggy? Bloody small target at 400 metres eh? Especially for a gun on a temporary lash-up of a mounting that is being aimed and fired by someone holding it.

The story told in the link you provided is utter codswallop.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 12:58 PM

It was actually 24 April to 30 April when Thomas MacDonagh stood down his garrison and the other garrisons under him.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 01:32 PM

See, Steve, I got him to admit a mistake. You owe me £5 ;-) Your turn now:-D

Where do you get your views on historical events Dave?
Are they just whims?

No, they are not. If by historic events you mean pointless slaughter of innocent people then I believe it is always wrong. People can argue over who started it and whether it was justified until they are blue in the face and it will not bring anyone back. My view is that unless people learn from past mistakes they will continue making them and that blame allocation will not help with that.

I also believe, as a fellow expert on historic events of yours, Hilo, said that "Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 01:32 PM

Keith says:

Have you expressed any views on the rising at all?
Do you have any?
You, Steve and Greg only come to the thread to stir up off-topic arguments.
Why do you do that? It is trolling.
Please stop.

He's right. Such posts and the name-calling serve only to carry on the nastiness that has driven so many people away from our BS section, and that made it impossible to leave this thread in the music section. These posts add nothing at all but animosity to the discussion. They convey no information.

I suppose, though, that such animosity may well be a good demonstration of the spirit of the Easter Rising. The "rebels" were so sure of the rightness of their cause, that they saw no purpose in continuing a respectful conversation with the British. The British, at this point, were more than willing to accommodate the wishes of those who demanded independence for Ireland, but the "rebels" believed that only bloodshed would prove the righteousness of their cause.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 01:42 PM

Ah Thompson does that mean that V-J Day is also wrong by years to take into account the surrender of the last of the "hold-outs". The Rising as such was over once Pearse and Connolly formally surrendered unconditionally to Brigadier-General Lowe on the 29th April 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:04 PM

Straw ............ clutch ........... straw ........ Once again Cherriblossom you are trying to divert the conversation away the main thrust.

Stick to the point.

One British gun fired on another British gun, the second British gun having been "borrowed" from the ship of the first.

Brill !!!

PS Before you deny this, you have gone along with this scenario for some little time before you worked out it didn't match up to your preconceived ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:24 PM


One British gun fired on another British gun, the second British gun having been "borrowed" from the ship of the first.

No it did not.
The one pounder was at street level with several big building between it and Helga.
Helga could not see it and could not fire on it because of all the buildings in the way.

Similarly, the one pounder shells fired at a high angle at the flag pole, would land about 2 miles beyond the Liffey.
Helga dd not report coming under fire or returning fire.
It never happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:34 PM

Steve, I have found your contribution the the discussion of the Rising.

"The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 02:57 PM

Keithy baby ............ where did the 1lb gun come from ??

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 03:03 PM

Question: You state categorically that the Helga did not report incoming fire.

Where do you get that information from. IF you have information that STATES that please share it with us, because I for one don't believe you have THAT specific information YOU are making that up.

As for the Helga returning fire even your mate accepts that DID happen. That is logged. That is FACT.

Now, Who is lying Terribus or YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 04:15 PM

the Easter Rising. The "rebels" were so sure of the rightness of their cause, that they saw no purpose in continuing a respectful conversation with the British.

Joe, you're just displaying woeful ignorance of the entire situation that existed between England & Ireland ranging over 400 years.

I'm surprised at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 05:10 PM

Greg, there's no question about the righteousness of the cause - Great Britain occupied Ireland for 400 years. But I think that very same righteousness blinded the rebels, and drove them to fight in this uprising when there was no longer need for violence - Great Britain had agreed to Home Rule two years earlier.

Now, it's also true that the execution of the Easter Rising participants was a totally unnecessary act on the part of the British. It appears to me that it was those executions that turned the tide of public opinion to favor Home Rule. It may have hastened the process of Home Rule, but I wonder if it also inspired the partition of Ireland.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 05:32 PM

Joe, I am English, but i think the rebels had no choice but to use violence.
Joe, my great grandfather was chancellor of the exchequer in Disraeli's government, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, one of the pillars of the UK establishment, the sort of people who forced Ireland into poverty.
imo, the Irish had no choice

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 16 - 06:17 PM

Hi, Dick -Although I'm a pacifist and would prefer alternatives, I have no logical question about the need for the Irish rebels to use violence - earlier in their struggle. But what good did it do them to use violence and get themselves executed in April 1916, 2 years after the Home Rule bill was passed by Parliament? That's a question that hasn't been answered to my satisfaction. Maybe there was good reason - but I don't understand it.

-Joe-

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

Dick,
the rebels had no choice but to use violence.

The choice was a peaceful transition as guaranteed by the 1914 Act.
That was the wish of the people.

Dave,
slaughter of innocent people then I believe it is always wrong.

Good for you Dave, but so does everyone else.
Surely you will condemn a gang of people armed by a foreign enemy, against the will of the people in a democratic state, starting an insurrection by murdering an unarmed policeman and culminating in the death of hundreds, mostly civilians, and leading to a bloody civil war and thousands more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 03:56 AM

"One British gun fired on another British gun, the second British gun having been "borrowed" from the ship of the first.

Rags apart from a single unsubstantiated story recounting this supposed incident there is no evidence of what you state above ever having happened. If you actually think that it did then get digging and prove it.

"As for the Helga returning fire even your mate accepts that DID happen. That is logged. That is FACT."

Ehmmm hate to draw your attention to this Raggy but no that is not fact, but as you like FACTS try this one:

Your link states that this supposed incident occurred on the 27th of April 1916. The Helga only fired on Boland's Mill on one occasion during that Easter, on the 25th April around 20:15. That is actually logged - it was one of the chronological steps researchers for RTE noted. On the following day 26th April they also noted that Helga fired at Liberty Hall between 08:30 and 12:00 and destroyed it.

Your story is only that - a fairy tale, but as you introduced it into the debate, and Keith and myself who have challenged it giving the reasons for our scepticism, it is up to you to prove it.

"Now, it's also true that the execution of the Easter Rising participants was a totally unnecessary act on the part of the British. It appears to me that it was those executions that turned the tide of public opinion to favor Home Rule. It may have hastened the process of Home Rule, but I wonder if it also inspired the partition of Ireland."

Well noted Joe, the reason that the partition of Ireland came about was because out of a population of just over 3 million, almost 1 million wanted no part of an independent Ireland, by and large that remains the case to this day.

In 1921 de Valera was one of those who sent Michael Collins to negotiate an agreement that de Valera knew he was never going to accept - Collins was on a hiding to nothing - but in the ensuing Civil War that followed the Pro-Treaty Free Staters won. The constitutional territorial claim to the north by the Republic of Ireland was what was subsequently used by the "men of the gun" to cause murder and mayhem down through the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:00 AM

Allow me to paraphrase:

Surely you will condemn a government of a foreign state, against the will of the people in a oppressed and subjugated nation, for starting an insurrection by murdering an tens of thousands of unarmed civilians over seven centuries, denying them education, decent housing, land, the vote, which culminating in the war of independence which led to the death of hundreds, mostly civilians, and leading to a bloody civil war and thousands more deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:10 AM

Strange that Teribombast, when either yourself or the professor glean something from the Internet everyone is supposed to accept it as fact. When I glean something from the Internet it is suddenly a fairytale.

As I have said many times before the armed forces aren't going to make public things that show them in a bad light. You must know that if you actually served in the Navy.

I know you won't acknowledge that to be the truth but we both know it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:13 AM

Hi, Raggytash - I think it's clear to most of us that most of the people in Ireland felt they were in an "oppressed and subjugated nation." But what I'm reading tells me that many people in Ireland thought that the rebels went too far in their violence. If a nation is oppressed, does that mean that there are no limits on the measures people can take to oppose that oppression - even when the oppressor has begun to withdraw?

That being said, it is appalling to me that the British chose to execute the leaders of the Easter Rising. I can't figure out why they did that. In carrying out those executions, they lost any claim to the moral high ground - and they made martyrs out of those who were executed.

-Joe-

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

Twaddle Raggy complete and utter twaddle - as usual

Prior to Henry II's incursion there was no "Irish Nation" as you fondly seem to think.

For vast tracts of the 700 years you mention the island was a united nation and existed in a state of peace and prosperity.

Various discontented elements in Ireland who sought advancement were cynically used by various foreign powers down through the course of those years to foment trouble in Ireland.

Meddling by the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland robbed people of opportunity.

"Sir Michael Hicks Beach, one of the pillars of the UK establishment, the sort of people who forced Ireland into poverty.
imo, the Irish had no choice"

Good heavens GSS how on earth did "he/they" manage to do that?

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

There's an old saying Joe One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

From 1169AD various incarnations of English and then British forces had kept the indigenous population in appalling conditions. Over 700 years. What do you really expect the people to do.

I do note that the people who supposably cheered the British troops were not too slow in taking advantage of the situation to loot and pillage. They did so because many of them were destitute. A situation caused by the very same government who troops they were cheering?

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

My, muy my, this pair of clowns still in denial and still abusing the Irish people and their history - and still telling porkies.
You have answered none of the questions Keith and your have you are still claiming that Independence was "inevitable" despite the fact that Britain altered the Treaty (which was rejected in it's distorted form bt the Irish Parliamentarians in its distorted form) and still clings on to six counties despite the near century of inequality and bloodshed.
In claiming that you have answered the points I made you are lying, pure and simple - where have you ever dealt with the discrepency between permanent and the original proposal of full unity a year after WW1 ended - you haven't.
Question in full.
"The British parliament passed the act before the rising,"
And altered it in July 1916 to make the partition of the six counties permanent - it was originally intended that these counties (originally the whole of Ulster, but altered when it was realised that this would give the Catholics a majority in the North) would be partitioned until a year after the war ended.
Even the Parliamentary Irish rejected the re-written treaty - Redmond described it as "a betrayal"
The Republicans who took part in the Rising did so because they realised that Britain had no intention of ratifying any treaty that did not meet its own interests.
You have been given all this before, what part of this do you have problems with; if none, why are you raising it again and again and again.....?
Britain was finally forced to concede a form of Independence, at the threat of an alternative of "a signature or war", which lead to immediate Civil War in the 26 Counties, built in financial, political and land-owning injustice, inequality and hardship for the Catholic third of the six counties, and a near-century of unrest and bloodshed.
What problems do you have with any of this?"
Your claim to have answered it is simply not true - ignoring of facts and repetition is not an answer.
The destruction
I've come back to half-a-dozen invitations from history groups to attend talks by Irish researchers on The Rising - more to come.
Your description of the ignorance of the Irish people to their history is racist, pure and simple.
Your refusal to respond to the enormity of your attitude to them is a shining example of your dishonesty.
Was amused to be told that Terrytoon knows more about the destruction of Dublin than those on the ground attending to the damage at the time - nice to know we have such geniuses in our midst.
Sheesh - what a pair!!
I've just returned from a visit to Liverpool, during which the establishment and the forces of law and order were dealt a sharp lesson in what happens when the establishment tries to alter facts and re-write history - when will you people ever learn?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:38 AM

"Well noted Joe, the reason that the partition of Ireland came about was because out of a population of just over 3 million, almost 1 million wanted no part of an independent Ireland, by and large that remains the case to this day"

I'm a tad puzzled Terriblossom. The population of the 26 counties was about 3.1 million in 1911. Do the 1 million who wanted no part of an independent Ireland come from that number or are you mistaking that 1 million for the population of the 6 counties that comprise modern day Northern Ireland which was about 1.25 million of whom about 40% or half a million were Catholic.

If the 1 million came from the population of the 26 counties can be provide a link to your source.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:39 AM

" it is appalling to me that the British chose to execute the leaders of the Easter Rising"

Ill advised certainly, but the penalty for treason in time of war is death. The leaders of the Easter Rising had been in contact with the German Government since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914. Immediately before the Easter Rising a ship carrying German arms was intercepted off the coast of Ireland and Sir Roger Casement was arrested after having landed on Banna Strand from a German Submarine.

In the aftermath of the Easter Rising some 3,500 were arrested and held, Courts Martial passed 90 death sentences, commuting all but 15 of them to five years imprisonment, those sentences ended up as being 1 year.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 04:53 AM

Raggy you seem to spend your entire life wandering around being puzzled, perhaps you should educate yourself by reading works that aren't works of fiction.

1 million I thought I said almost a million, but no matter, Steve Shaw in his pedantry will not take you to task about that as he would Keith or myself. None-the-less opposition to Home Rule and an independent Ireland was massive in the North, after all Raggy it was as a reaction to that opposition that the Irish Volunteers were formed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 05:07 AM

I am curious as to were you gain your information from. If it is from a reliable source, which is what you demand from other people, then fine tell us what the source is. If you read it on the back of your cornflakes packet it is not.

So some simple questions for you to answer.

1. Where do your figures come from.
2. Where do the almost 1 million come from.
3. What does that almost 1 million make as a percentage of the total   population of Ireland as it was in 1916.

The problem I have terribrandy is that I think your figures are a figment of your imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 05:58 AM

Apart from being permanently puzzled Raggy you also seem to be good at asking questions and very poor at answering them. To quote your pal - I am not going to do your homework for you look the figures up yourself - guess what Raggy - you might actually learn something - but as I said previously you won't find them in fairy tales and works of fiction.

One observation though Raggy, where on earth did you get the idea that the entire population of Ireland wanted independence, was there no dissent or opposition in your fairy tale world? I can think of numerous groups throughout the length and breadth of Ireland whose continued well being rested with continued close ties to Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 06:18 AM

"German Government since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914. "
A lie - Germany supplied weapons to the Republicans because they believed it would be a hindrance to Britain's war effort - the supplying of weapons was the only contact they had with the rebels and it had nothing whatever to do with the executions and was never claimed to be the reason - you have made that up - as you do.
Britain executed the rebel leaders as an example of what would happen if the Irish stepped out of line again, nothing more.   
As you don't link your claims, you have no evidence for your inventions.
Had wartime treason been the reason, everybody who participated in the rebellion would have been executed.
Incidentally, The Black and Tans served in Ireland from the end of 1919 to some time in 1921 (exact date hard to establish but many of the Tans joined the RIC and remained there up to 1922 - they were responsible for many of the atrocities committed by that took place during the War of Independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 06:23 AM

As I suspected you have made figures up, are not prepared to substantiate them but expect the rest of us to believe them.

What you were trying to implicate is that one third of the total population was in favour of remaining with the union. In actually FACT you cannot justify such a claim.

If you wish to suggest that the protestant Irish wanted to remain within the union they, the protestants, in FACT made up less than 18% of the total population.

Yet more lies from your camp. No surprise there.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:00 AM

Jim,
You have answered none of the questions Keith

That is because you won't tell me what they are!!
I KEEP ASKING YOU FOR THEM!

you are still claiming that Independence was "inevitable"

It was. Only the war delayed it.

Britain altered the Treaty
Yes, as a consequence of the rising.

and still clings on to six counties despite the near century of inequality and bloodshed.

No. British government and people would love to be rid of it, but the people of those counties keep voting to stay, and they are entitled to self determination.

A lie - Germany supplied weapons to the Republicans because they believed it would be a hindrance to Britain's war effort - the supplying of weapons was the only contact they had with the rebels

The rebels called them their "gallant allies!"

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

Population 26 counties 1911, 3.1 4million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_population_analysis
Population 6 couties 1911, 1.25 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland
Protestants in 26 counties 1911, 10%
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

Notice that the percentage dropped rapidly after the rising, while the Catholic population in the North rose steadily.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:28 AM

And your point is? Apart from verifying my figures that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:35 AM

You were wrong about the percentage of Catholics in the 6 counties Rag.
Only 34.4%
https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/what-happens-in-2016-when-northern-irelands-catholics-are-on-a-par-with-protestant

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 07:47 AM

"I KEEP ASKING YOU FOR THEM!"
You claimed you had answered them - that was a lie.
This is the first time you have even pretended to address this one
"It was. Only the war delayed it."
It was forced through despite ongoing opposition by Tories and Unionists.
The Irish Parliamentarians accepted it only on the basis that partition would last no more than a year after the war ended.
The Rebels had no reason to believe it would be honoured at all, given the track record of British opposition to any form of Home Rule.
"Yes, as a consequence of the rising."
How did the Rising in any way bring about making partition permanent - bloody nonsense?
Lloyd George admitted it was due to pressure from the Unionists.
You are making this up - who has ever blamed the Rising for the changes - t was the Curragh Mutiny which brought those about.
"No. British government and people would love to be rid of it, "
Again - bloody nonsense - Britain ascertained a majority Unionist vote in the north by Gerrymandering the borders.
Originally, the plan was to partition the whole nine counties of Ulster, Britain dropped the three of them that would have given a Catholic majority in order to create a Protestant State.
"The rebels called them their "gallant allies!""
In providing weapons - no more - Ireland and the Irish did nothing to support Germany in the war.
It was an Imperial war and Ireland had spent centuries trying to get out of the Empire.
Where is your evidence that the Rebels did anything to suppoert Germany - propagands? - statements of support?...... nothing Keith - your claim is out-o-date jingoist propaganda.
"Occurring during Ireland's Revolutionary period, the Irish people's experience of the war was complex and its memory of it divisive. At the outbreak of the war, most Irish people, regardless of political affiliation, supported the war in much the same way as their British counterparts,[1] and both nationalist and unionist leaders initially backed the British war effort. Their followers, both Catholic and Protestant, served extensively in the British forces, many in three specially raised divisions with others in the Imperial and United States armies, John T. Prout being an example of an Irishman serving in the latter. Over 200,000 Irishmen fought in the war, in several theatres and either 30,000,[2] or, if one includes those who died serving in armies other than Britain's, 49,400 died.

In 1916, supporters of Irish independence from Great Britain took the opportunity of the ongoing war to proclaim an Irish Republic and to defend it in an armed rebellion against British rule in Dublin, a rebellion which Germany attempted to help. In addition, Britain's intention to impose conscription in Ireland in 1918 provoked widespread resistance and as a result remained unimplemented."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 08:04 AM

It still doesn't add up to the one third that Terricola is claiming.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 08:52 AM

Keith
Would just like confirmation of your Bernard Manning-like contempt for the Irish people
I came back from Liverpool yesterday to six invitations to talks and exhibitions by researchers and commemorating the Rising as a major event in Irish history
Our television and newspapers are still carrying articles and programmes on the subject on a daily basis, and will be into the foreseeable future.
The International Ballad Conference in Limerick in July is dedicating a large part to The Rising and the same team that organised a two year long national project on Child Ballads, Aileen Lambert and Mick Fortune, backed by the National Library, have now embarked on a similar one on on this subject, several of the singers involved being regular contributors to this subject.
Jim Carroll
Do you honestly believe that such efforts would be put into celebrating "a contemptable joke" and "murder".
Don't expect a response to this - just puting your position into context.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 09:40 AM

This is what I have been looking for - factual information. Thanks to Jim and others, I now have a factual basis for consideration of this issue. I got lost in the midst of a crowd of people, each calling the other "stupid."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 11:03 AM

1: "The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany." - Source: Max Caulfield "The Easter Rising" page 18

2: "After the war began, Roger Casement and Clan na Gael leader John Devoy met the German Ambassador to the United States, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, to discuss German backing for an uprising. Casement went to Germany and began negotiations with the German government and military. He persuaded the Germans to announce their support for Irish independence in November 1914." - Source: Foy and Barton "The Easter Rising" page 25

3: "Casement also attempted to recruit an Irish Brigade, made up of Irish prisoners of war, which would be armed and sent to Ireland to join the uprising. However, only 56 men volunteered. Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital. The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers." - Sources: Townshend, Easter 1916, p. 104; Foy and Barton, The Easter Rising, p. 105; McNally and Dennis, Easter Rising 1916: Birth of the Irish Republic, p. 30 & Foy and Barton, The Easter Rising, pp.25-28

So Jom far from it being a lie we have the entire Supreme Council of the IRB agreeing to obtaining support from Germany a country at war with Great Britain at a meeting held on the 5th September 1914.

Roger Casement travels to Germany a country at war with Great Britain at the time.

Plunkett joins Casement in Germany to attempt to arrange a German invasion.

Below you will find how less than ten men subverted the wishes, aims and views of the "organisations" they were supposed to be part of:

"In May 1915, Clarke and MacDermott established a Military Committee or Military Council within the IRB, consisting of Pearse, Plunkett and Ceannt, to draw up plans for a rising. Clarke and MacDermott joined it shortly after. The Military Council was able to promote its own policies and personnel independently of both the Volunteer Executive and the IRB Executive. Although the Volunteer and IRB leaders were not against a rising in principle, they were of the opinion that it was not opportune at that moment. Volunteer Chief-of-Staff Eoin MacNeill, supported a rising only if the British government attempted to suppress the Volunteers or introduce conscription, and if such a rising had some chance of success. IRB President Denis McCullough and prominent IRB member Bulmer Hobson held similar views. The Military Council kept its plans secret, so as to prevent the British authorities learning of the plans, and to thwart those within the organisation who might try to stop the rising. IRB members held officer rank in the Volunteers throughout the country and took their orders from the Military Council, not from MacNeill."

On the Black & Tans Jom:

"The Black and Tans served in Ireland from the end of 1919 to some time in 1921"

The first deployment of the Black & Tans to Ireland was in March 1920. Their activities ended with the Truce that came into force in June 1921. 15 months Jom NOT two years – Steve Shaw will no doubt be able to explain the importance of you getting this right to you.

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

Jim,
It was forced through despite ongoing opposition by Tories and Unionists.

Every Act of Parliament is "forced through despite ongoing opposition" by the other parties!"

The Irish Parliamentarians accepted it only on the basis that partition would last no more than a year after the war ended.

Not true Jim. No-one knew there was going to be a war when it was drafted, and partition was not even mentioned in the bill before the rising.

The Rebels had no reason to believe it would be honoured at all,

Rubbish. They had no reason not to, and the Irish people were content.
Who gave them the right to start murdering Irish people on such a whim?

How did the Rising in any way bring about making partition permanent

It poisoned the well of negotiation. An accommodation with the Unionists might have been possible otherwise.

Again - bloody nonsense - Britain ascertained a majority Unionist vote in the north by Gerrymandering the borders.

No. The border was changed so that as many people as possible would be on their preferred side, saving more bloodshed.

Ireland and the Irish did nothing to support Germany in the war.
The rebels still called them "gallant allies."

My views are the same as those of Father Murphy, which the Irish Times was happy to publish.
If they showed "Bernard Manning-like contempt for the Irish people " that would not happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 16 - 12:53 PM

Well, Joe Offer, thank goodness I wasn't part of that crowd who were calling each other "stupid." Yes there is good information in this thread, but there is also misinformation, information that can't be relied on and information predicated on political prejudices. 'Twas ever thus, of course. The Easter Rising has had a profound effect on Irish politics and the Irish people on both sides of that confounded border for a hundred years. Our opinion of the men who instigated it should not be predicated on whichever side our sympathies lie with. Too much of that happens in this thread and that is precisely how bad history is written. I don't see you attacking that. There. You have my take on it, which I've already stated several times in this thread in spite of your protestations that I haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 03:38 AM

The Home Rule Bill was opposed vehemently by the Tories and blocked by the House of Lords; it was eventually got through by Royal assent.
After the Easter Rising of 1916, two attempts were made by the Prime Minister, Asquith during the First World War to implement the Act. The first attempt came in June 1916, when David Lloyd George was sent to Dublin to offer immediate implementation to the leaders of the Irish Party. The scheme revolved around partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. While all this backhanding was going on the Tory opponents to any kind of Independence had renewed their campaign to block it. This was decisive in sealing the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Asquith made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention chaired by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government.
There was never an agreement to the permanent partition of Ireland by the Irish parliamentarians and when it was finally forced through under the threat of war, it led to civil War in Ireland and a near century of inequality of the Catholic population in employment, housing and voting, which in turn led to unrest, regular anti-Catholic rioting and the violent quashing of civil-rights protests in the late 1960s which brought about getting on for 3 years of bloody open warfare, the aftershocks of which are still being felt.
To say that Home Rule was a done deal is utter bollocks - it was a lose-lose situation either way for those who wanted Independence.
Ireland was entitled to Independence and the rebels took the only course open to them?
Your accusation that the rebels were guilty of "murder" and the Irish people would celebrate that act and make heroes out of "murderers" is as despicable as Keith's - The Rebels were freedom fighters, fighting for independence from the British Empire, "on whose hands the blood never dried" according to a saying of the time.
If any "murder" was done, it was the cold-blooded and totally unnecessary execution of the leaders, which backfired magnificently.
So what did they do - they gave Ireland an example of what Imperialism represented by strapping a critically wounded man into a chair so they could execute him - that remains as the strongest image of The Easter Rising up to the present day.
Far from the reason being your equally despicable accusation that the rebels were allies of the Germans (a wonderful blast from the past, that one - nobody believes that now), it was aimed at setting an example, with the possible exception of Connolly, who had to be removed as his Socialist ideals were a threat to the system and in behaving in such an evil manner they gave Ireland an example of what Imperialism represented by strapping a critically wounded man into a chair so they could shoot him - that remains as the strongest image of The Easter Rising up to the present day.
British behaviour before, during and after the Rising is adequate evidence of how far Britain could be trusted.
Black and Tans were first recruited in 1919 - they were sent to Ireland in March the following year but, as I said, when they were disbanded many of them remained and joined the R.I.C. - they continued their activities up to the Truce.
Nit-pick if you like, but Tans trained by Britain were in fact still operating in Ireland until the R.I.C. was disbanded in 1922.
"The border was changed so that as many people as possible would be on their preferred side, saving more bloodshed."
The Irish people on either side of the border were never consulted
Six Counties instead of nine was the result of appeasing Carson and his mutineers - you have had a description of Lloyd Georges's continuing behaviour in all this - made up maybe?
- if you have any quibble with the gerrymandering that took place, show that it didn't.
"My views are the same as those of Father Murphy"
I'm sure they are - my views are the same as those of the Irish people as a whole rather than an American Jesuit priest.
Your and Keith's "Bernard Manning" attitude to the Irish was demonstrated perfectly to your appeasement to Sir Charles Trevelyan's genocidal handling of The Famine and is being repeated here in spades - 't'ick Micks who don't understand their own history and celebrate murder' - Manning, Jim Davidson and Punch Magazine all rolled into one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - AprilOn 14 Sep 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:40 AM

"The Home Rule Bill was opposed vehemently by the Tories and blocked by the House of Lords; it was eventually got through by Royal assent.

Wrong Jom - read up on British Parliamentary procedure and the 1911 Parliament Act which was brought in to ensure the dominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. As to your "got through by Royal Assent" I think that you are mixing up "Royal Assent" which every Act of Parliament must receive before it can be enacted and a thing called "Royal Decree" which have no place in British Law any law, or amendment to an existing law must be put before Parliament, debated by both Houses of Parliament, the House of Lords have no right of veto over anything coming from the Commons, they can only delay it for three readings after which the Commons vote on it for the last time and the Bill is sent to the reigning Monarch for signature.

"After the Easter Rising of 1916, two attempts were made by the Prime Minister, Asquith during the First World War to implement the Act."

Impossible according to the Suspensory Act of 1914, there may well have been discussions regarding how the 1914 Home Rule could be implemented but there could have been no attempt to implement Home Rule until after the end of the war.

"The Suspensory Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 88) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which suspended the coming into force of two other Acts: the Welsh Church Act 1914 (for the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales), and the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (Third Home Rule Bill for Ireland). The Suspensory Act received the royal assent on the same day as the two Acts it suspended, on 18 September 1914.

On 14 September 1915 an Order in Council made under the Suspensory Act suspended the Government of Ireland Act for a further six months (i.e. until 18 March 1916), and postponed Welsh disestablishment until the end of the war. A subsequent series of Orders in Council, dated 29 February 1916, 7 September 1916, 13 March 1917, 22 August 1917, 27 February 1918, 4 September 1918, 12 March 1919, 18 August 1919, 2 March 1920, and 13 August 1920 suspended the Irish Act in further blocks of six months until the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (passed 23 December 1920) repealed the 1914 Home Rule Act. However, the 1920 Act was never fully implemented either, due to the Irish War of Independence (culminating in the independence from the United Kingdom of most of Ireland as the Irish Free State); home rule was only established in Northern Ireland.

"To say that Home Rule was a done deal is utter bollocks - it was a lose-lose situation either way for those who wanted Independence"

Home Rule WAS a done deal, the only thing that needed to be done was to convince two groups of Irishmen how it could be brought in to the satisfaction of both parties. Don't confuse Home Rule with Independence they are not the same. Trouble was both sides in this dispute (both Irish) wanted different things and both stubbornly refused to any compromise and that Jom was what caused the Partition of Ireland. The civil war in Ireland was caused by one group of Irishmen in South not accepting the deal that had been made by those sent by their Parliament to London to negotiate Independence. This idiotic stance forced on the South by de Valera caused the economic ruin of the Irish Free State and later that of the Republic of Ireland. The Irish civil war was short, bitter and small scale (Although larger by a fair margin than the Irish War of Independence that preceded it) had the North's wishes and right of self determination been denied the civil war that would have followed would have much worse in terms of scale and time.

"Your accusation that the rebels were guilty of "murder" and the Irish people would celebrate that act and make heroes out of "murderers" is as despicable as Keith's - The Rebels were freedom fighters, fighting for independence from the British Empire, "on whose hands the blood never dried" according to a saying of the time.

What else would you call gunning down unarmed men Jom? I expect that your bias, bigotry and racism will somehow get round that, just as you have seemed to stick your fingers in your ears to "La-La-La" away the fact that from September 1914 the leaders of the IRB were in contact with the Government of a country that Great Britain and Ireland was at war with - No surprises there the same was true of damn near every single rebellion in Ireland since the time of Elizabeth the First.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:40 AM

Steve,
Yes there is good information in this thread, but there is also misinformation,

Will you finally support one of your assertions and give an example of some misinformation.
Were you referring to Jim's claim that the Home Rule Act had not been passed? That was very misleading.
His claims about heavy artillery being deployed in Dublin?
Also misleading.
Anything else Steve?

Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:52 AM

Jim,
The Home Rule Bill was opposed vehemently by the Tories

Very silly Jim.
Obviously most Acts Of Parliament are opposed by the opposition. So what? That is their job!

and blocked by the House of Lords; it was eventually got through by Royal assent.

Nonsense Jim!
It was passed by a majority vote in the House Of Commons.
The unelected Lords were not allowed to prevent the will of the people as expressed by Parliament. In such situations they can be, and were, ignored.
Royal Assent is just a rubber stamp. Acts have to get it if they are passed by Parliament, never if they are not.
The rest of your post is a paste job from Wiki!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:59 AM

despicable accusation that the rebels were allies of the Germans

The rebels themselves claimed the Germans as "allies!"
"Gallant allies" actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:00 AM

"No surprises there the same was true of damn near every single rebellion in Ireland since the time of Elizabeth the First"

What do you really expect a subjugated nation to do. They have been invaded by a powerful neighbour, they do not have the wherewithal to defeat that neighbour so they look for support.

I think you will find Europe did the same in both WW1 and WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:05 AM

I thought you said the Germans called the Irish "Gallant Allies" not the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:09 AM

Oops, Sorry my mistake !

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:12 AM

Raggytash - 30 Apr 16 - 05:00 AM

That is not the point in dispute - Jom the infallible denies that it ever happened - I am merely pointing out that it did and that there is ample evidence to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:26 AM

"Impossible according to the Suspensory Act of 1914"
That was not my claim - it was a direct quote from the Wiki entry of home rule - the dates are given
You continue to pronounce without evidence - who says it is impossible other than you?
"Home Rule WAS a done deal"
Again - you hasve been given the evidence and the quotes and contiinue to pronounce rather than provide your own.
The Redmodites described the July 1016 efforts as a "betrayal (True or false) and they were hardly known as revolutionaries
"What else would you call gunning down unarmed men Jom?"
An article in this mornings paper announces that the relatives of the rebels are seeking an apology for the at least five cold blooded murders carried out by the killer of Francis Skeffington Sheehy, Captain J. C. Bowen-Colthurst.
Colthurst's name is the only one ever connected with "murder" - the accusation that the rebels were "murders" is yours alone
They were executed for their part in the Rising - as revolutionaries, not as "murderers"
This is a squalid invention of yours and Keith's
The Brits were shelling unarmed non combatants - including women and children - you might describe that as murder.
Where is your evidence that rebels ever deliberately gunned down unarmed women and children - who else makes such a claim?
You are a pair of anachronistic jingoistic making it up as you go along - nobody is putting up these claims apart from yourselves.
This is little more than a rerun of your Irish Famine Holocaust denial - this time with the racist mask taken off - the Irish deluded people as a whole ignorant of their own history and supporting murder - how else would you describe that other than racist?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:27 AM

I think you will find the support the Irish were promised over the centuries never really materialised.

As examples the Italian and Spanish were massacred by the British at Dun An Oir in 1580. There were just 500 of them. The French failed to land at Bantry in 1796. The Germans failed to land any sizable amount of guns 1915 etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:32 AM

I should add the Italian and Spanish defenders at Dun an Oir surrendered ................. THEN they were massacred on the orders of Authur Grey, Lord Deputy of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:58 AM

I've searched the web and the only reference I can find to "murder" are those concerning the illegal killings by British troops during the Rising, formost being the at least five carried out in cold blood by C Bowen Colthurst
The accusation of "murder" sums up this pair's entire argument - jingooistic Britain didn't do it" (yet again) claptrap.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

Raggytash - 30 Apr 16 - 05:27 AM

Again Raggy you miss the point, it is immaterial whether or not help was actually sent - it was sought, or offered - the fact that in most cases it never materialised was down to the foreign powers inability to get it past English/British naval blockade. But just entering into discussions with an enemy power in time of war is considered to be treason.

See that you have sidestepped the fact that Carroll denies that such discussions ever took place between September 1914 and April 1916.

No remarks at all about the self-appointed Military Council (SEVEN MEN - the "blood sacrifice" believers) forcing the Rising on the two nationalist organisations against the wishes of their respective executive bodies. The Rising was set up to fail by those who led it. The destruction of the centre of Dublin and ALL loss of life was THEIR responsibility as it all came about as a direct consequence of THEIR actions. They did stay true to form later in the dying stages of the Civil War, hardline "nationalist" supporters carried out wanton destruction of property, infrastructure and state assets in their "dog-in-a-manger" dying throws when they knew the game was up. Their actions hindered the economic advancement of the fledgling Irish Republic which took decades to recover.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 06:22 AM

24th April Jom:

" a small team of Volunteers and Fianna Éireann members swiftly captured the Magazine Fort in the Phoenix Park and disarmed the guards. The goal was to seize weapons and blow up the ammunition store to signal that the Rising had begun. They seized weapons and planted explosives, but the blast was not big enough to be heard across the city.[64] The 23-year-old son of the fort's commander was fatally shot when he ran to raise the alarm.[65]

That is unarmed civilian Number 1 shot by your "Freedom Fighters" Jom - don't know about you but I'd call it murder.

"A contingent under Seán Connolly occupied Dublin City Hall and adjacent buildings.[66] They attempted to seize neighbouring Dublin Castle, the heart of British rule in Ireland. As they approached the gate a lone police sentry, James O'Brien, attempted to stop them and was shot dead by Connolly."

That is yet another instance of an unarmed man being gunned down - don't know about you Jom but I'd call it murder.

The difference of course is that the British Army pursued charges against the person you mention - he was found to be insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 06:27 AM

It can only be seen as "treason" by the dominant power.

If you are a oppressed, persecuted and tyrannised people it is not "treason" to seek to overthrow those who hold power over you.


For over 700 years that was the situation in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 07:11 AM

Conveniently found insane, shipped of to Canada, released and given a full military pension.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 07:16 AM

Jim,
The Brits were shelling unarmed non combatants - including women and children - you might describe that as murder.

I think that is just propaganda. A lie.
The murders T refers to are undisputed facts. They could easily have been overpowered, but they had to die.

"Home Rule WAS a done deal"
Again - you hasve been given the evidence and the quotes and contiinue to pronounce rather than provide your own.

It was a done deal. The Act was passed when Britain had no intention of joining any war between Germany and France.
Had Germany not invaded Belgium, you would have had home rule in 1914.

Rag,
If you are a oppressed, persecuted and tyrannised people it is not "treason" to seek to overthrow those who hold power over you.

That is not how the people felt in 1916.
They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 07:55 AM

Jim, it is not just T and I who hold these views.
Irish journalist Patsy McGarry has written that the 1916 Rising was "an immoral and anti-democratic act organised by a minority within a minority who, looking into their own souls, saw there what they deemed was right for the Irish people".
See my Indy link below.

Irish Times,
"Mr Dodd said the horrific death toll among civilians adds to our understanding of why Pádraig Pearse decided to call off the rebellion. About 45 were killed on the last day of the Rising, the highest number of the week."
"It also explains the furious reaction to the rebellion among Dublin civilians in the immediate aftermath of surrender."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/easter-rising-glasnevin-researchers-reach-definitive-death-toll-1.2165878

The Independent,
"The Irish "Few" were reviled by Church and people, cursed in Irish newspapers, blamed for the mass looting by the tens of thousands of Dublin poor who thronged the streets under fire to take those luxuries – new shoes, jackets, heaps of coal, sweets, even pianos – that they could never otherwise hope to possess. Only the brutality with which the Crown executed the leaders of 1916 – shot after secret (and thus illegal) courts-martial – turned public scorn at the rebels into outrage against the British."

"If its creators had not declared for Germany, the British might have been able to brush the Rising aside as a violent but hot-headed local rebellion. But for a British government facing the German onslaught in 1916, this was an act of gross treachery, "

"But in the Republic itself, as long ago as 1966 – on the 50th anniversary of the Rising, when it was still a very Church-bound Catholic nation – young men and women were already sickened by the clerical and republican political fawning over the untouchable heroes of 1916. On a visit to Dublin in the late Seventies, the brother of a journalist friend of mine dumped his school books on my lap one evening with the imperishable command: "Look at what the gob-shites made us read!" Sure enough, each of his "history" books would end in 1921 – with the victory of the War of Independence against Britain, thus deleting the 1922-23 civil war – and treated Pearse as a saint-in-waiting. Could the Irish have been so gullible? Sure enough, I took out one of the man's old schoolbooks again and there was James Carty's A Junior History of Ireland (1959), in which Pearse is "one of the noblest characters in Irish history"."

"An estimated 3,500 Irish soldiers were killed on the Somme, 2,000 from what is now Northern Ireland, 1,200 from what is now the Republic. In the Rising, only 485 were killed, more than half of them civilian men, women and children, and a mere 48 Irish rebels – a figure that did not appear in those Irish school history books I was handed with such derision all those years ago."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/irelands-easter-rising-and-how-history-is-being-twisted-in-celebrating-the-struggle-for-independence-a6820141.html

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 08:05 AM

"That is not how the people felt in 1916. They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels"

1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge of Ireland at any point in history. Try reading a few books.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 08:44 AM

Keith - you have been swamped with evidence - your response is to ignore it, trawl through the net and offer opinions as facts
I could furnish you with a few more who possibly agree with you, but they are no more than opinions, as are yours.
Patsy McGarry is a religious journalist for the Irish Times and no more qualified to express an opinion on the Rising than anybody else.
You are doing what you always do - presenting your own bigotetd opinion then scraping around for supporters.
Address the facts that have been put before you - or better still - go read a book.
Your arrogance in declaring that you have never read a book on Ireland and are not interested enough in the subject ever to do so, then to dismiss the Irish population as ignorant and gullible supporters of murder is beyond belief.
Terrytoon
Some idea of what exactly was happening - from an eye witness account to be found in 'The Scrap' by Gene Kerigan, based on the experiences of Republican, Charlie Saurin.
You can throw as many of these as you like and they will be matched one hundredfold by what was being done by the well-armed and well trained Brits.
Give us a break and address the documented facts, not your version of them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 09:35 AM

Whoops - forgot to add this
Jim Carroll

For an hour the Helga showered shells inland from a 12-pounder.
Because of the terrain, including the railway bridge curving past the union hall, the Helga couldn't fire directly at the building; instead, it adopted the technique of 'dropping fire' - lobbing shells into the air, above the obstacles, hopefully to drop on its target.
The artillery bombardment and the constant rattle of machine guns poured an immense amount of lethal firepower into a crowded urban area. The Irish Times reported that this 'caused intense excitement in the district, where there is a large population of the poorer class of residents'.
As a synonym for rampant terror and the slaughter of the innocent, 'intense excitement' somewhat understated the matter.
For an hour it showered shells inland from a 12-pounder.

Because of the terrain, including the railway bridge curving past the union hall, the Helga couldn't fire directly at the building; instead, it adopted the technique of 'dropping fire' - lobbing shells into the air, above the obstacles, hopefully to drop on its target.
The artillery bombardment and the constant rattle of machine guns poured an immense amount of lethal firepower into a crowded urban area. The Irish Times reported that this 'caused intense excitement in the district, where there is a large population of the poorer class of residents'.
As a synonym for rampant terror and the slaughter of the innocent, 'intense excitement' somewhat understated the matter.
bullets, whether or not there were visible targets. The aim seemed to be to immobilize the rebels by making the streets unusable.
There were snipers at Trinity College and elsewhere.
And anything living that entered those fields of fire was a trigger-touch away from death.

Meanwhile, fires were starting; the buildings along Eden Quay. Artillery in Trinity College pounded Bachelors Walk.
A shell aimed at the GPO exploded in the offices of the Freeman's Journal, a newspaper that backed John Redmond and his Parliamentary Party. The Volunteers in the Sackville Street area cheered at this own goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:15 AM

"If you are a oppressed, persecuted and tyrannised people it is not "treason" to seek to overthrow those who hold power over you.


For over 700 years that was the situation in Ireland."

Bullshit. For the vast part of those 700 years Raggy Ireland was at peace. In 1916 that Easter week end and in the two year run up to that Easter week-end less than 10 Irishmen plotted the Rising and they planned and plotted it to ensure failure, thereby lying to their Volunteers the length and breadth of the country.

"For an hour the Helga showered shells inland from a 12-pounder.
Because of the terrain, including the railway bridge curving past the union hall, the Helga couldn't fire directly at the building; instead, it adopted the technique of 'dropping fire' - lobbing shells into the air, above the obstacles, hopefully to drop on its target."

Which of the two occasions the Helga fired are you referring to Jim? It would appear to be the shelling of Liberty Hall and as for "showering shells on anything" over the course of three-and-a-half hours 24 shells were fired ( One shell every 8 minutes 45 seconds - Roughly the same as the PIRA's Bloody Friday bombing campaign in 1972 - Only difference Helga was laying down targeted fire on an enemy position while the PIRA were deliberately and indiscriminately targeting civilian shoppers). "Dropping Fire" is a standard tactic for NGFS so nothing new there, and "hopefully" didn't enter into it the target was destroyed by 24 shells and abandoned by the enemy.

"The Volunteers in the Sackville Street area cheered at this own goal."

Well Jim they had to cheer at something, they also had to make stuff up, after all come the 29th April they had S.F.A. to laugh at at all did they?

The Mendicity Institute, that the "Volunteers" occupied contained the poorest and the most vulnerable in the city. What did the Volunteers do with them Jim? They simply turned them out to fend for themselves while they "gallantly" blazed away.

The Mendicity Institute "One of Dublin's oldest charities, established in 1818, Captain Seam Heuston of Commandant Daly's 1st Battalion was deployed here — operating under orders from James Connolly — about a half-mile to the west of the Four Courts on the south side of the Liffey at Usher's Island. His task was to control the route between the nearby Royal Barracks (now the National Museum of Ireland at Collins Barracks) and the Four Courts.

Upon taking the building, Heuston expelled the down-and-outs occupying it. Despite just being required to hold the position for a couple of hours, allowing other Volunteers to 'settle in' to their positions nearby, Heuston's force of just 13 kept it until Wednesday when they were surrounded and Heuston surrendered to save lives." - Source: easter1916.ie website

The lives Heuston was most concerned with saving of course were those of his own men - the innocents he had turned out could go to blazes as far as he was concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:29 AM

Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist!

Keith - you have been swamped with evidence -

None at all that substantiates your wild claim, "The Brits were shelling unarmed non combatants - including women and children - "

Just give us your strongest piece of evidence for it.

Raggy,
1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

The rebels were reviled by Dubliners. Do you deny that they did?
I quoted the historian Catrionna Pennel who researched the mood of Irish people after the invasion of Belgium, and I pointed out that over 200 000 Irishmen volunteered for the British Army.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

Yes. But not during the rising or in its aftermath. Only after the executions.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Some certainly. But for the rising it would not have happened, and probably not the Civil War either. (Plenty of firing squad executions during the civil war Jim. Is it only murder if Brits do it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:38 AM

You bet Professor. All the historians say so, right? Ooops- I mean the live ones & etc.

By the way, "journalists and novelists" were plenty good enough for YOU when you were wittering on about World War I .......

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:42 AM

"Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist!"
Oh well - that makes all the difference!!
"Just give us your strongest piece of evidence for it."
You've had it, if you can't be arsed to read what you're given I can't be arsewed to repeat it.
How about giving us your strongest vidence that the Traty was a done deal and Britain would never have introduced compulsory conscription, instead of denials - or any evidence otherthan denials?
Th3e pair of you are being given evidence and giving SFA in return.
No links, no contrary evidence - just ducking and diving.
Pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:44 AM

"Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?"

A completely ridiculous remark that bears no relation to anything I've said. What have I told you lot about Keith's unreliability?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:46 AM

"That is not how the people felt in 1916. They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels" - Keith A

Then from Raggy we got these points:


1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

Prior to the Easter Rising not even the Executive Committees of either the Irish Republican Brotherhood or the Irish Volunteers favoured an armed uprising - evidence of that has been provided and sources provided.

In the immediate aftermath of the rising the "rebels" had to be protected from the anger of the population of Dublin by British troops.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

After the executions many were, but not at the time of the rising itself. With the advantage of hindsight the British should not have executed the ring-leaders they should have shamed them publicly for the treacherous, lying bastards that they were, I believe it might have been possible for the British to have done that without giving away the fact to the Germans that British Naval Intelligence had broken their codes. Casement landing from a German Submarine, the Aud scuttling herself with German weapons onboard while over 200,000 Irishmen were fighting Germans in France - wouldn't have gone down well. The orders to rise in Dublin that were immediately countermanded for Volunteer Units elsewhere in the country would have demonstrated the degree of betrayal by their own commanders of those fighting in Dublin to all. Also with 20x20 hindsight, if the executions were bound to happen then it would have been better if de Valera had been executed as well - there would have been no Civil War and Ireland would have been a great deal better off.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Hardly relevant as this was three years after the rising and other factors also came into play.

"Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge of Ireland at any point in history. Try reading a few books."

With your self proclaimed lack of knowledge I think that it would be of great benefit to you if you took your own advice. What Keith A has come up with I have found corroboration, what you have come up with has been for the most part unsubstantiated nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 10:57 AM

Steve,

"Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?"
A completely ridiculous remark that bears no relation to anything I've said.

You said, "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

So quite a reliable comment from me about your only expressed opinion on the rising.
Anything else to say about it Steve?
Anything about it from you Greg?
If not, WTF are you doing in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 11:03 AM

Jim,
"Just give us your strongest piece of evidence for it."
You've had it, if you can't be arsed to read what you're given I can't be arsewed to repeat it.

I can't remember any such evidence. Can anyone else?
That is just a cop out Jim. You can not produce it because it does not exist.

How about giving us your strongest vidence that the Traty was a done deal

Certainly. In 1914 after the third reading, the Home Rule Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent.
That makes it a done deal. But for the Germans invading Belgium it would have been enacted at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 12:15 PM

"I can't remember any such evidence. Can anyone else?"
Calling in the troops again Keith?
Why not give s your evidence that the Irish are all gullible and stupid and have all been misled over their history - I've asked you often enough.
Or your evidence that all the destruction was done by rifle fire?
Or maybe how Britain would never have introduced compulsory call-up (even though they tried)
Or that Home Rule was a done deal?
Or all the other claims you have made here and now are reduced to just repeating without even making an effort to substantiate it?
How about producing evidence that you have answerered all the questions I put up, instead of lying about it - you don't even remember what you have posted, let alone what anybody else has.
Don't you dare suggest I am lying with your track record.
"If not, WTF are you doing in this thread?"
Could ask the same of you, your having boasted that you have never read a book on the subject and are not interested enough in the subject to intend to do so in the future.
WTF are you doing in this thread and why, having admitted that you know SFA and even care less, are you making racist attacks on the Irish?
Jim Carroll

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

"Why not give s your evidence that the Irish are all gullible and stupid and have all been misled over their history - I've asked you often enough.

Yes you have asked often enough Jim, but the thing is I cannot for the life of me understand is why, because I do not think that Keith A has ever claimed that "the Irish are all gullible and stupid". Those are your words that you have tried often enough to put into Keith A's mouth. As to be them having been misled over their history, not got a clue about that, all I know is that you are certainly doing your damnedest to do so.

"Or your evidence that all the destruction was done by rifle fire?

Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true. Had there been no Volunteers firing rifles in Dublin that Easter in 1916 there would have been no destruction. If you cannot see that then you must be bone thick.

"Or maybe how Britain would never have introduced compulsory call-up (even though they tried)"

But the fact was they never did try to introduce it did they, thinking about it Jim doesn't count. Conscription was never introduced anywhere other than on the British mainland that is the Fact.

"Or that Home Rule was a done deal?"

I think that it has been explained to you and that you have been given the most impeccable sources in evidence to show clearly what you believe to be the case is impossible - Parliamentary procedures just simply do not allow your version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:23 PM

"For over 700 years that was the situation in Ireland."

"Bullshit. For the vast part of those 700 years Raggy Ireland was at peace. In 1916 that Easter week end and in the two year run up to that Easter week-end less than 10 Irishmen plotted the Rising and they planned and plotted it to ensure failure, thereby lying to their Volunteers the length and breadth of the country"

Terribus, If you not demonstrated your complete ignorance of Irish history before you have certainly demonstrated it now.

Please go and read a least something about the history of the country. You have absolutely no idea. For a start try reading about Richard de Clare (never heard of him have you, no surprise there) try Hugh de Lacy (you've not heard of him either have you) Next you could try learning something of Henry V111's involvement (lovely man that)Then try a bit about Elizabeth 1 and James 11 (V1)

If you can find the time look up Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange.

When, and only when, you get a grip of that part of Irelands history will you be in any way informed enough to offer an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:26 PM

Incidentally your ignorant cohort doesn't have a clue what I'm on about, does he.

Cue some very intensive web- browsing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 01:54 PM

Oh dear Raggy so Strongbow, de Lacy and Henry II did no more in Ireland as Normans than their predecessors had done in England 100 years before - WOW - get over it - that was the norm throughout Europe in those days. The thing that brought the Normans to Ireland was a dispute between two IRISH Kings. By the time the dust settled all those Irish Kings had sworn an oath of fealty to Henry and acknowledged him as "King of Ireland".

All the others you mention treated the Irish no differently than they treated the Welsh, English or the Scots.

Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous. That greedy, self-serving Irish nobles sought their own advancement by plotting and colluding with foreign powers is undeniable. That their attempts at rebellion failed miserably is another undeniable historical fact, but do not for one second try and promote them as unstinting efforts on behalf of the people of Ireland to win independence - the people of Ireland never entered their thinking for one nano-second.

As previously stated - try doing some reading that is not fiction - you might actually learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 02:12 PM

Jim,
Why not give s your evidence that the Irish are all gullible and stupid and have all been misled over their history - I've asked you often enough.
I do not believe they are.
Or your evidence that all the destruction was done by rifle fire?
it was not.
Or maybe how Britain would never have introduced compulsory call-up
It never happened. Plenty of Irish volunteers. Conscription not needed.
Or that Home Rule was a done deal?
Done that. Here it is again.
In 1914 after the third reading, the Home Rule Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent.
That makes it a done deal in1914. But for the Germans invading Belgium it would have been enacted at once.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 02:21 PM

""the Irish are all gullible and stupid". "
He described Fergie's arguments, which echoed those being celebrated by the Irish people at the present time "wrong, and based on propaganda not fact".
He described the events that are being celebrated at the present time as "a contemptible joke."
He described those events as "murder" as did you.
I have asked him to confirm this as his view but he simply refused to respond, not even to deny my analysis.
In the past he has described Irish children as having been "brainwashed".
His contempt for Ireland and the Irish is palpable - nuff for me
That, as far as I am concerned is describing the Irish people as gullible and stupid.
The fact that he hasn't even had the bottle to respond to these statements and hgas to rely on your standing up for him makes him what he is - talk about dumb and dumber.
"Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true"
Somewhat bizarre confirmation of my analysis, but thanks anyway.
"Had there been no Volunteers firing rifles in Dublin that Easter in 1916 there would have been no destruction"
Nor would there have been a movement towards independence - that is what has been shown and you have failed totally to contradict - likewise the many thousands of young man who would have been conscripted to fight for the Empire Ireland had spent centuries fighting and eventually managed to bring about its collapse.
"But the fact was they never did try to introduce it did they"
They tried, and would have done much earlier had they not altered the terms of the treaty and lost the support of the Irish Parliamentarians, who might well have backed them otherwise - Redmond's son was actually fighting in Europe, with his father's blessing.
Given the number of young men Britain sent to their deaths without hesitation, there was no reason whatever that young Irish men would have been excluded as cannon-fodder when the powers-that-be thought necessary - can you think of a reason?   
If my granny had had balls she'd have been my uncle.
"If you cannot see that then you must be bone thick."
Still talking down to people, ever after having your arse kicked, I see.
" think that it has been explained to you "
You are doing it again - please don't talk down to people when you're standing in a hole.
"Parliamentary procedures just simply do not allow your version of events"!.
You arrogant little man; you have been given the details of both Lloyd George's behaviour and his and Asquith's meetings attempting to push through Home Rule with permanent partition - you have also been given Redmond's description of Britain's behaviour as a betrayal" - are you claiming this was all made up?.
Given that the Treaty had lost the support of the Redmondites, given the fact that brutish British behaviour led to the Irish starting a war of Independence, given that when the Treaty was finally forced through with alterations at gunpoint six years later it led to Civil War in the new Republic - the Treaty never stood a cat's chance in hell of being accepted.
Even the acquiescent Redmondites wanted no part of it.
"Jom"
Still not stretched your imagination beyond a typo - maybe I can help, let;s see.
You've tried the infantile 'Christmas' and got bored, why not try "Lewis" - used to amuse my junior school mates.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 02:26 PM

" Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous"

Would you care to show me where I have tried to portray that.


I'm waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 04:18 PM

Ah great Raggy so the Irish were no more downtrodden or oppressed by their rulers than were the English, Scots or Welsh - a case of that's the way things were then, pleased that we've got that out of the way. At least under Norman rule the Irish tribal practice of slavery ended.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 05:42 PM

"At least under Norman rule the Irish tribal practice of slavery ended."
And slavery ended in Britain when exactly?
And 1833 was how much later than Norman rule?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 08:23 PM

"Any views of your own on the rising, apart from your belief that it was almost irrelevant?"
A completely ridiculous remark that bears no relation to anything I've said.

You said, "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Yes I did. But do you actually understand plain English, or, and let me put it another way, can you EVER read a single comment on here without twisting it in your mind to fit your own extremely limited agenda? "Not exactly irrelevant" is, to people who understand English, unlike you apparently, an example of understatement. Got that, Keith? It does not mean "almost irrelevant" in anybody's book but yours. It means the precise opposite. OK with that now, are we, Keith? And do you actually realise that "the rights and wrongs of the events" does not mean the same thing as "the events?" Why do you think I added those extra words, Keith? For the good of my bloody health? And as for this gem:

"So quite a reliable comment from me about your only expressed opinion on the rising."

My expressed opinion on the rising, which contains far more then the above, is in at least five posts in this thread. You know, I do keep saying that, but you have ears of cloth, Keith. Either that or you want to be branded a liar. You choose.

"Anything else to say about it Steve?
If not, WTF are you doing in this thread?"

Well, I dare say that the moderator who has done so much to butcher this thread will right now be considering whether to delete this post. Shall we have a little bet that this one will go, whereas this extremely arrogant remark questioning my very presence in this thread will remain?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 16 - 09:06 PM

The big issue was independence, and compared to that vision, Home Rule as a still subordinate element of the Kingdom was a poor, even hypocritical, compromise. Some people--particularly the signatories of the declaration--took the difference pretty seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:55 AM

Jim, our discussions always end the same way.
Your arguments fail so you resort to personal attack.
You now claim that I am anti-Irish.

I am not but I am not going to indulge you by arguing about it.
Anything else to say about the rising?

Steve, this thread is about the rights and wrongs of the rising.
Your perspective, "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge."

Not much to discuss there.
Anything else to say about the rising?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:59 AM

Amos, I agree that home rule would have just been the first step in what could have been a peaceful transition to full independence, and possibly even of a united Ireland.
The rising ended such hopes. The fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:40 AM

KAOH posts "Amos, I agree that home rule would have just been the first step in what could have been a peaceful transition to full independence, and possibly even of a united Ireland.

The rising ended such hopes. The fools"

You call a entire nation "fools"

Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter contempt for Ireland and the Irish.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:51 AM

"The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge. "

Yes Steve you did state ALL of that. Then when challenged on it you drop most of it don't you and come back with the following:

"Not exactly irrelevant" is, to people who understand English, unlike you apparently, an example of understatement. Got that, Keith? It does not mean "almost irrelevant" in anybody's book but yours. It means the precise opposite."

But you see Steve when you immediately follow "Not exactly irrelevant" with "but they happened and they are water under the bridge" reduces the rights and wrongs of the 1916 events to irrelevance.

The Irish War of Independence was not caused solely by what happened in 1916, there were many other contributing factors. The absolute unwillingness to enter into discussion and to compromise by two groups on Irishmen being the main stumbling block.

Agreed Amos Home Rule would be a pale imitation for those who wanted Independence, but as Keith A stated it would be an important stepping stone towards Independence and one that more or less guarantee a peaceful transition. In 1916 before the rising there is absolutely nothing to suggest or support the view that the majority of those living in Ireland wanted Independence, there is evidence to support the view that there would have been a majority for Home Rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:00 AM

Daniel O'Connell.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:21 AM

Being deliberately obtuse again Jom - pre-Norman Irish tribal practices unknown to you?

"And slavery ended in Britain when exactly?
And 1833 was how much later than Norman rule?"

Different kettle of fish entirely Jom and if it was 1833 for Britain then it must have been 2003 for the Republic of Ireland and "Not yet - still work in progress" for your Travellers according to recent court cases in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:35 AM

"but as Keith A stated it would be an important stepping stone towards Independenc"
It would have been no different than the "stepping stone" that was forced on Ireland in 1922 the brought about civil war and a near century of inequality, Anti-Catholic rioting and eventually open warfare in Ireland and in Britain.
The only difference might have been that, if Easter Week had not happened all these things would have been brought forward a few years and would have entailed Irish youth being sent off to fight for the Empire they had spent centuries trying to be rid of, in the European bloodfest.
Had that happened, Ireland would have been left non-viable as a nation giving the number of youths who were being slaughtered as 'cannon-fodder'.
"Your arguments fail so you resort to personal attack."
No personal attack Keith - your statements are racist, plain and simple, and the fact that you refuse even to acknowledge them, let alone defend them is an indication that you are well aware of that fact
"You now claim that I am anti-Irish."
I've always believed you to be anti-Irish and have said so on numerous occasions - this is just another chapter.
Show where describing the Irish as you have - deluded supporters of murder - doesn't make you anti- Irish - what else is it?
"Anything else to say about the rising?"
Yes - respond to the points I have made - you have yet to, other than to repeat the same misinformation - both of you.
Once again you have launched your two-man-band attack on Ireland - we really have been here before - sectarian marches, The Famine - nothing new under the sun.
And once again, you are involved in yet another Rourke's Drift in defence of the Empire (without the valour and honour, of course).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:41 AM

Ah yes Raggy the emancipator (along with Sir John Peel and the Duke of Wellington - it was they who convinced King George of the need for Catholic Emancipation), the man who abhorred violence and the Daniell O'Connell who campaigned for repeal of the Act of Union, which in 1801 had merged the Parliaments of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. To campaign for repeal, O'Connell set up the Repeal Association. He argued for the re-creation of an independent Kingdom of Ireland to govern itself, with Queen Victoria as the Queen of Ireland.

Now then Raggy that sounds as though he wanted Dominion Status within the British Empire same as Australia and Canada.

In short Raggy he had very little in common with your heroes of 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:46 AM

"He argued for the re-creation of an independent Kingdom of Ireland to govern itself"

Do you have difficulty understanding this. It is part of the paragraph you no doubt copied and pasted from Wiki.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:58 AM

If you ever want clarification for something I've said, Teribus, you would get a far more accurate version by asking me about it instead of "doing a Keith", and twisting it into a version that you can then gleefully knock down. I told you what I meant. If you wish to change the language, we can all sit back and watch you with amusement. And what Jim said in his final sentence above, the two of you, to a tee.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"It would have been no different than the "stepping stone" that was forced on Ireland in 1922 the brought about civil war and a near century of inequality, Anti-Catholic rioting and eventually open warfare in Ireland and in Britain.
The only difference might have been that, if Easter Week had not happened all these things would have been brought forward a few years and would have entailed Irish youth being sent off to fight for the Empire they had spent centuries trying to be rid of, in the European bloodfest.
Had that happened, Ireland would have been left non-viable as a nation giving the number of youths who were being slaughtered as 'cannon-fodder'"

Sorry Carroll that is merely YOUR opinion - please do not present it as fact.

A Civil War in Ireland was a foregone conclusion as ace tooth-sucker Eamon de Valera threw his toys out of the pram because the delegation sent to England didn't get all that HE wanted. Just as well because (And this is MY opinion Carroll) had independence and separation from the UK been forced on Ulster then the Civil War that Ireland would have seen would have been much much worse - reason for believing that Jim? In the Civil War THAT DID OCCUR the protagonists were a National Army (Free State) of ~55,000 men fighting a "Nationalist Force" (The IRA) of ~15,000 men. That war lasted 10 months, 3 weeks and 5 days in which ~4,000 combatants were killed and even today the number of civilians who died is unknown (~250 in Dublin alone is the estimate). Now had de Valera got all he wanted those ~70,000 men in the South would have had to face ~500,000 armed pro-Union supporters firmly established in the North - you tell me Jim how long would that have lasted and what would the extent of the carnage have been?

By the way who was going to send those Irish youths off to die? All Irishmen who did join up did so as Volunteers. There was no conscription in Ireland - that Jim is a fact - against which your opinions are complete and utter twaddle.

Worth noting Jim that out of more than 8 million who fought during the First World War for the British, Empire and Commonwealth armed forces NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN CAME BACK ALIVE - now that could not be said for those who fought for any of the other 1914 combatant nations - another cold hard FACT for you Jim.

As to "them" having fought against England/Britain for centuries very few of them did for very few years down through those centuries - again that is fact.

As with most of your postings, your last is an example of poorly researched emotional twaddle.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:11 AM

As you very rarely ever say anything Shaw I find little or no reason to seek clarification from you on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:15 AM

And so is the other bit Raggy, the bit where he also campaigned for that independent Ireland with Queen Victoria as the Queen of Ireland.

Don't be so disingenuous when shoving forward your candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:21 AM

Oh Shaw, I forgot this bit:

"And what Jim said in his final sentence above, the two of you, to a tee."

In that I take it you were referring to this absolute gem of Jim the infallible's:

"once again, you are involved in yet another Rourke's Drift in defence of the Empire"

Hate to have to point this out to you both but the defence of Rourke's Drift was successful - it was a victory.

Yet another "own goal" - Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:27 AM

"In short Raggy he had very little in common with your heroes of 1916."
Utter rubbish - again.
When O'Connell advocated non-violence the Irish Holocaust had not taken place and the Irish population had not been either starved to death or driven into exile (1 million deaths and 1.5 million forced emigrations.
When this happened, his party split, large sections of them advocating violent opposition to British rule.
Two years into the Famine, O'Connell set off for Rome, but died in Geneva.
Had he survived to witness the mass evictions, the full granaries and the closed workhouses (and read the Trevelyan letter), there is no doubt that O'Connell would have supported Home Rule by any means, as most of his party did at the time of his death.
The Famine, the deliberate depopulation of Ireland and the Land Wars removed all possibility of a peaceful transition to Independence.
O'Connell was, by nature, a pacifist - Christ knows what he would have made of the killing fields of W.W.1.
O'Connell one of yours - you cannot be serious.Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:53 AM

Who's making up "FACTS" now:

"70,000 men in the South would have had to face ~500,000 armed pro-Union supporters firmly established in the North"

Are you seriously suggesting that every protestant man, woman and child would have taken up arms. What are the babies going to do, hit someone over the head with their rattle.

"NINE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN CAME BACK ALIVE"

Care to give us the real figures for the number of Irish who survived. They don't make very good reading do they.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:55 AM

Rag,
You call a entire nation "fools"

No. I call the rebel leadership fools. Practically the entire nation was against them.
They called them worse than fools on the streets of Dublin.

Jim,
No personal attack Keith - your statements are racist, plain and simple

You lie. You can not put up any such statement from me.
You resort to personal attack because your arguments have all been knocked down and you ignorance of the actual history exposed.

The Famine, the deliberate ...

We are not discussing the famine here, but when we did I pointed out that not all historians blame Britain, and it emerged that only a minority do or ever have.

This thread is about the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Squirm as much as you want Keith, we all know what you meant. If you had meant the leaders you would have said the leaders. You didn't and everyone can see it in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:03 AM

Care to give us the real figures for the number of Irish who survived.

30 000 killed out of over 20 000.
That is better than 8.5 out of ten surviving. No significant difference to overall survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:05 AM

The leaders instigated the rising, the Irish people opposed it.
The fools were the instigators, not those who like me thought them fools or worse than fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:08 AM

"Practically the entire nation was against them" It's not the first time you made this statement I have asked for your evidence you have no provided it.

Yesterday I posted:
"That is not how the people felt in 1916. They were happy with the plans for home rule, supported the war against Germany, and reviled the rebels"

1. Show us your evidence for such a claims.

2. Are these the same people who considered the leaders martyrs.

3. Are these the same people who by 1919 were fighting a War of Independence.

Are you going to answer the questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:24 AM

Statistics

Now if 30,000 of the 134,000 recorded enlistments were killed that equates to over 22% of Irish were killed not the one in 10 that Terricola is suggesting.

Hmm the Irish were twice as likely to be killed I wonder why that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:36 AM

"You lie. You can not put up any such statement from me."
You have described the events that are being celebrated at the present time in Ireland as a "contemptible joke" and have described those who support these events as being "based on propaganda not fact."
Did you not write this?
That pretty well sums up what is happening in Ireland at the present time.
You have described the events as "the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels"
Did you not write this?
In the past, you have described Irish children as having been "brainwashed into hating Britain".
Did you not write this?
Whoever wrote them, these are racist slurs on the Irish people.
I have carefully avoided making this personal - I have responded to what you wrote each time.
your arguments have all been knocked down "
"I win" again
You have answered nothing, you have merely repeated the same jingoistic misinformation.
"We are not discussing the famine here,"
We are not discussing Daniel O'Connell either, but some people
The Famine had an enormous relevance to what happened in 1916, as has W.W.1., the Curragh Mutiny, The Land Wars.... and all other related subjects which you have been happy to participate in
regard it as part of this discussion.
Please stop attempting to suppress what people believe is relevant because it doesn't fit your particular agenda - you have been asked not to on previous threads and have denied doing so - now you're at it again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:42 AM

Should read; "We are not discussing Daniel O'Connell either, but some people believe it to be relevant and you have said nothing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 06:52 AM

Jim Carroll - 01 May 16 - 04:27 AM - more ill-informed opinion and emotive twaddle presented as fact.

The Irish Holocaust -start a thread so that we can hammer over the same old ground with the same old facts - dig out, I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Throughout your rant you constantly contradict yourself - Your history is based on pure conjecture, but I see your pals on this forum let you get away with it unchallenged, fortunately for the sake of honest discussion and debate neither Keith, myself and a few others do not.

You have no right whatsoever to say what anybody else would do, say or think, restrict those statements for the only person you can speak for - YOURSELF.

But please answer the question a Free State V IRA civil war, or a Independence V Unionist civil war - which would have been worse for Ireland as a whole.

Figures Raggy come from the Covenant, many of the signatures written in blood, signed in the North in 1913 (452,252 in 1913 is close enough to ~500,000 in 1919 for me). Any civil war between North and South would have been bitter, protracted and bloody in the extreme and that was the point I was making. By the way no children signed the Covenant and women can pull triggers and throw bombs just as well as men. If you are going to quote the right of self-determination as justification for one group then it must be quoted for all - True?

The plain truth is that Daniell O'Connell sought Dominion Status for a United Ireland with the British Sovereign serving as Head of State.
It worked for Australia and for Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:03 AM

Over 210,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the First World War - your 134,000 figure details those enlisted IN IRELAND - not the same thing at all, but good try.

As to proportions and percentage casualty/fatalities that will vary if you detail branch of service wouldn't it.

Percentage fatalities amongst those who served as infantrymen will be higher than those who served as Engineers, Signallers or artillerymen.

None-the-less of the 8 million plus who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, the Empire and the Commonwealth 888,000+ died - Which means that my statement is true nine out every ten came home alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:10 AM

And just how many of that 452,000 would have been prepared to take up arms. 10%......... 20% give it a rest and as for the preposterous suggestion that someone signed it in blood, give us a break.

Frederick Crawford reckoned he signed it in blood. Utter tosh. It's a pity for gullible buggers like you that modern science has put paid to that little myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:12 AM

" I'm not going to waste my time on it."
'Course your not after the last fiasco
"Throughout your rant you constantly contradict yourself"
Where exactly - more unqualifies pronouncements - smoke and mirrors.
Contradiction didn't you write this "Again that is your rather weird take on things, but in a way it is true"?
"You have no right whatsoever to say what anybody else would do, say or think"
Where have I ever done that - I've just stopped Keith from doing it - perhaps you're confusing us (hope not!)
"But please answer the question a Free State - V IRA civil war"
Beyind me how you dae to demand answers when you constantly sprint away when you are asked a question, but it doesnmt matter anyway, I'm mre than happy to answer.
One was the result of a treaty forced through at gunpoint and by blackmail, conniving and other dirty tricks by Britain, the other would have been brought about by Britain's appeasing Unionism as they were doing - Hobson's Choice beyond the control of the Irish people anyway.
Had Britain made the same demands on the Unionists and insisted that the Catholic/Protestant had the same voting, property and employment rights as part of the Treaty, there need have been no war, just as, if Britain had stuck to the signed agreement that partition would be temporary, instead of altering it in mid-steam, there would have been no Civil war.
Britain not only succumbed to the threats of the mutineers but was happy to see six counties in 'a safe pair of hands'      
What's on earth's your point?
To date, I have responded to all your questions - you have responded to none of mine.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:13 AM

Rag, I answered those questions you posted yesterday.
How could you have missed it?
See my post 30 Apr 16 - 10:29 AM

Jim,
You have described the events that are being celebrated at the present time in Ireland as a "contemptible joke"

I have indeed described the rising thus, and many Irish would agree. I have quoted a couple.
The Irish need little excuse to celebrate though.

and have described those who support these events as being "based on propaganda not fact."

No I did not. That is what I said about one of YOUR wild claims.

You have described the events as "the cold blooded murders of Dubliners by the rebels"

No I did not. I did say they committed some and that is a fact.
I acknowledge that the rebels fought bravely, but some despicable, unjustifiable acts also were committed by some of them.
(The first man to die in the Easter rebellion was an unarmed Constable James O'Brien, from Kilfergus, Co Limerick.)

In the past, you have described Irish children as having been "brainwashed into hating Britain".

That referred to Kineally's observation that the Irish school system forced a biased version of history to be taught. The Indy article I linked to quoted and Irishman making the same complaint.

No "racist slurs" from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:14 AM

Why Irishmen joined up - Queens Uni, Belfast.

The standard, public reason for joining up was the moral purpose of the war. At the time it was widely seen as a kind of crusade against 'Prussian militarism'. Tom Kettle, an Irish nationalist who had actually been in Belgium buying guns for the nationalist paramilitary Irish Volunteers, argued that men went because the cause was a just one. It was, said Kettle, the cause of small nations threatened by large ones, of Belgium and Serbia, which Germany and Austria had outraged, and Britain and her allies had taken up. This made it right for Ireland to fight on England's side, especially since England had (at last) granted Home Rule for Ireland. Kettle himself joined up and died on the Somme in September 1916.

Home Rule had been the aspiration of Irish nationalists for fifty years and, finally, in 1914 it appeared that the deed was done. On 18 September 1914 the third Irish Home Rule Bill became law, although its operation was suspended for the duration of the war. No-one (at least on the nationalist side) thought that this would be for very long, but the passage of the legislation was crucial for John Redmond, the leader of the Irish nationalist movement. On 20 September he made a celebrated speech at Woodenbridge, county Wicklow, in which he said that 'the interests of Ireland, of the whole of Ireland, are at stake in this war'. He drew out the high moral purpose of the struggle against the Germans and Prussian militarism: 'This war is undertaken in defence of the highest interests of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country, a reproach to her manhood, and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland [note the allusion here to 1848 and the traditions of Irish nationalism] confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which have distinguished their race all through its history'. Stirring words indeed, and words which clearly found a response among many young Irishmen.

But high patriotic duty was not the only possible reason why men might join up. Another factor was a simply desire for adventure. For many at home the war offered excitement and the chance of glorious opportunity. Tom Barry, later to become a leader of the IRA in Cork, enlisted in June 1915. Seventeen years old, he said he 'had decided to see what this Great War was like … I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man'. This was nearly a year after the war had started, and provides some evidence that the recruiting rush of the early days does not tell the whole story.

And if Irish nationalists were responding to their 'patriotic duty' as articulated by John Redmond, so Irish unionists, too, in Ulster and elsewhere, also joined up for patriotic reasons. Having pledged their loyalty to the Crown and the link with Great Britain, they could hardly stand back when the 'Mother Country' was in its hour of need. 'We do not seek to purchase terms by selling our patriotism', said Carson. 'England's difficulty is our difficulty.'

There were also economic motives for joining up, as there always had been. Service in the army, after all, was a steady job, and one with a pension at the end. Even in wartime, with the heightened risks of military service, many men were undoubtedly attracted by the rates of pay which the military offered (and the family allowances which accompanied them). The August 1914 rush to the colours was also boosted by the fact that across Ulster many factories laid men off, or put them on short time, when war broke out because of uncertainties in the economic situation. Irish linen mills specialised in the quality end of the market—fine table and bed-linen, high quality shirting and so on—just the sort of products which people might stop buying (as they did) because there 'was a war on'. Export markets in continental Europe and the USA were disrupted. Thus, just at the moment when there was a stirring and insistent call for troops, many workers were put out of a job, evidently making enlistment more attractive than might otherwise have been the case.

Nor were these the only possible motives for joining up. Some men enlisted through family tradition, for others it was merely a kind of emigration, though one which was not necessarily so permanent as going to America. Looking especially at big urban centres like Belfast, it is also evident that many men joined up in groups, with 'peer pressure' carrying them into the army with friends and work mates. By one account, Francis Ledwidge, the poet from Slane (and a socialist and nationalist), enlisted 'on the rebound' from being rejected by a sweetheart. Whether true or not, it adds another possibility to the wide range of motivations to joining up.

Looking at the recruiting figures, and taking into account the many possible reasons behind enlistment, it is impossible facilely or glibly to generalise about these fellows, about who they were or why they joined up. No single or simple explanation will do, and in many cases it must have been a combination of factors. Patriotic feeling might have been significant but not in itself sufficient to impel a man to enlist. Yet combine it with uncertain prospects at work and the urging of a next-door neighbour—'Come on, John, it'll be great crack'—and the lure might be irresistible. What, in any case, we can say about these men—who were both 'ordinary' and extraordinary at the same time— is that they became victims of circumstances well beyond their control.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/Articlesandlecturesbyourteachingstaff/IrelandandtheFirstWorldWar/

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 11:18 AM

" I have quoted a couple."
You have quoted a novelist and an American Jesuit - overwhelming
Neither described the Irish as ignorant of their own history - perhaps you might give an example of what you mean by "many" and who they are, and more to the point, how you know?
No - didn't think so.
"No I did not. That is what I said about one of YOUR wild claims."
"Fergie, I think that your interpretation is wrong, and based on propaganda not fact."
Someone posting in your name again - you were referring to a statement by Fergie.
Please stop making things up.
"No I did not. I did say they committed some and that is a fact."
I accused you of saying that those commemorating the Uprising were celebrating murder, which is exactly what you have claimed - I have never suggested a few incidents didn't happen, nor will I, but they measure small to the killing that took place though artillery fire and the at least five executions of non-combatants by Capt. Bowen Colthurst - not to mention the mindless butchering of the leaders
(The first man to die in the Easter rebellion was an unarmed Constable James O'Brien, from Kilfergus, Co Limerick.)
The greeated
s number of cold -blooded murdere were carried out by the British - five were by the serial killer Colthurst - not worth a mention by you.
"That referred to Kineally's observation that the Irish school system forced a biased version of history to be taught"
No - it was your deliberate misinterpretation of what she said.
What she actually said that the "revisionists" who avoided placing direct blame for the Famine on anybody taught that to children , and that ended in the 1930s.
Your reference was to today's Irish hating the British because they had been brainwashed to do so - nothing could be further from the truth and it is racist to suggest otherwise - the Irish do not hate the British, nor anybody particularly.
You did as you always do - grab a quote out of context and distort it to make a point.
Kineally in fact blew up in your face - it is she who blames the British for the outcome of the Famine and that has come from her researches in the late 1990s
Are we to assume that you and your mate are going to continue to ignore the points put up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 11:49 AM

What percentage Raggy - just taking the men 48%

But while you are on about percentages that would take up arms - here's the percentages for the Nationalists:

Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%
Irish War of Independence - 15,000 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.5%
Irish Civil War - 70,000 out of a population of about 2.1 million = 3.33%

So as far as winning Irelands freedom by force of arms the best effort the nationalists ever mustered was when they were fighting one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 12:21 PM

"Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%"
Which led immediately to a war of Independence which ended up forcing Britain to the negotiating table and eventually to the collapse of the entire British Empire - not bad for 1,250 rebels.
It's not bad for so few inexperienced and poorly-armed freedom -fighters to have held at bay the army of the most powerful Empire at arms-length for a week either - real Vietcong stuff eh.
A nice example of British justice occurred flowing the rising
" About 3,500 people were taken prisoner by the British, many of whom had played no part in the Rising, and 1,800 (how many did you say took part? of them were sent to internment camps or prisons in Britain."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:05 PM

My impression is that it was the backlash (against the brutality of the British punishment of the Rising) that shifted national sentiment in Ireland, and moved it toward determination for independence, rather than settling for Home Rule. Between the famine, the land-takings, and the executions of the leaders, etc., the British painted an ugly picture of themselves. I would certainly have felt getting shut of them would be a high priority, were I an Irishman in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:10 PM

Jim,
You have quoted a novelist and an American Jesuit

Dishonest Jim.
One was an Irish Jesuit priest currently teaching philosophy in a US university, and the other a correspondent on the Irish Times who agreed with me on that point.
Neither described the Irish as ignorant of their own history
Neither did I.

I am sorry I misremembered whose wild claim I responded to.
Do you distance yourself from it?

What she actually said that the "revisionists" who avoided placing direct blame for the Famine on anybody taught that to children , and that ended in the 1930s.

Completely untrue Jim!
This is what she actually said,

"To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994).

" Accordingly, in many Irish schools, a heroic but simplistic view of Irish history emerged, a morality story replete with heroes and villains. This approach, however, was subsequently challenged by the Irish academic establishment. In the 1930s, a number of leading Irish academics—following the lead of British historians earlier in the century—set an agenda for the study of Irish history, which placed it on a more professional and scientific basis in terms of research methods and source materials. At the same time this approach also demanded the systematic revision and challenging of received wisdoms or unquestioned assumptions. What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."

So, the Irish school system pushed "nationalist myths" at Irish children instead of objective history. That is brain washing, and she says it has not been changed. The person quoted in my Indy article called them "gobshites" for putting such shit in his schoolbooks.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Amos,
I would certainly have felt getting shut of them would be a high priority, were I an Irishman in those days.

If all that propaganda were true, so would anyone.
It is a fact that they had already been granted home rule, and a fact that they did not support the rising.
Beware of historical myths.

Jim, instead of trying to make a case against me, please return to making a case for the rising.
Is the problem that you can't?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 16 - 01:53 PM

Keith:

What I was trying to say is that that sentiment shifted as a result of the British heavy-handed reaction to the Rising, afterwards.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:01 PM

"It is a fact that they had already been granted home rule, "
You can repeat this as oftnas you like Keith but it simply isn't true - the Home Rule they had agreed to was deliberately changed by the Brits to appease the Unionists and this was unacceptable top the Irish politicians who described it as a betrayal - which particular part of this statement do you have a problem with - did I fake the quote?
Here is another quote showing that The doctored Treaty was unacceptable

This is a statement by head of the Irish Parliamentarians , John Redmond as reported in The Irish Times, July 1916

If we are to have self-government, Ireland must be a self-governing unit. That instinct is implanted deeply in the heart, of every thoughtful Irishman, Unionist or Nationalist. In the first place the country is too small to be divided between two systems of government. In the next place, the political, social and economic qualities of North and South complement one another; one without the other must be miserably incomplete. For Southern Unionists ... the idea of the dismemberment of Ireland is hateful. ... In a word, the permanent partition of our country is inconceivable.1
From Robert Kee's 'Ourselves Alone (vol 3 of The Green Flag)
"Jim, instead of trying to make a case against me,"
I have made a case for the Risingt you have made your own case against yourself.
Kineally's position on revisionist teaching is outlined here.
"Her new work, A Death-Dealing Famine, is a curate's-egg sort of a book. I am not sure for whom it is intended. Dr Kinealy seems to be striving to achieve two things simultaneously. At one level she assumes the role of the Roy Foster of Famine history and at another the mantle of a modern Cecil Woodham-Smith. She will not like the first description, for Foster is the arch-revisionist, not a species that finds favour with Dr Kinealy, since revisionists seek to remove blame from considerations of Ireland's past and Kinealy is very strong on blame. "
You will note the dates covered by your quote (maybe you have and hoped I wouldn't) (History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35')
You were referring to the present day children being brainwashed.
"Neither did I."
You described Fergie as such and he was echoing what is happening now in Ireland - you claimed he was ignorant of his own history.
"and the other a correspondent on the Irish Times"
"Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist"
Make up your mind
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:03 PM

Professor, Instead of relying on cut and pastes from the internet try reading a full book, or preferably several books. Then and only then will you have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion.

You have said many times you have no knowledge and no interest in the history of Ireland. We all know this and frankly are bored with your bigoted, racist and uninformed rantings on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 02:32 PM

Two points you need to answer if your 'signed sealed and delivered' Treaty is to be accepted.
If this was the case - how were the Brits able to change it - if they did, would that not invalidate it?
If Redmond refused to accept a partitioned Ireland, how could a treaty permanently partitioning it possibly be a valid one?
Please answer these points or stop making claims that are obviously false.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 16 - 03:13 PM

Amos, yes I agree with that too.

Jim,
the Home Rule they had agreed to was deliberately changed by the Brits to appease the Unionists

When did that happen Jim? If after the rising it had no bearing on the rising. Right?

You will note the dates covered by your quote (maybe you have and hoped I wouldn't) (History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35')
Rubbish Jim! That was just the title of one of the books she referred to!
She said that academics tried to stop the myths being pushed some time in the 30s, but it made no difference. She does not say it ever ended!

"Jim, that was by Gene Kerrigan, who is a journalist and novelist"
No Jim. He wrote the book that you quoted from as if it was historical fact.
I quoted an IT correspondent as an example of an Irish person who thought the rising wrong, along with the Irish priest/philosophy lecturer.

If Redmond refused to accept a partitioned Ireland,

No-one suggested partition until the third reading of the Bill, and the final Bill did not include "permanent partition."

Rag, unless you have found fault with any of the history I have quoted, what is your complaint?
If you have, please specify! (Good luck with that!)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 16 - 05:30 PM

" If after the rising it had no bearing on the rising."
It was secretly decided with the Unionists before the rising - it had everything to do with the Rising.
Britain's previous conduct had proved them to be untrustworthy and their actions confirmed that as a fact - their track-record went before them.
What kind of biondingin agreement can be secretly altered without consulting one of the main signatories - is that the way Britain regards biding agreements?
Don't be stupid Keith - Britain had no intention of honouring that agreement and the rebels knew it - and weren't they right?
That was the period of history she was addressing - I've now read the ***** book and two more of hers.
You have her position on the famine and Britain's role in it in black and white.
Please repeat that you believe Irish children were brainwashed to hate Britain and confirm your racism.
Who the hell do you think you are?
You have boasted you have neither read a book nor are interested in doing so.
You call Fergie, who lives in Ireland and is steeped in its history.
My family are Irish, some were involved in the War of Independence.
Ireland has devoted the entire year to honouring this event.
Yaet you know more than all of us rolled together.
If you are a typical Briton there is every reason to hate the place - you are a jingoistic meglomaniac.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:34 PM

Now come along Jimbo:

"Easter week Rising - 1,250 out of a population of 3.1 million = 0.04%"
Which led immediately to a war of Independence which ended up forcing Britain to the negotiating table and eventually to the collapse of the entire British Empire - not bad for 1,250 rebels.

Doesn't quite square with:

the fact that brutish British behaviour led to the Irish starting a war of Independence, given that when the Treaty was finally forced through with alterations at gunpoint six years later it led to Civil War in the new Republic

If your 1250 rebels forced Britain to the negotiating table and brought about the collapse of the British Empire can you please explain how the Brits managed to force any conditions on the victorious nationalists to accept their terms at gunpoint in 1922? Doesn't quite add up does it. Mind you it might to you as reasoning and logic does not seem to be your strong suit whereas emotive twaddle does.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 01 May 16 - 07:38 PM

"Professor, Instead of relying on cut and pastes from the internet try reading a full book, or preferably several books."

Why Raggy neither you or your pals do, yet you feel free to pontificate on any subject under the sun from a grounding of clueless ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 16 - 08:55 PM

I kinda prefer that people back up their statements with copy-pastes of pertinent information - within reason. When people wage wars of nothing but copy-pastes, that's taking it too far - but that's not happening in this thread. There were too many posts here that only attacked other people and said nothing at all about the topic of discussion. I deleted a good number of those, and will continue to do so. I think it makes for a better discussion when people don't use ad hominem arguments, which is just a fancy name for a personal attack.

We don't allow personal attacks at Mudcat, but I don't think that prohibition requires moderators to review and pass judgment on every post. We're all adults here, and the assumption is that adults know how to carry on a discussion in a civil manner. Participants are expected to moderate themselves, for the most part.

I think that there is room for a wide variety of opinions about the Easter Rising. Opinions can be different without one being right and the other wrong - can't they?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 16 - 09:33 PM

Oh, by the way, Keith keeps quoting articles by Fr Séamus Murphy SJ, an Irish Jesuit priest who has been living in Chicago and teaching at Loyola University since 2009. He taught philosophy at Milltown Institute, Dublin, Ireland from 1987 to 1990, and again from 1996 to 2008. Click here for his bio from the Irish Jesuits.

Jim, he hasn't lived in the United States long enough for us to call him an American.

He had an article called Imposing Independence in the April 25 issue of the Jesuit America Magazine. He makes some good points, but I found him to be overly critical of the Easter Rising participants. I suppose he has a right to his opinion, despite my disagreement.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 02:30 AM

Thanks for posting the link to that article Joe - I think he got it spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:05 AM

Amos - 01 May 16 - 01:05 PM

I think that those nationalists who supported Daniell O'Connell were perfectly aware of his vision and his goal of independence. The dissolution and repeal of the Act of Union was the first stepping stone on that path. If you do believe that the Rising advanced the cause then you should also accept that at the same time it hardened the Unionist opposition

Between the famine, the land-takings, and the executions of the leaders, etc., the British painted an ugly picture of themselves. I would certainly have felt getting shut of them would be a high priority, were I an Irishman in those days.

1: "The Famine" was a natural disaster it was not the fault of the British - it is lazy and convenient for anyone to blame them for it.

2: What "Land-Takings"? Between 1870 and 1903 the British Government passed a whole series of Laws giving Irish Tenant farmers what the Irish Land League demanded.

3: The executions were a mistake but the hands of the Government may have been tied both legally and in the interests of national security. 90 people were sentenced to death in the wake of the Easter Rising - 75 of those sentences were commuted to a term of 5 years imprisonment. The 15 who were executed were guilty of treason, I think back then if you committed murder the automatic sentence was death, the Judge having no option, I think the same was true of treason in time of war. As I have previously stated it would have been far far better to let the leaders of the rising live and then publicly shame them throughout Ireland and Great Britain, but that would run the risk of letting the Germans know that Britain's Naval Intelligence Service had broken Germany's Naval Codes.

4: Lastly Amos you would not have thought that way at all if you were an Ulsterman.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:20 AM

Jim, the Home Rule Bill 1914 was genuine.
No secrets.
There is no suggestion that the Irish Nationalist members did not have full confidence in it, or the people of Ireland.

No-one suggested partition until the final stages, and then only a temporary exclusion for Ulster was requested and agreed.
The Bill was passed with an unusually large majority of 77.

Had Belgium not been invaded it would have come into force at once.
But for the rising, it would have been enacted unchanged after the armistice.

The rising poisoned the well of negotiation and brought years of bloody conflict in place of a peaceful transition.

Education,
Kineally tells us that the Irish school system pushes "nationalist myths" instead of objective history. Is that not brainwashing?
Do you approve of it?
They also push religion. I know you object to that.
Read here about both abuses in Irish schools, and the propaganda text books.
(the text is in English) http://etudesirlandaises.revues.org/2119

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:22 AM

"The Famine" was a natural disaster it was not the fault of the British - it is lazy and convenient for anyone to blame them for it."
The Famine was described by Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was responsible for distributing relief as "God's punishment on the indolent Irish" - he advised the Government to sell relief food to the starving Irish at market prices so as not to interfere with the market economy (laissez faire) and suggested that The Famine could be used to solve 'The Irish Question' - the Russell Government complied and closed down the relief system that the former Peel Government set up.
There was four times the amount of food necessary to feed the Irish people, what wasn't shipped abroad for sale was locked in warehouses under armed guard.
The 'assistance' that Britain gave to Ireland was enforced emigration - the effect on the population according to the 1851 census was to cut the population from 8,175,124 in 1845 to 6,552,385 in 1851 - which is why it is still referred to as "The Irish Holocaust".
"What "Land-Takings"? Between 1870 and 1903"
The land that had been acquired by absentee landlords evicting starving farmers during the Famine - the practice was known as 'cabin tumbling' because of the practice of destroying the homes of those evicted with battering rams so they could not return.
The Bailiffs, backed by the police, would turn the starving families out onto the roads, where many thousands died of fever and starvation, the lucky one made it to the Coffin Ships heading for America.
In the period when Lord Russell was Prime Minister, the workhouses had been closed, so those evicted were often forced to live in hedges or even dig holes in the earth to survive, as the voluntary relief set up mainly by the Quakers was woefully inadequate.
Other religious groups assisted, but in areas like this the Protestant Groups would only feed and educate the children if their parents agreed to change their religion - these are still known as "The Soupers"
When the British Government finally agreed, under protest, to return the bigger estates to the Irish people, they did so in such a manner as to provoke the Land Wars - those farmers who already had substantial amounts of land were given priority, leaving the poorer ones to struggle.
The protests took the form of rustling the big landlord's cattle, driving them through the towns and letting then letting them loose on open land (The Burren was the favourite around here)
The protests officially lasted till 1911, but in fact continued in some Counties up to and beyond independence in 1922, well within the lifetimes of several of the people we have heard talking about their family's experiences.
All these facts and many more have been put up with the relevant linked documentation over and over again on the threads dedicated to the famine on which Teribus and Keith have attempted to rewrite Irish history - they are fully aware of the facts and yet continue their crusade.
Joe
Happy to concede that your priest is Irish, which makes Keith's backers a philosophy student and a journalist-cum-novelist - a change from real historians who sell their books in real bookshops, I suppose.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:39 AM

Carroll if you want to discuss the Famine then start a thread on it.

I think that you find yourself pretty lonely there.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:44 AM

Not going here again Keith - dialogoe over
You have been given the facts and have ignored them
I am happy to accept as truth your statement that you know nothing about Ireland, have never read a book on any of these subjects and are not interested enough to do so in the future - you said it, you have confirmed it over and over again here and elsewhere with your displayed ignorance of Ireland and I believe it.
Why on earth should I wish to debate with anybody who has made such a confession?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:46 AM

Jim,
Happy to concede that your priest is Irish, which makes Keith's backers a philosophy student and a journalist-cum-novelist -

No.
A university lecturer in philosophy, and an Irish Times correspondent are my two examples of Irish people who believe that the rising was wrong.

I am sure they are representative of the views of many Irish people, and I quoted them because you keep claiming that the whole nation celebrates rising.
It does not.
You were wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
You have been given the facts and have ignored them

I have ignored no fact. If I have say what it is. Good luck with that Jim because you have nothing.

YOU ignore the FACT that the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914 with the blessing of Nationalists, Unionists and the Irish people.

That means that the rising was completely unnecessary, against the will of the people of Ireland, and actually counter productive in bringing about independence.
All facts Jim, which you close your mind to because it undermines your ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Bit more time now Terrytoon
"Doesn't quite square with:"
Why exactly - what of the facts I have put up do you actually dispute with facts of your own rather than simply deny - what do you have against linking your pearls of wisdom rather than stating them for all to believe unquestioningly?
The executions were a display of what would happen to anybody who dared to defy the Empire - it turned out to be enough of an example of Britain's brutality to mobilise the Irish people and eventually to help bring the Empire crashing around its own ears.
Even Keith has had to accept the dishonest nature of the British establishment in agreeing Home Rule then secretly going behind the back of one of the signatories to connive with the other to add permanence to partition - Lloyd George admitted having done so.
This is the type of behaviour one would expect from a Banana Republic dictatorship.
"Jimbo"
A step in the right direction, I suppose, but not very imaginative and you have used it before.
Why not try "Carroll's a girls name" - used to make my infant school mates curl up.
Keith
You seem now to have reverted to trolling - you want to take part in this, address your remarks to the thread in general or, at the very least, to somebody else.
This is not a dialogue
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:12 PM

Jim, I was obviously being too modest about my knowledge of history.
I clearly knew a lot of things about the rising that you did not, and what you thought you knew has been shown to be myth.

You now know that home rule was assured by Act of Parliament, making all the Irish bloodshed in the rising and what followed wholly unnecessary.
You now know that the people did not support the rising, and that the rebels murdered unarmed Irish people in cold blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:22 PM

Professor, by your own admission on numerous occasions you have clearly stated you have no knowledge and more importantly no interest in Irish history.

You have now read a little from cut an' pastes from the internet. That does not mean you have any insight into Irish history nor will you have until you take the trouble to read a few books about the subject.

However I know and you know and everyone else knows you will never do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 16 - 03:32 PM

You and I and everyone else knows that you can not find a single flaw in the history I have put up.

If you could, what an issue you would make of it.
But you have nothing.

Or will you produce something now?
Good luck with that Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 May 16 - 05:38 PM

You and I and everyone else knows that you can not find a single flaw in the history I have put up.

Correct for once, Professor. Congratulations.

Not a single flaw, but a cornucopia thereof.

Go read a book or three & educate yourself.

PS: you haven't "put up" history, you've posted horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 02 May 16 - 06:23 PM

Jim Carroll - 02 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, you put up ill-informed and biased opinion and present it as fact. Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, you substitute conjecture and present it as fact. Any time that you do actually put up a fact it will be responded to.

The executions Jom were the sentence demanded by the law for anyone found guilty of treason in time of war. As for mobilising the Irish people? It managed to mobilise what percentage of the Irish people to take part in the Irish War of Independence - 0.48%, the deal negotiated to end the War was not universally accepted and the country slipped into civil war that managed to rouse the interest and participation of only 3.33% of the Irish people.

As for the British Empire Jom, the events of 1916 and 1921 had nothing whatsoever to do with its demise, that is mere conjecture on your part. That Empire Jom carried on for another half a century and demonstrated that an Empire can be ended through peaceful transition, its strength is still in evidence today as represented by the second largest international body in the world after the United Nations - The Commonwealth of Nations consisting of 53 sovereign member states most of whom were former British Colonies or dependencies. This transition occurred during our lifetime Jom and guess what? I didn't hear any crash.

Oh dear Jom have you just found out that politicians are dishonest? That they will do anything to get a deal? What planet have you been living on? Talking of honesty Jom your leaders of 1916 weren't exactly honest with their followers were they? de Valera wasn't exactly honest with Michael Collins was he?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:34 AM

Let me give you an analogy professor, one that is particularly fitting I believe.

If the history of Ireland is a big book of 750 pages you have read just one page and think you can tell everybody about Ireland because you have read just one page.

That was not true yesterday, it isn't true today and it won't be true tomorrow. When and only when you have read the entire book will you be in a position to make any sort of relevant comment.

Will you ever read the whole book? I have for one doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:00 AM

Still nothing on the Rising then Greg.

If there are "a cornucopia" of flaws in the history I have put up in support of my views, why can't any of you produce a single one?
Because you are lying.

Even Rag, who presumably has read lots of history books, can not produce anything to support his case or to challenge the other.
Or can you Rag?
Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:36 AM

I didn't really expect you to understand that professor. Your loss not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:54 AM

Never mind about the "professor" Raggy when are you going to make a start on even that one page? My guess would be never. But you certainly have never read the book - pot, kettle, black mean anything to you? The information so far supplied by Keith has been correct and in context, the information supplied by you to this thread has been unsubstantiated rumour that doesn't even bear the most cursory examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:57 AM

That's pretty rich coming from someone who thinks Cork is on the east coast of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:57 AM

"Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, "
You have had these facts over and over again, we have had at least two epic threads on the Famine and yet you repeat the same garbage as you did then - want me to link you to the threads - the two Trevelyan latters, including the one published in Coogan's 2016 book, or the newly-researched facts from the landslide of books published during the 150th anniversary commemorations, or even those from Englishwoman Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith's 'The Great Hunger' (up to 1995 her book was the only major work dealing with The Famine).
On the last thread, we actually narrowed it down to (I think) numerous essential facts (full warehouses, enough food to feed Ireland four time over, the continuation of importing food for profit, laissez faire policy, Trevelyan's letter, the massive number of evictions, which, in my opinion, proved beyond doubt Britain's guilt in the outcome of the Famine....) all linked to documented evidence - I put them up again and again, requesting your response - you refused to respond - which is what you pair do and what you are doing here.
I don't know what you read (I don't count The Daily Mail and the Beano as reading), but you never link what you say, you just present them as definitive statements which turn out to be nothing more than clay pigeons.
I know what Keith reads - nothing - he's been honest enough to tell us that - and it shows (though I now smell the burning rubber of desperate back-pedaling) .
Again, Keith has been honest enough to tall us that he isn't interested enough to read up on these subjects, though he persists in dragging out these charades and trying to win prizes.
Your technique is to make your definitive, unlinked statements, ignore the responses and make them again later, as you are doing here with The Famine - you've been shot down over all this countless number of times yet you still come back for more.
I suggest if you want to make a point on this you answer the questions you were given last time and come back with some documented facts of your own - declaring a thing to be true doesn't make it so.
This is actual, well established and universally accepted history we are dealing with - not jingoistic propaganda, which is what your arguments mount up to.
"The executions Jom were the sentence demanded by the law for anyone found guilty of treason in time of war."
That has never been put up as a reason for them happening, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.

"Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."
(Wiki entry on The Rising).

You describe the Rebellion as "murder", yet none of the actual murders or atrocities that took place at the time were ever tried.   

"After the Rising, claims of atrocities carried out by British troops began to emerge. Although they did not receive as much attention as the executions, they sparked outrage among the Irish public and were raised by Irish MPs in Parliament.
One incident was the 'Portobello killings'. On Tuesday 25 April, Dubliner Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a pacifist nationalist activist, had been arrested by British soldiers. Captain John Bowen-Colthurst then took him with a British raiding party as a hostage and human shield. On Rathmines Road he stopped a boy named James Coade, whom he shot dead. His troops then destroyed a tobacconist's shop with grenades and seized journalists Thomas Dickson and Patrick MacIntyre. The next morning, Colthurst had Skeffington and the two journalists shot by firing squad in Portobello Barracks. The bodies were then buried there. Later that day he shot a Labour Party councillor, Richard O'Carroll. When Major Sir Francis Vane learned of the killings he telephoned his superiors in Dublin Castle, but no action was taken. Vane informed Herbert Kitchener, who told General Maxwell to arrest Colthurst, but Maxwell refused. Colthurst was eventually arrested and court-martialled in June. He was found guilty of murder but insane, and detained for twenty months at Broadmoor. Public and political pressure led to a public inquiry, which reached similar conclusions. Major Vane was discharged "owing to his action in the Skeffington murder case".[141][142][143][144][145]
The other incident was the 'North King Street massacre'. On the night of 28–29 April, British soldiers of the South Staffordshire Regiment, under Colonel Henry Taylor, had burst into houses on North King Street and killed 15 male civilians whom they accused of being rebels. The soldiers shot or bayoneted the victims, then secretly buried some of them in cellars or back yards after robbing them. The area saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Rising and the British had taken heavy casualties for little gain. General Maxwell attempted to excuse the killings and argued that the rebels were ultimately responsible. He claimed that "the rebels wore no uniform" and that the people of North King Street were rebel sympathizers. Maxwell concluded that such incidents "are absolutely unavoidable in such a business as this" and that "Under the circumstance the troops [...] behaved with the greatest restraint". A private brief, prepared for the Prime Minister, said the soldiers "had orders not to take any prisoners" but took it to mean they were to shoot any suspected rebel. The City Coroner's inquest found that soldiers had killed "unarmed and offending" residents. The military court of inquiry ruled that no specific soldiers could be held responsible, and no action was taken"
From the Wiki entry on the Rising.

"As for the British Empire Jom, the events of 1916 and 1921 had nothing whatsoever to do with its demise,"
'Course it didn't - it fell of its own accord.
The Rising was the first great crack in the facade, it inspired the movement for India leaving the Empire, it was written about at length by the Russian revolutionaries, who used it to overthrow Tsardom... it showed the Empire at its brutal worst and it showed how a small number of poorly armed irregulars could take on the might of the richest and most powerful power in the world - the first domino to wobble.
"That they will do anything to get a deal? "
Now you appear to be defending the altering of a treaty on National Independence - not "some politicians" but an Empire.
How on earth can you write off the altering of a document that has brought about a century bloodshed, injustice and civil conflict which is still seething away waiting to erupt again (by my watch, in a couple of months time)
What kind of people are you
"I was obviously being too modest about my knowledge of history."
I see Keith is developing a sense of humour in his old age.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:58 AM

Rag, it is true I do not read books on Irish history, but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising.
That is how I have been able to expose your ignorance of the facts behind the rising, and your gullible acceptance of the myths deliberately created about it and presented as historical fact to generations of Irish school kids.

" As a part of the school curriculum, the subject of history taught young learners a monolithic nationalist, anti-British and pro-Catholic history that was heavily dependent upon allegory and collective memory."

"The nationalist role ascribed to history in primary schools was not as pronounced in secondary schools. This was because the type of indoctrination involved was more effective with younger subjects,"

"Gaelic culture was proclaimed as not only relatively, but absolutely better than others. Nationalist history was not only pro-Irish but anti-British."
http://etudesirlandaises.revues.org/2119

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:19 AM

" taught young learners a monolithic nationalist, anti-British and pro-Catholic history"
Sigh........!
During the 'Free State" period which ended in 1937 - read what you have scooped up Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:33 AM

No Jim. You need to read it.
"In terms of the function ascribed to history, it was not until the mid 1960s that Irish education emerged from "Plato's cave"."

"The nationalist role assigned to history at the foundation of the State was significantly diminished."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:36 AM

Did you not even read the title Jim?

"Politics, Policy and History: History Teaching in Irish Secondary Schools 1922-1970"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:49 AM

John O'Callaghan

An interesting paragraph on John O'Callaghans take on the rising here.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:54 AM

You obviously do not understand the article you have scooped up nor the Kineally quotes that blew up in your face.
Irish history blaming Britain, as outlined by Kineally, cease to be taught when the Free State ended and 'The Emergency Period' in Ireland necessitated that Irish people could freely emigrate to Britain for work, which would not have been facilitated by biting the hand that they expected to feed it.
That is the whole point of her attack on revisionist historians who, since that period, have avoided apportioning blame for anything - read her book.
It is why there was never a substantial work on the Famine until 1995 and probably why there has never been one on The Uprising.
"but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising."
Thank you for confirming your ignorance on the Rising - no British history book, on the war, or anything else, has ever covered the Easter Rising as anything more than a passing reference.
The only British historian to have done so is Robert Kee, in his trilogy and he devotes no more than a few paragraphs itself - if this not the case - name one British history book which has,
Now - back to the real world - go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 06:01 AM

One last word on your slur on today's Irish children then perhaps we can put this to bed forever.
Both your previous quotes from Kineally and the ones you have attempted to use here refer to the period of Irish education during the free State period.
Your quote relates to the section of your article that was dealing specifically with the period from independence up to the declaration of the new Irish Republic.

Free State Period
"The government of the Irish Free State had a vested interest in disseminating its own version of history"
"Eoin MacNeill, the first secretary of the Gaelic League and professor of ancient Irish History at UCD, was the minister for Education from August 1922 to November 1925. This was a decisive period in the determination of the direction of the new Irish education system. "
"The first annual report of the Department of Education highlighted the fact that the central educational aim of the Free State was "the strengthening of the national fibre by giving the language, music, history and tradition of Ireland their natural place in the life of Irish schools"
"The fundamental role that history can play in the development of patriotic attitudes was recognised and exploited in the Irish Free State. History was used in the pursuit of extra-educational objectives. The political objective was the most important in history teaching, and, as such, history teaching operated as a political instrument. Its end, in so far as it concerned the State, was chiefly political; the production of loyal citizens and the justification and preservation of the State's existence. As a part of the school curriculum, the subject of history taught young learners a monolithic nationalist, anti-British and pro-Catholic history that was heavily dependent upon allegory and collective memory. School history was a major part in a State project to preserve and propagate what it meant to be Irish. It was based on the twin aims of developing a State that was Gaelic and predominantly Catholic in outlook and spirit. The primary objective of history teaching was the transmission of the distinct nationality upon which the State was founded."

1931 onwards
" The extent of the change in emphasis from British to Irish history was made clear by the reports of examiners and inspectors, who commented on the ignorance of British history displayed by many students in matters in which Ireland was directly affected by Britain:"
"It is undesirable that teachers should treat Irish history as an isolated phenomenon or should fail to explain the connection between events in Ireland and the contemporaneous events in Great Britain and Europe"

You deliberately misinterpreted Kineally to prove that Irish children are brainwashed, you are doing so now to continue that despicable accusation.
That is beneath contempt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 06:05 AM

Jim, you are making stuff up.
On the subject of Irish schools teaching "Nationalists myths" as factual history, she said,
"Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."
She is quite clear then that it continued beyond 1938 and does not say when the abuse ended.
The paper I just quoted says it went on at least up to the seventies.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 06:51 AM

"It is undesirable that teachers should treat Irish history as an isolated phenomenon or should fail to explain the connection between events in Ireland and the contemporaneous events in Great Britain and Europe"
Why stop there Jim?
The quote continues,
"The tendency, apparent in the syllabi, to study the history of Ireland in isolation was still an issue in the 1970s,"

I did not misinterpret Kineally, that is what she said in the essay.
see it here in her original intended context.
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 08:13 AM

"The tendency, apparent in the syllabi, to study the history of Ireland in isolation was still an issue in the 1970s,""
That has no connection whatever to teaching children to hate Britain - none whatever - it talks about the scope of taught history, that is what "ISOLATION" means, not what was or is being taught.
Britain has been accused of the same, as has many countries - only teaching their own history.
The section you have quoted both in Kineally's article and the recent one, which uses the same sources, refers to The Free State Period.
Irish children have never taught to hate Britain, as you have suggested - not even in The Free State Period.
In the period referred to, British were being taught to pity those who were not 'lucky enough' to be born British – we were still singing hymns about it in the 1950s in our school in Liverpool
That is another disgusting racist smear.
"On the subject of Irish schools teaching "Nationalists myths" as factual history"
Free State history - Kineally, of all people, blames Britain for the Famine - why should she describe it as "Nationalist Myth"?
Both she and your article deal with Irish history chronologically and I have headed in my extracts from your article - Free State then Irish Republic.
Does your hatred of the Irish have no depths that you can distort your own cut-'n-pastes?
Finished with disgusting aspect of your demeaning of Irish children.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 08:35 AM

Jim, He hasn't even read the article he pasted, let alone understood it. For example:

"However, this declared determination of revisionism to destroy the 'myths and untruths' of populist historical consciousness has also limited the ability of revisionists to construct an alternative view of Irish history"

or

"Such myths and dreams need to be explained and deconstructed, not denied, destroyed or omitted, TO SUIT A PRESENT CONVENIENCE" (my capitals)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 08:40 AM

If you can't acknowledge your deliberate distortions and the racism of your claims, everybody else can, which suits me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 10:05 AM

O'Callaghan summarising his findings on
"Politics, Policy and History: History Teaching in Irish Secondary Schools 1922-1970"

"The conclusion drawn is that history teaching was used by elite interest groups, namely the State and the church, in the service of their own interests. It was used to justify the State's existence and employed as an instrument of religious education. "

That is for the whole period. Nothing changed on the demise of the "Free State"

Kineally,
" What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."

And Jim, no-one except you could find racism in anything I have posted.
Rag will back you because he backs anyone with far left views.
Shall we ask Joe?

You resort to personal attack everytime your arguments get knocked flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 10:40 AM

Try reading the whole article professor, don,t stop at the one line which can be taken as you so often do ......................... out of context. The only person you,re fooling is yourself ........................ oh and your fellow jingoist Terricola

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 10:56 AM

All pre Republic days Keith - you have the details in your own link.
"And Jim, no-one except you could find racism in anything I have posted."
To describe Irish children as brainwashed by the Irish education system is racist.
To describe Irish people as being fooled by propaganda and ignorant of their own history is racist.
To describe the subject of the commemorations taking place at the present time throughout Ireland as a "contemptible joke" is racist.
To set yourself up to re-write Irish history as it is now widely published, having boasted that you have never read a book on Ireland and are not interested enough in the subject ever to want to do so is the type of arrogant racism that proves beyond any doubt that the Easter Rising to get rid of such belligerent arrogant racism was a necessity - your arguments a living example of that attitude.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 12:38 PM

Can I add that the effort someone is prepared to put into showing that the Irish know nothing of their own history and are gullible enough to be misguided by propaganda, while at the same admitting that they have never read a book on the subject and are not interested enough ever to do so shows beyond doubt the contempt they feel towards the people under discussion.
You really couldn't have made it clearer - here and on previous discussions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 12:46 PM

Incidentally professor neither you, nor anyone else, including my good lady, knows how I vote. How you can claim I am left wing is, like most of your posts, totally uninformed and based on your own groundless assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 May 16 - 01:06 PM

"To describe Irish children as brainwashed by the Irish education system is racist"
Jim, I think education systems in every country brainwash children with their own take on history, for example in the UK, Children are brainwashed with the UK version of history, which is English propaganda, sometimes it is more subtle than that, sections of irish history are just not taught in the uk., result many english people remain ignorant of the atrocities performed by the british in ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:18 PM

"I think education systems in every country brainwash children with their own take on history, "
Wiggle - wiggle.
Maybe in the past they did, nowadays our education systems a far more enlightened, far more open to scrutiny and our teachers represent a far more balanced cross section of the population, so much so that the right-wing press often refers to them as "leftie"
Schools are far more answerable to parents response, but in the case of Ireland, you claim they are all brainwashed by propaganda right up to this present moment.
Your claim is that present day Irish children are brainwashed to hate Britain, not in the past but today - that is the hole you have dug for yourself and that's why I describe you as I do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:22 PM

Jim and Rag, the O'Callaghan paper I linked to is quite clear that nothing changed when the Free State became a Republic, that the academic community failed to get things changed in the 30s, and that the abuse persisted until the seventies.
Kinealy says the same.

The quotes I provided are quite unequivocal. The ones that Rag put up to not challenge that in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:35 PM

My quotes are from the same source professor. As I said you probably haven't bothered to read and absorb the full article, you've seen a sentence which you think supports your argument with going to the trouble of understanding the whole picture. That, I'm afraid, is par for the course for you. Many people are used to it, but that doesn't excuse your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:08 PM

"Maybe in the past they did, nowadays our education systems a far more enlightened, far more open to scrutiny and our teachers represent a far more balanced cross section of the population, so much so that the right-wing press often refers to them as "leftie""

But with all that it hasn't affected you in the least Jom.

Still no facts, just the same old myths and the same old emotive crap - one of the world's most experienced victims - whose motto is - IT's ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE's FAULT - you should have it tattooed on your forehead.

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

"I don't know what you read (I don't count The Daily Mail and the Beano as reading), but",/i>

You have quoted the Daily mail as a reputable source before now Jom - something to do with arms to Syria I believe. WAZZA MATTER Jom your irrefutable source when it suits you but something to be totally dismissed when it doesn't - as far as integrity goes you are utterly bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 May 16 - 05:33 PM

Oh, for crying out loud!, The Daily Mail [which btw I don't read -- I take the Times becoz I like its crosswords best] is only a newspaper, with a particular slant on the news; slightly rightwards, but no more tendentious than is *The Guardian's equally leftward one. Why the Mail is commonly so monsterised by the Professional-Leftie-Brigade is a constant cause of considerable wonderment to many!

≈M≈

*to which I was a regular contributor of theatre, book & folk reviews,as also The Times, for ¼+C... I have probably mentioned here before that, at one Cambridge Folk Festival, Maurice Rosenbaum, a member of the Communist Party but the definitely right-wing Daily Telegraph's longtime folk critic, and I, who was there to review it for far further left The Guardian, once agreed that if there were any sort of sense in the Universe we would swop papers; but that's just not the way things work...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 16 - 05:53 PM

Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE!

First off, is this Kineally guy alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:29 AM

"But with all that it hasn't affected you in the least Jom."
Haven't you got round to the fact that small minded insulting gets threads closed - or perhaps, given the shape of your position, that's what you're trying for.
If you actually have an argument, why not put it (with references, of course)?
You have the facts - you respond with denials.
Lat's see if we can't make it simple for you.
You claim that Britain had no alternative but to execute the rebel leaders because there was a war on.
Here are the facts as I have always understood them.
That has never been put up as a reason for them happening, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.
Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."
(Wiki entry on The Rising).
Now - why not show us, with evidence, that this is wrong - or are you going to stick with "just the same old myths"
"You have quoted the Daily mail as a reputable source before now Jom "
I have never at any time suggested the Daily Mail to be a "reliable source" (pretty much a waste of time asking you to show where I have - you appear not to lower yourself to actually substantiating what you say)
As far as I am concerned, The Daily Mail is a right-wing bum-wipe that has never managed to break with its history of support for Hitler and Fascism).
What I have said is that if The Daily Mail makes a positive statement in favour of anything vaguely to the left of Mein Kampf, it is possibly true - for instance, if they criticise the right-wing establishment, then they must have done something really, really bad.
I'm quite happy to condemn the right wing with the words of their own supporters - it is no indication that I trust the bastards or regard them as in any way reliable.
Oddly enough, I now regard The Times in the same way - from a reliably, informative newspaper to a tablid rad in the hands of Murdoch - I still take it for 'Codeword'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:35 AM

Couple of typos in there for you to use, if you can't find any arguments - want me to point them out for you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:40 AM

Rag, O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.
Your quotes did not dispute that.
Kinealy said that "nationalist myths" were taught as history.

Neither said that anything changed when Free State morphed in to the Republic.
Jim made that up in desperation to save his own silly face.

Here is another source that supports my view."Catholicism and the Curriculum: The Irish Secondary School Experience, 1922-62"

"This history was "shaped by nationalistic fervour" and a "desire to establish a legitimate continuity for Irish separatism."(16)

The approach to Irish history showed the concurrence of dominant ideologies of Catholicism and conservative nationalism. John Broderick has characterised this as follows:

The idea of history that we got was that we had been oppressed by our neighbours, the British, for seven hundred years; that the Catholic religion in particular had been suppressed and was persecuted; that there had been a great revival in the nineteenth century with Catholic Emancipation through Daniel O'Connell, and that Catholicism thrived under that, but that coming into the twentieth century we were being Englified and we were becoming more and more part of the United Kingdom and that was why 1916 came about; this had to be broken, the Irish people had to be shown what their heritage was. In a capsule this was the history of Ireland.(17)

Educators encouraged the teaching of this perspective on Irish history through study of outstanding individuals and significant incidents. Teachers were informed that the continuity of the separatist idea should be stressed and that pupils should be imbued with the ideals and aspirations of revolutionaries. The other side of this emphasis on Irish language and culture was a bias against Protestant Anglo-Irish culture. This exclusion was blatant with respect to the teaching of English. "

"Only after 1960 were educators to change attitudes towards the curriculum in the interest of meeting social and economic needs, helped by a more open-minded outlook in the wider society--a matter for another study."
Thomas A. O'Donoghue
http://www.edu.uwo.ca/hse/98odonoghue.html

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:49 AM

Jim, what is your opinion of the Irish men shot by the Irish firing squads of the civil war?

"Hardened by the brutalities they had witnessed in France these men (Free State Army)showed no mercy in their dealings with anti-treaty forces. "They were far worse than the Black and Tans" asserts Dan. "They murdered nineteen republican prisoners at Ballyseedy Cross, Countess's Bridge and elsewhere in Kerry in three days. The Tans never did anything as bad as that", he says. "It was
very easy to get killed at that time", remembers Dan."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:58 AM

Last quote,
http://www.irishfreedom.net/Irish%20Republican%20News/Dan%20Keating%20interview.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 10:35 AM

"Jim, what is your opinion of the Irish men shot by the Irish firing squads of the civil war?"
I think the Irish Civil War was an appalling affair caused by the betrayal of the British Government in forcing through a Treaty.
Atrocities happened, as do in any war, but to suggest that what happened was worse than the Tans is partisan nonsense - no rapes, no torture, no mass destruction - just Irishman fighting Irishman
"Jim made that up in desperation to save his own silly face."
I did not I drew those dated from your own link and indicated the timeline.
Nowhere and at not time has anybody ever suggested Irish children weer brainwashed to "hate the British" as you originally suggested - you have never produced an example of anybody saying so, in the past or now.
Please do not accuse me of making things up with your track record.
Perhaps you might help Terrytoon out and answer the question which touches on both your claims - no/ - thought not!
Do you not realise how deep a hole you pair have dug for yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:17 AM

Your behaviour here is beyond belief Keith
You know nothing of Ireland and you have no interest in its history, yet you scratch around the net looking for ways to denigrate the Irish people, their beliefs and their history.
Using a Civil War that Britain forced on the Irish really is scraping the bottom of the barrel to express your hatred.
We have spent thirty odd years recording Irish people about their culture, their traditions and their history, particularly their social history.
One of the things we have never managed to do is get anybody to talk about the Civil war - nearly one hundred years after the event it remains a festering sore.
Shortly after we started recording here we ceased asking about the War out of respect for the people on both sides who have always struck us as kind, welcoming to strangers and generous with their time and information.
While I would hate to see you waste the effort on digging up more garbage in your crusade, can I request that as far as this is concerned you leave this alone.
Britain caused the Civil War by forcing through an agreement that neither the Republicans nor the Free Staters wanted - the former were prepared to fight partition, The Staters believe that the question of partition would eventually resolved with reunification.         
It's more than a little sick for an Empire Loyalist like yourself to use a war Britain brought about against the Irish people
Kindly leaver it out - out of simple hunman respect, if nothing else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:48 AM

So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!
I suppose everything else in the world is.

but to suggest that what happened was worse than the Tans is partisan nonsense

It was said by an IRA man who was there. The "Harry Patch" of the civil war.

I did not I drew those dated from your own link and indicated the timeline.

No you didn't. Nothing in any of my links suggest any change in the curriculum before 1970.
That is why you have not, and can not produce any quote to substantiate such made up tosh.

Nowhere and at not time has anybody ever suggested Irish children weer brainwashed to "hate the British" as you originally suggested
Yes they have.
Kinealy states that they were fed "nationalist myths" as history.
That is brainwashing Jim.
O'Callaghan states that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British" propaganda. "Indoctrinated" is another word for "brainwashing" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:58 AM

"So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!"
Unbelieveable
I have no intentions of feeding this troll and I sincerely hope nobody else does.
This is really ploutering around in the slime.
Jim Carroll

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

Tell you what professor, read Tim Pat Coogans book 1916, The Mornings After and I,ll engage in conversation with you again.



That should give me a considerable break.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:16 PM

"So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!"
Unbelieveable

AGREED!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:22 PM

Irish Times.

"1916: The Mornings After review: Tim Pat Coogan's arrogant travesty of Irish history
Ireland's 'best known historical writer' utterly fails in this badly researched 'personal perspective' of the Irish century, says Diarmaid Ferriter

By page 20 of this truly dreadful book Tim Pat Coogan has puffed himself up to the extent that he has an important announcement to make: he is publishing a "hitherto unpublished" letter from Patrick Pearse to the Fenian John Devoy in New York, written in August 1914.
"I consider the document to be so important as to merit being published in full," Coogan declares. The problem is that the text of the letter is not previously unpublished. It is an exact copy of the letter that Pearse sent to Devoy's colleague Joseph McGarrity the same day and that was published in full 35 years ago, in Séamas Ó Buachalla's The Letters of PH Pearse.
On the basis of this example and many others Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. He describes this book as a "strongly personal perspective" on Ireland since 1916. But he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society

There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:02 PM

Far easier to scoop a line from somebody who doesn't like Coogan's book
"A thought-provoking read"
Bestseller
Haven't read the book, but that doesn't stop a man with a mission who hasn't read any book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:03 PM

You claim that Britain had no alternative but to execute the rebel leaders because there was a war on. - See Below

Here are the facts as I have always understood them.

That has never been put up as a reason for them happening - See Below, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.
Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."

Now Jom would like us to believe that the above was all stated in the Wiki Article - but it was not was it Jom.

Now let us see what Wiki has to say about treason laws as applicable in the UK at the time:

United Kingdom

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
"if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";[24][25]
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and
"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".

By virtue of the Treason Act 1708, the law of treason in Scotland is the same as the law in England, save that in Scotland the slaying of the Lords of Session and Lords of Justiciary and counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland remain treason under sections 11 and 12 of the Treason Act 1708 respectively.[26] Treason is a reserved matter about which the Scottish Parliament is prohibited from legislating. Two acts of the former Parliament of Ireland passed in 1537 and 1542 create further treasons which apply in Northern Ireland.

The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act.[27] Before 1998, the death penalty was MANDATORY, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. Since the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1965 an execution for treason was unlikely to have been carried out.

Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish independence.

Counter to what you believe the Military Council who were the only people pushing for this armed rising WERE in contact with the German Government Casement and Plunkett had actually been in Germany trying to convince the Germans to land troops in Ireland. Germany sent guns, ammunition and explosives fortunately they all were lost when the German ship Aud scuttled herself off the Irish port of Cork.

Had the Courts Martial been held "in Public" the fact that British Naval intelligence had broken German Naval codes might have been exposed and in April 1916 that may well have had a significant effect on the war as less than two months later the German High Seas Fleet set sail and the Battle of Jutland was fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:16 PM

"a Civil War that Britain forced on the Irish"

WOW I am absolutely dying to hear what convoluted logic has to be applied to make that argument.

By the by Jom you never did come back to me on that question:

Which would have been worse and which would have lasted longest - A Civil War fought between 15,000 IRA men and 55,000 Men of the Irish Army OR A Civil War fought between 70,000 men backing an Independent Ireland and almost 500,000 men and women totally committed to the Unionist cause. Logic and reason would seem to favour the answer that the latter would be far worse.

The Irish Civil War was the fault of Eamon de Valera and the IRA not accepting the deal that gave Ireland it's independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:19 PM

"Now let us see what Wiki has to say about treason laws as applicable in the UK at the time:
"
Where doers that in any way contradict Wiki's statement on the Executions
Are you claiming that Maxwell didn't order the executions (some of the victims of which were picked at random)?
Are you suggesting that the manner of the kangaroo cout trials weren't against the rules of a fair trial?
If the Government was responsible for these executions why weren't the breaches of law commented on.
Where has anybody ever suggested that the reason these executions took place was because they were duty bound to carry them out?
Your argument appears to be that the reason they happened was that the laww book says they had to - where is your evidence for anybody ever claiming this?
The rule book says that the army wasn't allowed to execute non-combatants - yet it happened on several occasions -ncluding the murders carried out by Capt. Colthurst.
C'mon - if they were compulsory somebody would have put that up as a defence for such a monumental cock-up.
They were acts of revenge decided on illegally by people who should not by law have had a say in the matter.
WEven you can do better than wave a rule book -where has hat ever been documented as a reason?
Ireland was not committed to the war so the rules of that war do not apply - those executed were not British citizens, as you have been at pains to point out about all Irishmen in the past.
A feeeee-ble attept at an excuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:44 PM

"Your argument appears to be that the reason they happened was that the laww book says they had to - where is your evidence for anybody ever claiming this?"

The Treason Act as in force at that time:

1: They had colluded with the enemy in time of war
2: They had taken up arms against the Crown in time of War
3: "Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and supported by her exiled children in America and BY GALLANT ALLIES IN EUROPE [GERMANY], but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory."

The penalty for treason at the time was death - that sentence was not discretionary it was MANDATORY - Do you know what that means???

The bit about "kangaroo courts" didn't come from Wiki did it Jom - your opinion - NOT FACT.

Those who signed the Proclamation were undoubtedly guilty of Treason, Sir Roger Casement was undoubtedly guilty of Treason and they suffered the penalty required by law for that crime.

As for the "she strikes in full confidence of victory." - now that was a downright lie wasn't it Jom as those making that declaration had already sent out the orders for the IRB and IVF throughout Ireland to stand down, thereby condemning the Rising to certain defeat and failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:06 PM

Once again Terricola your state 500,000 people in Ulster would have taken up arms. Once again I ask you justify those figures.



I'll wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:10 PM

professor, have you ever considered reading the book yourself.

Have you ever considered forming your own opinion.


Read the book and then, if you disagree with the contents, formulate your own argument with the research in it.







I'll not hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:12 PM

"Those who signed the Proclamation were undoubtedly guilty of Treason"
If they had been executed for treason, the law and natural justice demands that they be tried for such - they weren't
It would have been a insisted that the be allowed to offer a defence to speak on their behalf - they weren't
The would have been allowed to speak in their own defence - they weren't
Every individual who took part in the rising would have been liable to be tried for treason - they weren't - they weren't even questioned The were selected by British officers who had seen them during the fighting - illegal by any standards.   
Where in your rule book does it say that traitors during wartime can be pardoned on the whim of an officer, without consultating a higher authority?
"your opinion - NOT FACT".
None of these things happened = it was a kangaroo court, not a trial for treason and nobody has ever claimed it was - apart from you.
If you haven't made just made this up, where's your evidence.
You don't have to serve time washing up in a galley to recognise either a kangaroo court or an act of revenge
Who has ever mentioned "treason" in connection to these murders - a century-old secret perhaps?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:15 PM

wiggle wiggle, wot the feck does that mean, jim?
THE DAILY MAIL, a paper that barks out patriotism while its owner that patriotic viscount rothermere is a tax exile "patrotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" Dr Johnson,
he was of course referring to false patriots such as the owner of the daily wail

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:24 PM

patriotism is like the barking of village dogs...H G Wells.
Viscount Rothermere is one such dog mad with rabies and frothing at the mouth with xenophopobic jingoism, whilst being a tax exile

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:40 PM

The charges were laid according to a formula: "You are charged with having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops, and you are further charged with conspiracy with His Majesty's enemies." - Source: Irish Times Article

Taking up arms, firing on British Troops and conspiring with the enemy - In other words TREASON.

Raggy yer tis:

"The Ulster Covenant, also known as Ulster's Solemn League and Covenant, was signed by just under half a million men and women from Ulster, on and before 28 September 1912, in protest against the Third Home Rule Bill, introduced by the British Government in that same year."

The names and numbers are simple matter of historical record. That Covenant included these words:

"we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:55 PM

"Taking up arms, firing on British Troops and conspiring with the enemy "
You can't condemn people to death for "in other words" - your rule book and the British law says to have to be specifically charged - have your charges read out and be allowed to enter a defence and produce witnesses - source British and military law (not to mention natural justice.
Any capital crime has to adhere to the rule of law - this kangaroo court breached its own laws - no defence, no witnesses, judged by those involved in the fighting.
I ask again, where anywhere has this act of revenge ever been referred to as a "Treason Trial" - surely it went town in the reacords as "treason"?
You and your "in other words" are making it up as you always do.
treason is a matter of law, not a matter of making things up to try to win arguments
The accuse is assused of "in other words" - how do you plead (whoops sorry, you have no right to reply to that"
You're a bit ofa joke really - who did you serve under during your fantasy tiume in the forces - Bilko??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:02 PM

Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin. His book A Nation and Not a Rabble: The Irish Revolution 1913-23 is published in paperback by Profile Books

He really knows Irish history.
Why would anyone read a book that he says is "an arrogant travesty of Irish history?"
Certainly not to learn anything.

"this truly dreadful book"

" Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history."

"scant regard for evidence."

"There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, "

"Nor is there much accuracy about dates. Contrary to his assertions, Arthur Griffith did not found Sinn Féin in 1904 (it was 1905); the Ulster Volunteer Force was not established in 1912 (it was 1913); Erskine Childers did not organise the smuggling of arms to Ireland "in the summer of 1916" (it was 1914); and King George V did not open the Northern Ireland parliament on June 7th, 1921 (it was June 22nd)."

"Coogan is also a master of sweeping, inaccurate generalisations. "

"There are many other varieties of codswallop: "Fianna Fáil cumainn became IRA flying columns by night". Strange, then, that the IRA was declared an illegal organisation by a Fianna Fáil government in 1936."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:07 PM

"Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin."
Another "real historian" -my, my, my
Made my day Keith
Jim Carroll

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

Terriblossom, the fact that the convenient was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 543,000 were prepared to take up arms.

I am sure if this statement is not FACTUALLY correct you will point out where I am wrong.

If you COULD provide a figure of the percentage of that 543,000 who were prepared to take up arms I'm sure we'd all love to see it, and of course, your supporting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:22 PM

Yes Jim.
A genuine expert on Irish history who found the the history in Coogans book was a "travesty."

You linked to two reviews.
The Indy one was by a non-historian who would not have known that what he was reading was inaccurate. Wrong.

The other review said nothing about the book apart from its sales.
8000 copies.
Hardly "a best seller" as you claimed Jim and certainly not claimed as such by the reviewer!
"One thing that is clear from the Nielsen figures for 2015 is that the ­enthusiasm of Irish publishers in bringing out so many 1916-related books was not matched by ­interest among the book-buying public. ­Despite the huge success of Joe Duffy's book, in general the sales of 1916-­related books have been disappointing."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 03:23 PM

professor have you read the book ................ no

Will you ever read the book ................. no

Are you interested in the subject .............no

Do you know anything about the subject (apart from cut and pastes).. no

Do you have anything valid to say ........... no

Go and read the book, come to think of it, go and read any book about the subject.

Then and ONLY then will you have any positive contribution to this discussion.

Until you do so I, and many others, will continue to think of you as an annoying and lazy cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 05:07 PM

"the fact that the convenient was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 543,000 were prepared to take up arms."

Maybe that should read:

"the fact that the convenant was signed by 453,000 does not indicate that 453,000 were prepared to take up arms."

That would be the same 453,00 presumably who had just sworn to

hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland

Don't know about you Raggy but that would serve as a good enough indication of intent and sign of commitment to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 05:27 PM

Ehmm NO Jom but you can condemn and execute men guilty of firing on British troops and conspiring with the enemy in time of war.

Martial Law was declared in on the 25th of April 1916 in an attempt to maintain order on the streets of Dublin. This was later extended to the whole country.

Under Martial Law individuals were tried without a defence council, without a jury and the trials took place in private chambers. Members of the public and members of the press were not allowed to be present at the trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 16 - 06:14 PM

Diarmaid Ferriter is professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin.

But is he alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:15 PM

"Ehmm NO Jom but you can condemn and execute men guilty of firing on British troops and conspiring with the enemy in time of war."
Which is not what they were executed for.
In order for them to have been executed for treason they would have to have been British
They were not executed for treason - which you seem now to be backing away from.
They were not executed for murder - as you have suggested.
They were executed for taking part in a rebellion.
The fact that there was a war on was totally immaterial - Ireland was not part of that war - the Irishmen who fought did so volunteered to do so and when Britain attempted to forcibly conscript them in 1918 the Irish turned them down - it was never Ireland's war.
Nowhere does the word treason appear in connection with the rising as you have obviously found in your desperate scrabbling.
The court was a kangaroo Court because it met neither legal or military standards - it was rigged by allowing men who had been part of the fighting to take part in the decision when to execute and not to execute.
The decision on who was to be executed or not to be executed was taken arbitrarily by the prisoners being lined up in the yard of the prison and officers who had been in action walking along the lines with informers and pointing them out.
The accused were given no right to legal representation and were not allowed to speak in their own defence.
The examinations (there were no proper 'trials' of the accused took no more than a half hour each, some lasted less than half that time.
The proceedings were condemned as illegal by British legal officials
The prisoners were publicly humiliated and beaten by their captors - Tom Clarke, who had been chosen to be President and Commander-in-chief of the new Republic had the rising been successful, a frail man in poor health due to his earlier treatment in British prisons, was stripped naked on the parade ground in front of his fellow rebels and jeering British troops and beaten with soaked knotted towels.
Not only were the executions illegal and brutal but so was the treatment of many of the prisoners.
The trial was a travesty of justice by any standards not even reaching the standard British soldiers captured in Germany during WW2.
All this is a matter of record - it was a ****** kangaroo Court.
One more time THE REBELS WERE NOT CHARGED WITH TREASON - LIVE WITH IT
Are you suggesting that it was not necessary to charge the men with what they were executed for – is that how British justice works?
If you wish to keep this up - link us to some facts rather than just your unproven statements.
Happy to keep this up as long as you want - each time you do I will endeavour to add a few more details of the inhuman treatment of the captors.
You really can't get your head around the fact that your arrogant talking-down-to tone makes you look all the more stupid when you make a balls-up, as you are doing here
"A genuine expert on Irish history who found the the history in Coogans book was a "travesty."
Back to the "real historians" again Keith - have you no self-respect.
"He really knows Irish history."
As you have never read a book on the subject and are not interested in doing so - how the **** would you know what he knows?
Just to clear up a point, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if Ferriter is such a great historian, I'm not sure where that leaves your argument about The rising being a "contemptible joke".
As do virtually all Irish historians, he supports the rising and at no time questions its validity - so what on earth are you doing challenging a "real historian" and calling him gullible and fooled by propaganda?.
The Coogan book that he challenges is not about Easter Week as such (he wrote a book on the rising some years ago which Ferriter has never commented on)
The only arguments Ferriter has on what Coogan had to say on the Irish revolutionary period was to challenge three dates (he claims two were a year out and one two years out.)
Ferriter's argument was with Coogan's analysis of what has happened to Ireland since and whether the ideals of the rising were lived up to - Coogan claims they weren't as do many thousands of other historians, experts and interested people, particularly in relation to the Party that has been in Government up to the last election.
These are not a matter of historical fact but arguments based on politics.
Coogan describes his book as a personal take on the state of Ireland, which is how he tends to write and what Ferriter challenges is that personal take which he describes as "arrogant".
If Ferriter has any qualms about The Rising he keeps them to himself - he certainly has never described them as a contemptible joke.
He challenges how the freedoms brought about by the rising were described then and have been interpreted since but he at no time challenges its validity - it seems that. like Kineally, you have backed another loser.
This type of humiliation would be totally unnecessary if you bothered to read the articles you take your one-liners from.
Even if he had been opposed to the Rising he would be one historian (very much in the minority) out of many hundreds writing, lecturing, researching, setting up exhibitions, making radio and television programmes... and all the other work going into an event you have described as a "contemptible joke".
The one thing about this centenary is the unanimity of the people involved, with virtually no critical opposition - but I'm sure you know that as your desperate searches have managed to unearth a priest living in America and a journalist - Ferriter, who you thought might be an ally, has blown up in your face, as did Kineally.
G'night George - G'night Gracie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: ollaimh
Date: 04 May 16 - 10:17 PM

thank you jim carrol that says it all.

i want to add that the plain fact that sein fein won a landslide election as soon as they got the chance shows the irish people supported the rebellion. this is a plain fact. the writers now depended on to show a lack of support were part of the old quisling ruling elite or their toadies.

but the anglos have a quible, a hair to split! so starvstion doesn't count, a quible a hari to split so torture, invasion and every form of brutality doesn't count, it's not like the torture starvation and murder by the paras, done by the bad people like quadaffi, because they have a quible and a hair ti split.and of course if the british hadn't been brutal to the rebels there would have been no election win and no popular support--WHEN WERE THE BRITSH EVER ANYTHING BUT BRUTAL? in keyna? whoops there they did all the troture hanging and concentration camp thing, in bengal? opps there they let millions starve, in america, where they made war on women children and food supplies to get rid of the native(as oft quoted at the tine "nits make lice") on and on brutality after brutality.

it's hang wringingly awfull that the rebellion was more destructive than necessary, so awfull. what about the hundreds of years of british destruction, but that isn't a quible.

what the general deniers are saying is two fold. first there is no connection between events.   things aren't related . just because the same poeple and state that conquered ireland,(or india or canada) was the one torturing or murdering, doesn't mean there is any mental connection between those who conquered and those who tortured(see the residential schools for the very worst), no connection between events and peolple. and secend they believe that the fact that the anglos got an econimikc benefit from smashing irish culture and people has no evidential value that any anglos meant any malice or even had any awareness of the abuses. it's a lot like nazi holocoust deniers, dimminish deflect and deny and you have to prove prove prove all over again.

well thankfully they aren't as powerfull as they once were, but now americans are taking up the sword of empire. godess help us if trump gets elected.

what it shows clear as day isthat anglo culture is racist and militaristic to the core, abd isn't likely to change soon. these bigots will buy any quibble and any jingoistic lie if it flatters their endless pride and coddles their hate

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 02:16 AM

where is your evidence that 453,000 people would have taken up arms Terri. In fact how are the 453,000 people going to be provided with arms. Collusion with the British forces perhaps.

Once again you are presenting your "facts" as "truth" neither of which is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:19 AM

"In order for them to have been executed for treason they would have to have been British"

Ehmm Jom - Act of UNION 1801 meant that the country that declared war on Germany on august 4th 1914 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND IRELAND

Taking up arms against the Crown and conspiring with enemies of the Crown IS TREASON - That is what those men did.

"The fact that there was a war on was totally immaterial - Ireland was not part of that war - the Irishmen who fought did so volunteered to do so and when Britain attempted to forcibly conscript them in 1918 the Irish turned them down - it was never Ireland's war."

Oh I don't know Jom I think that the country being at war would aggravate the charge and cause it to be dealt with to the utmost extent of the law. Ireland was as much a part of that war as the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (See Above, and over 210,000 native born Irishmen thought so - how many turned out for your rebellion Jom? 1,250 - 1,500? You've mentioned this attempt at forcing conscription in Ireland in 1918 can you give us all a date upon which that happened, because I've looked and I cannot find it. Can you give us a date when the idea of conscription was put before the Irish and the date they rejected it? You see I don't think that you can because it never happened.

Under Martial Law ALL civil rights are suspended and the military authorities can make, apply and enforce whatever laws they deem necessary. Martial Law was declared on 25th April 1916.

I know very well what those executed were charged with - I actually posted it on this very thread - what you are charged with normally tends to describe what you actually did - now then Jom show me the:

Armed Rebellion Act of Great Britain and Ireland in force and on the statute books in 1916.

Show me the Conspiring with Enemies of the State Act of Great Britain and Ireland in force and on the statute books in 1916.

You'll have a bit of trouble doing that as neither exists or ever has existed - HOWEVER both those offences are detailed in the Treason Act which has been on the statute books since 1351 I posted that on this thread as well highlighting the relevant parts of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:38 AM

Raggy 453,000 or thereabouts solemnly swore that they would do whatever was necessary to prevent Home Rule and Independence. The Larne Gun Smuggling scandal and the formation of the UVF caused the formation of the IVF so the Nationalists certainly took them seriously and at face value at the time. In the rebellion of 1916 only 0.05% of the Irish population could be arsed to take part. In the Irish War of Independence only 0.5% of the Irish population could be arsed to take part. And so enraged by the treaty settlement were they that in the Civil War that de Valera fanned into flames in 1921 and which lasted for almost eleven months only 3.33% of the population of Southern Ireland could be arsed to take part. In the North around 48% of the population were arsed to sign a Covenant stating in the clearest terms possible what they would do to remain as part of the United Kingdom - tell me of any similar document signed in the South to back your rebels Raggy.

As to arms and ammunition Raggy I believe that the UVF managed to get arms into Ireland far more successfully than either the IVF or the IRB.

All moot of course at it never happened but, and this is just my opinion, had independence been forced on the North then the civil war would have been far, far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:39 AM

"Ehmm Jom"
You really do need to do something about that sore throat
" Act of UNION 1801"
The Rebels were not charged with treason - did Britain add not properly charging the men they shot to the other breaches of British law in this brutally inept affair?
Perhaps you'd like to give us the details of what the rule book says about trying people before sentencing them to death?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:51 AM

It is exactly that Terri ............... your opinion. You have no facts to back up your statement which you purport to be truths.

If it is merely your opinion that's fine. I disagree with your opinion but that is just my opinion. But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:58 AM

Jim,
"The Proclamation itself outlined who was responsible for igniting the rising and referenced the Irish Republic's potential ally of Germany. These details of the proclamation, considered to be treason, ensured certain death by firing squad for the leaders of the Irish Republic if independence was not obtained."
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/50-facts-about-the-Easter-Rising-which-began-99-years-ago-today-PHOTOS.html

Rag,
Have you been able to quote any historian in support of yours or Jim's case........NO

Have you spotted any gap in my knowledge of the history of the rising................NO.

Have you spotted any errors in the history I have produced to support my case...NO.

Anything to suggest my knowledge of history is inadequate.......NO

Do I need to read a book that is a travesty of history...............NO

Does anyone seeking the true version of events........................NO

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:04 AM

But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not.

He never has Rag.
No-one can state as a fact any alternative history that did not happen, and no-one has.
Of course it is opinion and it does not need explaining, except to you obviously Rag.
Opinions are worth nothing if not informed by facts, which T's always are.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:08 AM

"Do I need to read a book that is a travesty of history...............NO

Does anyone seeking the true version of events........................NO"

Not having read the book you are not in a position to say it is a travesty. You have merely cited the opinion of another author who again you have not read.

So, let me get this straight in my head. You say Author A is wrong because Author B says so. You have not read Author B so cannot know whether his writings are accurate. You have not read Author A so you cannot say his writings are inaccurate.

Where in that muddle do you form the opinion that Author A's writings are a travesty. You don't know and more to the point you will never know because you are too lazy and too disinterested to read him.

As I have said before your "argument" has no validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:11 AM

Oh, you mean things like the "fact" that 453,000 were prepared to take up arms, something that Terri has claimed on more than one occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:27 AM

Raggy:

If it is merely your opinion that's fine. I disagree with your opinion but that is just my opinion. But please do not present your opinion as fact. It is not."

How about giving that advice to Carroll he seems to be in need of it more than I - when I give an opinion I clearly say so.

Note once again that you ignored my question - par for the course.

But here are some undeniable facts:

The threat to the country (Ireland) as a whole posed by the pro-Union supporters in the North was real enough for the pro-independence crowd in the South to form an armed militia.

The threat to the country as a whole posed by the pro-Union supporters in the North was real enough for the pro-independence delegation sent to London to negotiate peace in 19121 was sufficient for the North to be granted it's right to self-determination. The fledgling Government in 1921 could cope with de Valera and the IRA - which they did. They most certainly would not have been able to cope with the strength of opposition that would have been ranged against them had they had to take on the UVF and their supporters ( Support for the UVF was quantifiable - support for independence lacklustre at best, of course you could prove me wrong in that, but I know you won't).


The threat to the country as a whole posed by the pro-Union supporters in the North was considered real enough that on two occasions when offered full UK support for a united Ireland the Government of the Republic rejected it within seconds of the offer being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"The Rebels were not charged with treason"

Quite right Jom they were charged WITH having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops, and you are further charged with conspiracy with His Majesty's enemies. THOSE WERE the charges BUT THEY WERE TRIED FOR OFFENCES UNDER THE TREASON ACT.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:36 AM

I'll suggest the same to you Terri, try reading Tim Pat Coogans book 1916 The Morning After.

I hope that you at least will give a read and then comment. It gives one perspective and I'm not saying it is the only perspective.

I don't hold that hope for your sidekick, he's obviously not intelligent enough to read the book, he struggles to get cut and pastes correct.


(wait for the bleatings of denial)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:37 AM

Rag, if a professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin tells us a book is historically inaccurate, I believe him.

I do not believe I know more about modern Irish history that a modern Irish history professor, as you arrogantly seem to.

Have you read his books?
Why do you dismiss his opinion on something he has devoted his life to the study of, and is respected as among the highest authorities in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Professor Ferriter.
Graduate of UCD, BA (1991), PhD (1996). Lecturer in Modern Irish History at UCD 1996-1998. Researcher and writer with Dictionary of Irish Biography 1998-1999. Senior lecturer in Irish History at St Patrick's College, DCU, 1999-2008. Appointed Professor of Modern Irish History at UCD in 2008. Visiting Burns Library Scholar at Boston College 2008-2009.

Main research interests: the social, political and cultural history of twentieth century Ireland.

Tim Pat Coogan?
A journalist who has written populist books purporting to be history.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 04:59 AM

Tim Pat Coogan (who you haven't read) is a respected writer, broadcaster and journalist. His books include biographies of Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera, The Irish Civil War, 1916 The Easter Rising, 1916 The Mornings after, The Famine Plot.

He fits all your strange criteria in that he is still alive, his books have been published in the last 20 years, is eminent and yet you see fit to condemn him on the say so of another (rival) writer who you also HAVEN'T READ.

Laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 05:47 AM

"Quite right Jom they were charged WITH having been one of a party at [whatever location] from which shots were fired, occasioning casualties amongst His Majesty's troops"
Not treason then, as you have been insisting, just national liberation rebellion, which is what I said in the first place?
Now we're getting somewhere.
Now - do you want to have a go at the illegal manner in which the trial was conducted - won't hold my breath?
"Have you been able to quote any historian in support of yours or Jim's case"
We are daily being treated to articles written by historians and researchers which support exactly the case I have been putting and have access to at least half-a-dozen programmes a week on television researched and attributed to established historians on television supporting it.
You, on the other hand hand not produced one single qualified historian who backs your case - not one single one.
You have offered a journalist who whose opinion coincides with your own on some aspects, but his qualifications make his opinions just that, opinions.
Fr Séamus Murphy SJ is a lecturer in philosophy - his CV contains no reference to his having any historical qualifications whatever so again, just opinions.
The historian you thought backed your case didn't, on the contrary, he supports the cause of the Rebellion and believes its ideals are unfulfilled.
When you demand historians - where are yours?
Your knowledge of Irish history is non-existent as is the likelihood of your gaining some as you have proudly pointed out - you are not interested in the subject and do not intend to change that situation.
Have we spotted flaws in your knowledge....? you have to be joking.
Your whole case is built on your contempt for the Irish as "gullible" and their history as "a contemptible joke".
" Tim Pat Coogan? A journalist who has written populist books purporting to be history".
More contempt for the Irish.
Tim Pat Coogan is a highly respected historian without qualifications who has pent his life writing highly respected books on Irish history - his work of Collins, De Valera, The Troubles, The IRA, The Famine, The Irish Diaspora..... are major reference works respected throughout Ireland.
The Fact that you have come up with one historian who disagrees with him changes all that one iota
Ferriter takes the diametric opposite to you on the Rising so why not show us these historians you keep bleating on about - who are they and what do they say?
Jim Carroll

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

"Tim Pat Coogan (who you haven't read) is a respected writer, broadcaster and journalist."

Likewise Sir Max Hastings (who you haven't read) is an even more respected writer, broadcaster and journalist (I'd back his awards and peer opinion of him in all three fields against those of Coogan) yet you and your pals are somewhat dismissive of him for exactly the same reasons as you hail Coogan to be the font of all wisdom.

I'm with Keith - "if a professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin tells us a book [Coogan's] is historically inaccurate [Detailing why}, I believe him."

Coogan is trotting out the same old brainwash myths because he knows they will help sales of his books in Ireland and in the US - bless him business after all is business.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:05 AM

Jom - here it is AGAIN:

Treason Act UK

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
"if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and
"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".


Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish independence, because Jom you see engaging in an armed uprising and conspiring with an enemy Government sounds awfully like - "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; to me - that is what they were charged with doing under the provisions of the Treason Act

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:08 AM

Wrong again Terrikins I have read Max Hastings. But don't worry you don't often get your "facts" correct do you.

Bought yourself a compass yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:24 AM

You've read Max Hastings have you Raggy? Well done, but you could just be saying that couldn't you - I'll take your word for it - but you have no way of proving it.

A Compass? I have a few, both the draughting and navigational sort plus a couple of GPS units, don't need any more thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:24 AM

"Treason Act UK"
For crying out loud Terri - they were not charged with treason - anybody sentenced to be executed has a right by law to be properly charged with the crime he or she is supposed to have committed - that was not done and the trial was an outrage in terms of British civil and military justice - the charge was not treason so they were not guilty of treason.
Hide by any rule-book you wish but until you show that all the rules in that book were applied it was a Kangaroo Court, pure and simple.   
The garbage that they colluded with the Germans is bollocks - they in no way supported Germany - their only contact with them was to take their weapons and nobody has ever attempted to show otherwise - not even you - you just accuse them of collusion.
Now - did the rebels receive a fair trial and was their treatment up to accepted standards?
"Likewise Sir Max Hastings"
I quite agree - I only challenged Hastings on the basis that Keith was demanding qualified historians selling books in real bookshops - he rejected everybody else.
Hastings is a qualified tabloid journalist.
"Coogan is trotting out the same old brainwash myths because he knows they will help sales of his books in Ireland"
Coogan is a principled, dedicated if unqualified historian and is respected as such throughout Ireland, even by his critics, whose main complaint is that he does not keep proper notes and therefore makes mistakes
He is in no way commercially motivated - which sounds like a smear tactic from a desperate man to me.
Keith has yet to produce a single historian to back his case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:29 AM

PS I did find Hastings tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:39 AM

1: They were charged with crimes under the treason act
2: They were properly charged with the crimes that they had committed - no supposedly about it, read the Proclamation that they ALL signed.
3: "The garbage that they colluded with the Germans is bollocks - they in no way supported Germany - their only contact with them was to take their weapons and nobody has ever attempted to show otherwise - not even you - you just accuse them of collusion."

Bollocks eh? The Military Council in contact with representatives of the German Government from November 1914 - was that bollocks? Somehow doubt it, it is a matter of historical record. Sir Roger Casements 1915 Ireland Report that he submitted to the German High Command - was that bollocks? Again a matter of historical record as is the German's rejection of it. Plunkett's journey to Germany in 1915 to assist Casement and procure German weapons - was that bollocks? The landing of Sir Roger Casement from a German submarine and his subsequent interception and capture immediately before the rising - was that all bollocks? The interception and scuttling of the arms ship Aud by the Royal Navy - was that all bollocks?

Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?

"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; Guilty as charged under the Treason Act 1351 and subsequent amendments, and executed accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:47 AM

"Well done, but you could just be saying that couldn't you - "
He could, just as you could be (and do) saying everything you say, especially as you don't ever supply links.
Keith boasts he has not read books on this subject and only quotes things he has found on the internet after the subject has come up He ones spectacularly foot-in-mouthed by claiming he had read one of the most difficult books on Stalinism and yet was totally unable to answer a basic question to back up his claim - he didn't attempt to answer, he just ignored requests to do so..... so when it comes to claims, neither of you are shining lights in the veracity stakes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 06:59 AM

The pertinent question is "were they given a fair trial"

Some of the people conducting the trials has also been involved in suppressing the rising. This I believe is prohibited in the military manual.

So question 1. Is it prohibited in the Military Manual that an officer involved in an action cannot take part is any later legal proceedings. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

So question 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes then should these people have been debarred from being involved in the trials. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

General Maxwell took it upon himself to conduct the trials in secret and without a defence being allowed.

So question 2. Was this ruled illegal by Crown Law Officers, again a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 08:12 AM

An additional point has to be answered is the fact that those chosen for execution and imprisonment were often selected randomly by officers who had never seen those particular rebels, but judged them to be culpable on the spot.
At least one of those executed had not taken part in the Rebellion and was not even in Dublin.
"Thomas Kent: Born in 1865, Kent was arrested at his home in Castlelyons, Co. Cork following a raid by the Royal Irish Constabulary on 22 April 1916, during which his brother Richard was fatally wounded. It had been his intention to travel to Dublin to participate in the Rising, but when the mobilisation order for the Irish Volunteers was cancelled on Easter Sunday he assumed that the Rising had been postponed, leading him to stay at home. He was executed at Cork Detention Barracks on 9 May 1916 following a court martial. In 1966 the railway station in Cork was renamed Kent Station in his honour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 16 - 08:17 AM

if   a    professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin tells us a book is historically inaccurate, I believe him.[emphasis mine]

Based on a single negative review? Then the two of you are decidedly idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 May 16 - 01:20 PM

Jim thanks for the info ,i have often been at kent station, but did not realise the history of the name.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 02:41 PM

The Fact that you have come up with one historian who disagrees with him changes all that one iota

Jim,
From wiki,
"Coogan has been criticised by Irish historians Luke Kennedy, Cormac Ó Gráda and Diarmaid Ferriter for refusing to keep to good scholarly method and privileging his opinions over evidential fact:

"Well, I waited in this book to hear some great revelation and it just isn't there. It's anticlimactic. I could not see the great plot, and indeed there is no serious historian who ... I can't think of a single historian who has researched the Famine in depth – and Tim Pat has not researched it in depth" (The Famine Plot).
"This is far from his best: it rakes over ground already all too familiar, adds little that is new, and lacks an obvious narrative or logical structure" (The Famine Plot).
"Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. ... he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society. There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, a reminder that much of this tome consists of recycled material. ... Tim Pat Coogan ... he is a decent, compassionate man who has made a significant contribution to Irish life. But he has not read up on Irish history; indeed, such is the paucity of his research efforts that this book amounts to a travesty of 20th-century Irish history" (1916: The Mornings After)."

So three examples given of all the Irish historians who criticise his work.

Also wiki,
"Coogan writes from a nationalist perspective. "

So partisan, not neutral or objective.

Also Jim, what you said about ne and the Stalin biography is a lie, but I will not argue the case with you here.
Again you resort to personal attack when your argument fall down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 02:51 PM

So two out of three criticisms were about another book entirely.

Good work professor keep it up.

Bet you haven't bothered to get it from the library yourself to make your own evaluation.


No ............... thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:02 PM

Know all about that Keith - three historians about of how many would that be then
I don't know which of today's historians are still revisionist and as you don't read books I'm ***** sure you don't
I've read Coogan's book - have you (oh, there's me forgetting......!!)
Do yui know which of these historians are partisan, neutral otr objective - course you don't.
You scratch around for a few names and the all blow up in your face, Keneally, Hastings and now Ferriter.
Why should I debate literature with a declared illiterate?
"Jim, what you said about ne and the Stalin biography is a lie,"
So you managed to tell me the difference between Deuscher and Conquest - 'course you did, I've probably forgotten it - remind me and prove me a liar.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:12 PM

Rag,
So two out of three criticisms were about another book entirely.

No. They were criticisms of him as a writer of history.

Jim,
You lie about our Stalin discussion.
The thread is still there to prove it.
I will not be drawn into another off topic argument with you. You always try that when your arguments fall flat.

Do yui know which of these historians are partisan, neutral otr objective - course you don't.

Yes. If they are professional academics employed by universities, they are nuetral, objective historians.

If they make their living by the sale of books, they have an incentive to make them pro nationalist because they will sell much better in US.

Wiki says that "he writes fro a nationalist perspective."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:13 PM

By the way - you said the Easter Rising was substantially covered by all books on WW1 - would you mind telling me which ones - I did ask
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 May 16 - 03:58 PM

"No. They were criticisms of him as a writer of history"

No they were not.

I know you cannot read properly professor but if you look at the quotes at the end of the first two it refers to THE FAMINE PLOT in particular.

It actually says THE FAMINE PLOT.

Which means quite simply they refer to THE FAMINE PLOT.

Stop lying (again)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:02 AM

Jim,
By the way - you said the Easter Rising was substantially covered by all books on WW1

No I did not.

Rag, those reviews just show that he has been falsifying history for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:07 AM

That is YOUR false interpretation.

However the comments refer to a single book THE FAMINE PLOT not to any other of his works.

Once again YOU have been caught out LYING and YOU are in no position to criticise an author who YOU haven't read, will probably never read and have clearly stated on many occasions YOU have no interest in his subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:14 AM

I do not lie Rag.
Those criticisms were of him as an historian.

Anything else to say about the rising, or are you grateful for any diversion from a difficult subject for you and Jim?

Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong, you have not shown any at all, and neither of you can fault the historical facts produced by T and me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:29 AM

Absolutely not Keith YOU ARE A LIAR. You have been caught out once again and even when caught you continue to lie, as you will continue to lie about this.

Two of the three comments referred specifically to the FAMINE PLOT, nothing else. You LIED about them referring to Tim Pat Coogan himself.

It is here clearly for everyone to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 16 - 06:42 AM

The Famine Plot was his book and it was criticised for historical inaccuracy in two of the three.
The third one was the book you recommended.

It is here clearly for everyone to see.
Yes. Here it is again.

"Well, I waited in this book to hear some great revelation and it just isn't there. It's anticlimactic. I could not see the great plot, and indeed there is no serious historian who ... I can't think of a single historian who has researched the Famine in depth – and Tim Pat has not researched it in depth" (The Famine Plot).
"This is far from his best: it rakes over ground already all too familiar, adds little that is new, and lacks an obvious narrative or logical structure" (The Famine Plot).
"Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. ... he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society. There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on. There is no rhyme or reason when it comes to the citation of the many quotations he uses; the vast majority are not referenced. For the 300-page text, 21 endnotes are cited and six of them relate to Coogan's previous books, a reminder that much of this tome consists of recycled material. ... Tim Pat Coogan ... he is a decent, compassionate man who has made a significant contribution to Irish life. But he has not read up on Irish history; indeed, such is the paucity of his research efforts that this book amounts to a travesty of 20th-century Irish history" (1916: The Mornings After)."

Anything else to say about the rising, or are you grateful for any diversion from a difficult subject for you and Jim?

Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong, you have not shown any at all, and neither of you can fault the historical facts produced by T and me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:01 AM

You said all three were criticisms of the 1916 The Mornings After.

Two of the three criticisms were relating to another book entirely.

You then said that all three were criticisms of him as a writer of history.

They were not they were criticisms of one book.

You then said the reviews showed he had been falsifying history for years, a libellous statement if ever I heard one. (Must point that out to Tim Pat Coogan, I've heard a rumour that he does enjoy legal actions)

You then repeated that they were criticisms of him as a historian.

No they were not, they criticised one book.

You have been proven once again to be a liar and as I suggested earlier you will continue to lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:23 AM

"Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong"
Where and by whom
You have not put up a single historian to back your case, you have refused to respond to and of the points made other than to repeat your inaccuracies.
You refuse to even substantiate your own claims only to deny you made them -you suggested that "of course" your WW1 books cover Easter week yet not only fail to name one, but deny having said so. "No I did not.
"
Your one hopeful historian crumbled in your face and you have now resorted to posting your failed arguments on the Antisemitism thread behind our backs.
Heving ruled The Famine out of bounds for everyone else, you have now resorted to a single critiscism of the author.
Your mate has obviously decided that discretion is the better part of valour and done a runner.
I have suggested to the posters to the Antisemitism thread for your behaviour - I suggest you do the same here for taking your arguments to another thread behind our backs.
I doubt you will do either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 16 - 10:30 AM

Re books on WW1
"No I did not."
"Rag, it is true I do not read books on Irish history, but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising."
You gave the impression that The Easter Rising was an essential part of the history of WW1.
I sk again, in which books on WW1 are the events of Easter Week covered?
"Anything else to say about the rising, or are you grateful for any diversion from a difficult subject for you and Jim?"
You and your mate has been humiliated on this subject - you have displayed in glorious technicolour your attitude to the Irish people as a whole.
You witter on about historians, having boasted that you have never read one on the subject (and don't intend to) and you have not produced a single one who backs your contempt for a part of Irish history that is being celebrated at the present time.
There is a great deal more to be said on the subject, but not to you - you have proven your stated ignorance and disinterest over and over again.
You are still attempting to win prizes and have now resorted to posting your arguments on the Antisemitsim thread.
I have suggested you apologise to the posters on that thread - I suggets the same here, though I don't expect a decent response for either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Well, the discussion, though heated, continues to be interesting. I don't think anybody is lying here. Lies are false statements intentionally meant to mislead. I think people here are saying what they believe to be correct - even though it may be incorrect. Rather than respond with accusations of "lying," a factual, documented response would be helpful.

It is my impression that the Irish rebels executed after the Easter Rising, were charged with and executed for treason. But I haven't seen credible documentation of these charges, and that would be interesting to me.

It seems to me that treason as a political offense. Many times, those who are charged with treason are people who truly believe they are doing something for the good of their society. But yet treason and other political offenses seem to be the most common reason for capital punishment. We humans don't execute people for public safety - we execute for political expediency.

It seems to me that both the British and the Irish rebels executed good people for purely political reasons.

I think that's wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 May 16 - 04:15 PM

Joe, I know you are trying to pour oil and troubled waters but although we all often make mistakes I draw a line when someone deliberately lies and then continues to do so.

When one contributor claims from the rooftops that there are 3 criticisms of a book when in reality is in fact one criticism of a book, which that contributor then claims to be criticisms of that author works, it has to be pointed out.

If once pointed out that contributor had said Ooops my mistake, it would not have gone any further. However both you and I know said contributor will NEVER acknowledge they are in the wrong.

In one post that contributor actually libelled the author of the book in question. I would like to think the said author would take an action against the contributor and I've saved the offending posts just in case he does.

This one contributor is renowned for trying to "mislead" others. Some of us call that lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 16 - 05:55 PM

Yeah, but is Coogan alive or dead? That's the first thing we need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:18 PM

Hmmm. Just looked in on this thread thinking it would probably be best to stay out of it. My initial judgement is confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 May 16 - 07:34 PM

Sorry, Joe, but you really don't understand Keith, do you. It's a bit like when you've been reading and trusting your local paper for thirty years or so, then, one day, the paper reports something about you. It's inaccurate, it misquotes you and it misrepresents you in the extreme. After that, you can never again believe a word it says. Well that's how we are with Keith. My turning point, as if I needed one, was his gross misrepresentation of Geoffrey Wheatcroft. It just so happened that I'd read that Guardian article just before Keith misrepresented it so grossly. When I challenged him, he was unapologetic and would not admit to his glaring error, even in the face of the plain truth. Regrettably, but factually, that makes Keith a liar, Joe. Yes, there are liars on this forum. No need to be so nice about them. Having said all that, your post is otherwise reasonable and measured.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 16 - 12:14 AM

Yeah, but when all we hear is that some poster is a liar, we don't learn anything. Better to lay off the accusations, and use the "lies" (if that is what they are) as an opportunity to further explain the truth. Accusations of lying, are just not interesting. I wish Mr. Trump would learn that.

I'm still trying to sort all this out. I think people are pretty accurate when trying to present their perspective of an issue. However, there's something in human nature that makes us unable to present the other party's perspective with similar accuracy. My tendency is to side with the Irish rebels, but I know that rebels tend toward absolutism in their belief in their cause. I also know the British to be extremely decent people, not likely to oppress if they actually realize that they're being oppressive. But still, the British played a major part in the Highland Clearances in Scotland, and in the oppression of the Irish. So, I'm still trying to make sense out of all this.

I cringe every time I hear the "liar" accusation. I really respect Barack Obama, and I was shocked when a Congressman shouted out "liar" during Obama's State of the Union address a few years ago. And the Republicans (and even some Bernie Sanders supporters) have had a concerted effort to label Hillary Clinton as a liar - and I just can't believe them. So, if I hear the term "liar," I'd rather see refuting information instead of just the accusation.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:37 AM

Raggytash - 05 May 16 - 06:59 AM

Martial Law having been declared on the 25th April 1916 means that General Maxwell could do pretty much as he liked.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:51 AM

But does martial law justify tyranny, Teribus? political executions?

I think that in the eyes of the world, the execution of the Irish rebels of 1916, was just wrong. Britain simply had no need to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:57 AM

Thomas Kent - the whole story

(Tomás Ceannt in Irish)(1865 – 9 May 1916) was an Irish nationalist executed following a gunfight with the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) on 22 April 1916.
Kent was part of a prominent nationalist family who lived at Bawnard House, Castlelyons, County Cork. They were prepared to take part in the Easter Rising, but when the mobilization order was countermanded, they stayed home. The rising nevertheless went forward in Dublin, and the RIC was sent to arrest well-known sympathizers throughout the country including, but not limited to, known members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, Sinn Féin, and the Irish Volunteers. When the Kent residence was raided they were met with resistance from Thomas and his brothers Richard, David, and William. A gunfight lasted for four hours, in which an RIC officer, Head Constable William Rowe, was killed and David Kent was seriously wounded. Eventually the Kents were forced to surrender, although Richard made a last minute dash for freedom and was fatally wounded.

Thomas and William were tried by court martial on the charge of murdering Head Constable Rowe. William was acquitted, but Thomas was sentenced to death and executed by firing squad in, Cork on 9 May 1916. David Kent was brought to Dublin where he was charged with the same offence, found guilty and sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted and he was sentenced to five years penal servitude. Apart from the singular case of Roger Casement, Thomas Kent was the only person outside of Dublin to be executed for his role in the events of Easter Week. He is buried in the grounds of Collins Barracks, Cork (formerly Victoria Barracks).

So then Jom I can certainly see why even in 1916 without the imposition of Martial Law that all four of the Kent brothers would be charged and executed - killing a police officer in the execution of his duty would guarantee it - but they weren't were they?

David first wounded in the four hour long gunfight that they started, he was later tried, convicted, sentenced to death and then had his sentence commuted to five years penal servitude.

Richard shot and fatally wounded attempting to escape (,i.e. his own choice Jom - he knew precisely what risk he was taking)

William Kent was arrested, tried and acquitted

Thomas Kent who did kill Rowe was arrested, tried , convicted and executed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:06 AM

"You said all three were criticisms of the 1916 The Mornings After."

Don't think he did Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:58 AM

Hello Terrikins, where have you been. I've been hoping for a response to the three questions I put to you in my post that asked:

The pertinent question is "were they given a fair trial"

Some of the people conducting the trials has also been involved in suppressing the rising. This I believe is prohibited in the military manual.

So question 1. Is it prohibited in the Military Manual that an officer involved in an action cannot take part is any later legal proceedings. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

So question 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes then should these people have been debarred from being involved in the trials. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

General Maxwell took it upon himself to conduct the trials in secret and without a defence being allowed.

So question 3. Was this ruled illegal by Crown Law Officers, again a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 03:11 AM

Joe Offer - 06 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Well, the discussion, though heated, continues to be interesting. I don't think anybody is lying here. Lies are false statements intentionally meant to mislead. I think people here are saying what they believe to be correct - even though it may be incorrect. Rather than respond with accusations of "lying," a factual, documented response would be helpful.

Two posts on Thomas Kent Joe, one very sanitised post from Jim Carroll, and another providing far more detail from me. Are you familiar Joe with the expression lying by omission?

Jim's post seeks to give the impression that Kent was selected at random and killed for taking part in the rising even although he was not even in Dublin at the time. In doing this does he seek to mislead? I certainly think so.

My contribution details that Kent was executed for the shooting of a policeman in the execution of his duty.

To answer your earlier question and subsequent comment:

What tyranny? Had the men executed in 1916 done anything like that in the USA, while the USA was at war their feet would not have touched the ground on the way to death row and the execution chamber - the US has executed a man (Brown) for organising armed resistance to slavery and one man (Mumford) for simply tearing down the union flag during the civil war.

I personally, would have kept them all alive, especially those who signed the proclamation. I would have paraded them through every town, village, parish and school hall in Ireland exposing their lies and their treachery to their own followers and to the Irish people (who they most certainly did not represent - they even had to keep their intentions secret from their own organisations FFS!!).

To expose and provide proof to the world of the extent of their treacherous collusion with Germany between 1914 and 1916 would have let the Germans know that their naval codes had been broken. Tell me Joe how closely was ENIGMA guarded during the Second World War? How closely guarded a secret was the Manhattan Project? The USA and Great Britain would have done anything to keep those secrets from their enemies. Great Britain was in the same situation in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 04:43 AM

"The pertinent question is "were they given a fair trial"

Some of the people conducting the trials has also been involved in suppressing the rising. This I believe is prohibited in the military manual.

So question 1. Is it prohibited in the Military Manual that an officer involved in an action cannot take part is any later legal proceedings. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

So question 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes then should these people have been debarred from being involved in the trials. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

General Maxwell took it upon himself to conduct the trials in secret and without a defence being allowed.

So question 3. Was this ruled illegal by Crown Law Officers, again a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

To answer your questions in reverse order and acknowledging the fact that Martial Law had been declared on the 25th April and therefore taking into account that that significantly altered the circumstances to the extent that peacetime and civil rules are dispensed with:

3: No, and there was no such ruling, it was the opinion of some Crown Law Officers, the subsequent Royal Commission into the Easter Rising did not rule that the Courts Martial held after the rising were illegal.

2: No, if under the circumstance these are the only officers of suitable rank immediately available, and that holds good irrespective if martial law has been declared

1: No, see 2 above.

Your pertinent quest "were they given a fair trial"?

David Kent certainly received a fair trial (IMHO he should have been executed as an accessory to murder).

William Kent certainly received a fair trial - he was acquitted (IMHO he should have been executed as an accessory to murder).

90 people court-martialled and sentenced to death - only 15 sentences actually carried out - So yes IMHO considering what they were guilty of they received a fair trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:02 AM

Your opinion counts for naught.

You know that the answer to each of the question IN LAW (not your opinion) but IN LAW is yes, yes and yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:40 AM

If my opinion counts for naught Raggy why did you ask for it?

The answer IN LAW you say. Are you a legal expert? I somehow doubt it.

But it wasn't just IN LAW was it Raggy? It was UNDER MARTIAL LAW - by the way it was the fact that you have not picked up on the difference that leads me to suspect that you are NOT a legal expert.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:47 AM

I rarely call people liars, Joe, but when I do my reasoning for reaching that conclusion is always crystal clear. I spent many posts and a good deal of time refuting what Keith said about Wheatcroft and stating what was actually in the article. One can do no more.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 10:57 AM

Field General Court Martials can only be convened if it is not practical to try a case in another court (military or otherwise) They were only used if the accused was on active military service overseas.

Given that the rising was over this was not the case and the due process of law COULD and SHOULD have been followed.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 16 - 12:31 PM

And the Wheatcroft business is but one example of many.

If it walks like a duck........

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:55 PM

No Greg, that is the only example, and it there is no dishonesty in it.
Steve,
It just so happened that I'd read that Guardian article just before Keith misrepresented it so grossly.

And it just so happened that I had quoted the disputed passage in full, and provided a link to the whole article.

Rag,
When one contributor claims from the rooftops that there are 3 criticisms of a book when in reality is in fact one criticism of a book, which that contributor then claims to be criticisms of that author works, it has to be pointed out.

Your accusation about me is mistaken Rag.
Here is what I actually said,
"So three examples given of all the Irish historians who criticise his work."

I did not, and do not lie.

Jim,
"Jim's knowledge has been shown to be wrong"
Where and by whom

Jim, you denied that the Home Rule Act had been passed
I showed that you were wrong.

You also challenged the fact that the people supported British forces not the rebels.
I showed that you were wrong.

You have not put up a single historian to back your case,

yes I have.

you have refused to respond to and of the points made other than to repeat your inaccuracies.

If that is true, say what these points are and I will answer them.
I have asked you to do this many times.
What stops you Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:17 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:51 AM

But does martial law justify tyranny, Teribus? political executions?

I think that in the eyes of the world, the execution of the Irish rebels of 1916, was just wrong. Britain simply had no need to do that.

-Joe-
I agree Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:17 PM

Rag,
You said all three were criticisms of the 1916 The Mornings After.

I did not.
Here is what I actually said,
"So three examples given of all the Irish historians who criticise his work."

Jim,
You claimed,
"By the way - you said the Easter Rising was substantially covered by all books on WW1."

I did not say any such thing.

I said,
"Rag, it is true I do not read books on Irish history, but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising."

I stand by that.

I suggest that you all stop trying to smear me with false claims of lying and just discuss the issues.
Anything else to say about the rising, or are you desperate for any diversion from a difficult subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:20 PM

Agreed here also. It's so easy to defend actions because they were of their time. Or because they were just following the law, or just following orders. Where have we heard that one before...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:26 PM

Do you also condemn the execution of Irishmen by other Irishmen in the civil war, either by firing squads or just shooting prisoners out of hand.

"these men (Free State Army)showed no mercy in their dealings with anti-treaty forces. "They were far worse than the Black and Tans" asserts Dan. "They murdered nineteen republican prisoners at Ballyseedy Cross, Countess's Bridge and elsewhere in Kerry in three days. The Tans never did anything as bad as that", he says. "It was
very easy to get killed at that time", remembers Dan." "

Dan was an IRA volunteer.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:31 PM

Yes, I condemn all war crimes. Would that you did the same apropos of your Israel hobby horse. As in the other thread, I won't call you a hypocrite, but you do sound awfully like one at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 16 - 02:56 PM

Teribus says: What tyranny? Had the men executed in 1916 done anything like that in the USA, while the USA was at war their feet would not have touched the ground on the way to death row and the execution chamber - the US has executed a man (Brown) for organising armed resistance to slavery and one man (Mumford) for simply tearing down the union flag during the civil war.

Teribus, I have no doubt that the US has been one of the most tyrannical nations in the world, especially in its political use of capital punishment. Don't think that my being an American, implies that I have any support for capital punishment, armed civilians, or for the intolerance that is endemic in our society. And there is no doubt that the U.S. has a long and sordid history of imperialism that rivals that of the U.K.

And the fact that the US has long claimed a right to capital punishment, does not justify England doing the same. Both are wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 04:10 PM

Hmmmmmmmm Some pertinent posts seem to have been deleted I wonder why?

---

Don't see any recent posts deleted, Raggytash. Maybe they didn't "take"? I'm still authorized by Max to protect this thread from excessive moderation. If it's on topic, it's protected.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 04:47 PM

" I have no doubt that the US has been one of the most tyrannical nations in the world, especially in its political use of capital punishment."

At the same time Joe it has been the most steadfast supporters and defenders of freedom the world has ever known.

Now simple answer to a simple question, and from you Joe, unlike others on this forum I actually expect an honest reply:

There were two accounts posted regarding Thomas Kent - which account was the most complete whose was the most factually honest? Answer please you have sat on the fence for long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 16 - 04:52 PM

"Field General Court Martials can only be convened if it is not practical to try a case in another court (military or otherwise)"

Ah Raggy definitely not a legal expert then, so in future please do not lecture us on legal matters.

Field Courts-Martial are one thing.

General Courts-Martial are another thing entirely.

Now toddle off do some googling and then come back and tell us all the difference.

If you need a compass I'll lend you one.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 May 16 - 05:02 PM

I would suggest Terrikins that you do some reading I am correct in my post.

If you would like further reading try having a look at the following:

"Lastly, there was the Field General courts-martial, which could only be convened if the accused was on active service or was stationed overseas and it was therefore not practicable to try him in any other military court"

Given that other options were freely available after the surrender of the rising General Maxwell COULD and SHOULD have taken them.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 16 - 06:34 PM

"At the same time Joe it has been the most steadfast supporters and defenders of freedom the world has ever known."

Really? If only we could ask the tens of thousands of innocent civilians and their descendants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki what they think of the US support of their freedom. Or the people of Iran in 1953 as the US undermined the democratically-elected government in ruthless pursuit of its oil interests. Or the people of Guatemala who had a vicious dictator imposed by the US, resulting in a quarter of a million deaths. Or the people of Indonesia who were subjected to mass slaughter as the US provided aid to the right-wing military in their "communist purge." Or the people of Chile whose democratically-elected government was deposed by the CIA, resulting in decades of Pinochet's mass murder. Or the undermining for years of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, because they were inconveniently leftie, by the CIA. Or the propping up of military dictatorships in God knows how many countries, let's just mention Spain, Portugal and Egypt. Or nearly pitching us into WW3 with extra nuclear teeth, or making us live in fear of Armageddon for three decades. Not to speak of their unconditional military support for Israel, the most belligerent nation on earth, in their mistreatment and repression of Palestinians. Unconditional? Sure. In the land of the free, any president or other politician who briefs against Israel is toast, as they are if they dare brief against the gun lobby or the multinationals. Yeah, defenders of freedom. Very limited freedom in sight, democracy turned into a laughing stock. I mean, what planet are you actually on?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 16 - 08:58 PM

I tend to agree with Steve Shaw, although I might have a more moderate tone....

Teribus asks for my solid opinion about the Thomas Kent arrest and execution. The Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) raided the Kent home on 22 April 1916, after the Easter Rising. I think it's clear that Thomas Kent had good reason to believe that he would be apprehended and executed. In the course of this event, Kent killed an officer of the RIC; and he was subsequently charged with murder and executed.

Teribus, if the RIC had not raided Kent's home, no RIC officers would have been killed. One the raid happened, Kent had every reason to believe that his own death was inevitable...and history proved that to be correct. Sorry, but I can't place any blame on Thomas Kent.

On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that by 1916, the English were the "bad guys." In many ways, it seems that they got stuck between a rock and a hard place, and would much rather not have been involved in this situation at all. However, it appears to me that the local British commanders tended toward extremism, and they got the British into a situation where the British didn't really want to be.

And thus the tragedy.

Raggytash complained above about "pertinent posts" being deleted. I have a link that allows me to look at all the messages in a thread, including the deleted ones. I did that, and spent half an hour reviewing every deleted message. The only messages that were deleted, were the one that made no mention of the Easter Rising (posts like the ones from Steve Shaw and Greg F and HiLo and Dave the Gnome that were only meant to goad on the nastiness, without saying anything about the subject at hand). I did undelete one post from ollaimh. It was a little crazy, but it was on topic. Otherwise, the only messages in this thread that were deleted, were ones that had nothing at all to do with the Easter Rising.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 16 - 01:41 AM

Just to second Joe's observation above that "I tend to agree with Steve Shaw, although I might have a more moderate tone..."

Don't always agree with Steve, but he seems to have nailed the main points in this instance. The US are our friends and allies, to be sure; but they do have a lamentable tendency to overreact and bully.

≈M≈

Though would add that "Israel, the most belligerent nation on earth" may be a bit hyperbolical. I am sure one could think of a few worthier candidates for the title (N Korea? Argentina? some entities of sub-Saharan Africa?), even tho I agree that "their mistreatment and repression of Palestinians" is indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 16 - 02:36 AM

"The Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) raided the Kent home on 22 April 1916, after the Easter Rising. I think it's clear that Thomas Kent had good reason to believe that he would be apprehended and executed."

If only the British had acted as advised by the Naval Intelligence on the 22nd April 1916 and rounded up all the leaders then there would have been no rising. But the date of the raid was the 2nd May wasn't it Joe? And the number of executions carried out of those held after the surrender on the 29th April by the 2nd of May 1916 numbered ZERO.

So tell me Joe why would Thomas Kent and his brothers have good reason to believe that that they would be apprehended and executed? Could it possibly be that they knew that as part of the reception committee for the German arms that were supposed to have been landed from the Aud they were guilty of treason?

In the USA Joe if an armed uprising occurred and it was thwarted are you honestly trying to tell us that the intelligence and law enforcement agencies would NOT raid the houses of known conspirators and supporters? The RIC had very good reason to raid the Kent house.

"One the raid happened, Kent had every reason to believe that his own death was inevitable...and history proved that to be correct. Sorry, but I can't place any blame on Thomas Kent."

1: The gun-fight that occurred was started by the four Kent brothers, their choice, the choice taken had consequences that the Kent brothers must have known. If you shoot at police officers they are most certainly going to shoot back - The fault here was entirely on the part of the Kent brothers NOT the RIC

2: The "inevitability of death" line that you have stated. Of the four Kent brothers, one died as a result of wounds received in a gun battle that they initiated - entirely his own fault, NOT that of the RIC, another attempted to escape after having surrendered - again entirely his own fault. Of the remaining two the person who shot and killed Rowe was tried, found guilty and executed and the other was tried and acquitted. The round up and arrest of members and supporters of the IRB and IVF from all over Ireland numbered 3,509 Joe - ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent was executed and he was executed not for offences under the Treason Act but for the murder of a police officer, a charge he was undoubtedly guilty of. I'd blame Thomas Kent entirely.

Now simple answer to a simple question, as you dodged it before Joe:

There were two accounts posted regarding Thomas Kent - which account was the most complete and whose was the most factually honest? Answer please?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 16 - 02:58 AM

"Lastly, there was the Field General courts-martial, which could only be convened if the accused was on active service or was stationed overseas and it was therefore not practicable to try him in any other military court" - An apparent quote from somewhere cut-n-pasted by Raggy - who expects it to be taken as gospel. Unfortunately Raggy:

1: No such animal as a Field General Courts-Martial.

2: You have a Field Court-Martial whose sentencing powers are limited with fewer officers sitting.

3: Then you have a General Court-Martial which is the highest court in the armed forces

Given that other options were freely available after the surrender of the rising General Maxwell COULD and SHOULD have taken them.

Care to tell us all just exactly how General Maxwell KNEW that the rising was definitely over in the week to ten days after the 30th April Raggy. Were there IRB and IVF units still at large elsewhere in Ireland at this time? 20x20 hindsight is a great thing isn't it Raggy, unfortunately it is not available at the time when things are happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 03:04 AM

I suppose the main protagonists unconditionally surrendering and being in custody was a bit of a clue Terrikins even to someone such as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 May 16 - 03:19 AM

Although it is not my responsibilty Iwould like to apologise to the irish for the behaviour of the british during the easter rising, and the subsequent later behaviour of the black and tans.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 04:03 AM

I think for me that could be extended back to 1170AD

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 16 - 04:10 AM

You wear your "victimhood" like a shroud Raggy - enjoy.

GSS - meaningless apologies assuage nothing, it does not alter anything one iota.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 04:19 AM

Au contraire.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 May 16 - 06:37 AM

Teribus says: There were two accounts posted regarding Thomas Kent - which account was the most complete and whose was the most factually honest? Answer please?

Joe's answer: I found your account and said what I thought about it. It seemed to be factual, with a pro-British slant. And it was interesting. I didn't find the other account. It must be in there someplace, mixed in with all the accusations from both sides that people are lying, but I didn't see it. And frankly, I don't have any reason to want to compare posts from two people. I read your post as you asked me to.

You people are really going to have to stop trying to prove each other to be liars. In the sport of boxing, they call it "infighting," boxing closer to an opponent than at arm's length. When a boxing match gets to that point, the referee has to break it up because the fight is going nowhere.

I don't really have a dog in this race. I'm interested in the subject and I want to learn about it. I want to know all perspectives, and I'm quite sure there was right and wrong on both sides of the issue. Since my favorite grandmother was Irish, I have been told since I was young that the British had no business being in Ireland, ever. My other grandmother was French Canadian. She didn't have an opinion on the matter.

But, despite my ancestral inclinations I AM open to hearing people who can come up with an explanation why it would be proper for the English to have a presence in Ireland. It would be interesting to hear such an explanation.

I'm still inclined to think that the Easter Rising was a tactical error on the part of the Irish rebels. It appears to me that Home Rule had been approved by Parliament, and was soon to become a reality. If that was the case, what sense did it make to organize this "Rising" that cost the Irish the lives of so many of their own people? Maybe somebody answered that question, and maybe it got lost amidst all the accusations of lying.

And on the other side, why did the British, who seemed to have the upper hand at the time, feel compelled to execute the rebels and make martyrs of them? That action, whether justified by law or not, made the British look like the cruel tyrants that they did not want to appear to be. So, again, another deadly tactical error that I just can't understand.

These are the things I want to learn in this thread. I really don't want to see all these accusations of lying, and these frantic searches to prove somebody said something two days ago and is saying something different now. All these silly accusations are what turn our threads into battlefields, and they are incredibly petty.

I have worked hard to keep this thread open, mostly by insisting that messages stay on topic. But if you people are going to keep up the lying accusations for another day, I'm going to have to close it, and I won't allow another discussion on the Easter Rising until I'm sure the current battle has calmed down.

Thank you.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 May 16 - 06:48 AM

Oh, and Teribus, you said: The round up and arrest of members and supporters of the IRB and IVF from all over Ireland numbered 3,509 Joe - ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent was executed and he was executed not for offences under the Treason Act but for the murder of a police officer, a charge he was undoubtedly guilty of. I'd blame Thomas Kent entirely.


What about the 15 who were executed by firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol between 3 and 12 May? I don't understand why they don't fit into your count. Weren't they just as dead as Kent was?

And wouldn't Kent have known that the others had been arrested and were likely to be executed?

In the court of world opinion, Britain would have gained much, if it had only refrained from executing these people. Instead, it created martyrs and lost its case completely.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 16 - 06:55 AM

Michael, Argentina, to my knowledge, merely tried to take back some small islands that we once took from them, and North Korea, for all its talk, does not attack other sovereign territories. Just thought I'd mention it. Not on-topic, but it did pop up and it's still running. No goading, just sayin'...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 07:06 AM

One of the ongoing problems is the "misinformation" that is often cited. For instance one poster suggested that Tim Pat Coogans book "1916 The Mornings After" had only sold just over 8,000 copies. What they omitted to say was that the book had been in print for a little over 2 months when the figures were compiled. They also omitted to say the Diarmaid Ferriters book (A Nation Not A Rabble)on the same subject had sold just 1,711 copies having been published some 8 months prior to Coogans and I suggest they may have got their figures from a article on Independent IE the headline of which read "COOGAN BLOWS FERRITER AWAY IN EXPLOSION OF 1916 BOOKS"

They also omitted to say there had been an ongoing feud between the two writers dating back to (I think) 1993.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 16 - 12:44 PM

That was me Rag.
You referred to Coogan's book as a "best seller" as if one of the reviewers had so described it.
I have always described Coogan's work as populist. It outsells the work of actual, academic hisrorians mainly by appealing to anti British prejudice.

The figure of 8000 was given in the review, which also said that sales of all 1916 books had been disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 16 - 12:56 PM

Joe,
In the court of world opinion, Britain would have gained much, if it had only refrained from executing these people. Instead, it created martyrs and lost its case completely.

I agree.
It brought the Irish people to finally side with the rebels.

Perhaps the British should have foreseen that and politicians intervened sooner to stop it, but consider the context.
Britain, including Ireland was in a terrible war and suffering casualties on an historically unprecedented scale.
Irish volunteers included.

Not an excuse bout an explanation.
What explanation is there for the executions of the civil war?
In what sense do the rebels have the moral high ground?

why it would be proper for the English to have a presence in Ireland.

Why is it proper for Scotland and France to be part of the UK?
It has just come down through history in that way, and will change as soon as the people of Wales and Scotland want it to.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 02:04 PM

"It outsells the work of actual, academic hisrorians mainly by appealing to anti British prejudice" (PS your error in the spelling)

Considering you haven't read either "1916 The Mornings After" or "A Nation Not a Rabble" would you care to justify that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 02:08 PM

"why it would be proper for the English to have a presence in Ireland.
Why is it proper for Scotland and France to be part of the UK?
It has just come down through history in that way, and will change as soon as the people of Wales and Scotland want it to"

The people of Ireland had wanted change for over a hundred years. Read some history ..............PLEASE!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 02:14 PM

Oh incidentally I made no reference to a named poster. However someone always wants to be the centre of attention. ME ! ME ! ME!

Is it any wonder that some people get p****d off with this.

You will note, HOPEFULLY, that again I didn't mention a name.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 May 16 - 03:07 PM

I too, Steve, do not wish to perpetuate this drift unreasonably. But feel bound to ask which/whose "sovereign territory" do you claim Israel to have attacked? Any territories they may have attacked that I can call to mind (tho their military activities are mainly arguably defensive) are of disputed sovereignty: so is not calling them "sovereign territories" under attack a fine example of the fallacy of petitio principii, commonly called 'begging the question' — "providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise" - Wikipedia?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 May 16 - 03:12 PM

The Queen acknowledged the "sad and regrettable" mistakes of Britain's troubled relationship with Ireland as she made one of the most important speeches of her reign in Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 May 16 - 03:13 PM

Hello Michael, Nice to hear from you. Was this the wrong thread perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 16 - 07:56 PM

Michael, to be brief. Sinai and Gaza (Egypt), Golan Heights (Syria), West Bank (Jordan), Lebanon.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 08 May 16 - 07:58 PM

Here goes. I've recently read two books on the courts martial, and they complement each other.

"The Secret Court Martial Records of the Easter Rising" by Brian Barton, published by The History Press, ISBN 978 0 7509 5063 3
gives a good historical account of each court martial in turn, with plenty of narrative detail on the events leading up to it.

Easter Rising 1969 - The Trials, by Seán Enright, published by Merrion, ISBN 978-1-908928-37-5, gives a more summary historical account but focuses more closely on the legality (or otherwise) of the trials and executions.

Enright qualified as a barrister (attorney) in both the UK and Ireland and is now a circuit judge. From his book it is clear that the legal process was very shoddy and designed to ensure that "the ringleaders" could be shot with some aura of legality. In spite of requests for the court records, the British Government concluded that they were on such shaky legal ground that publishing them would be an embarrassment. The government files on the courts martial and executions were kept secret far beyond the normal period, and in some cases documents were removed from them.

There were also inconsistencies in how some 90 death sentences in all were executed or commuted - in a nutshell, the earlier you were tried, the more likely you were to be shot. None of the officers sitting as judges had any legal knowledge or experience, and the officer sent as legal advisor on Maxwell's staff was an admiralty barrister (a specialist in commercial shipping lawsuits, not military or criminal law), a second lieutenant commissioned just a few months previously and not on the Judge Advocate General's staff. The defendants were denied legal representation, and it was left to the prosecuting officer (a barrister who served in uniform during the Rising as he was a member of Trinity College Officer Training Corps) to help some of them prepare their defence in the few minutes he had with them before the trial. The requirement to have the proceedings and sentences reviewed by the Judge Advocate General was ignored.

By way of comparison, four British soldiers were charged with murder for their actions during the Rising: they were given legal assistance and tried by full General Court Martial with the protection of a Judge Advocate.

Regarding the Cork Kent family, no evidence was offered as to who fired the fatal shot. William was apparently acquitted because an RIC officer gave him a good character reference at the trial.

For the record, Enright consistently uses the term Field General Court Martial or its abbreviation FGCM.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:52 AM

Rag, your unnamed poster,For instance one poster suggested that Tim Pat Coogans book "1916 The Mornings After" had only sold just over 8,000 copies.

I was the only poster who did that, so of course you meant me.
Spelling.
You know I can spell "historian."
I typed "hisrorian."
Note on a standard keyboard R and T are together.
It was just a typo.

You desperation to get something on me is making you look ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 02:22 AM

The poster doesn't actually matter the contents of the post do.

In 10 months Ferriters book sold 1,711 copies or 171 a month. Coogans book sold 8,000 in two months thus 2,000 per month a difference of some 2,300 percent, or 23 books to every one of Ferriters.

Taking this into account AND the long running feud between the two writers it is unlikely that Ferriter wrote a reasonable critique of his rival.

In fact Ferriters review was called "the bitchiest review of the year" on Politics.ie.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 02:44 AM

An Pluiméir Ceolmhar - 08 May 16 - 07:58 PM

Thanks for your post, but three points:

1: Enright does not appear to have taken the declaration of martial law into account. Nor does he seem to have taken into account that there was a war going on at the time which undoubtedly put a strain on what the military may have, or may not have, been able to do under normal peacetime conditions.

2: There is no such thing as a Field General Court Martial and to state the blindingly obvious just because someone consistently uses a term or an acronym does not make it correct. There are major differences between a Field Court Martial and a General Court Martial, he apparently even noticed them himself according to your cut-n-paste.

3: " None of the officers sitting as judges had any legal knowledge or experience," - Cannot for the life of me understand why a qualified and experienced barrister and Circuit Judge would comment on that, as that remains to be the case to this day at any Court-martial. After all I would not expect anyone who knows anything about the Irish or British legal system to comment as follows:

" None of the people sitting as members of the jury had any legal knowledge or experience,"

The Officers or NCOs who make up the panel (number varies between three and seven - look up differences between a Field Court Martial and a General Court Martial) do NOT sit as Judges that role is taken by the Presiding Officer of the Court-Martial or the Judge Advocate General. The person acting on behalf of the accused is known as "The accused's friend" and even in my day that, nine times out of ten, was the accused's Divisional Officer or one of his friends who was prepared to act on his behalf (No legal training required), if you had the sense to do so you, as accused, could personally elect to engage the services of a civilian barrister who was familiar with military law ( A good QC normally would run circles round the duty naval prosecutor), there are law firms who specialise in this area.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 02:51 AM

The person acting on behalf of the accused is known as "The accused's friend" and even in my day that, nine times out of ten, was the accused's Divisional Officer or one of his friends who was prepared to act on his behalf (No legal training required), if you had the sense to do so you, as accused, could personally elect to engage the services of a civilian barrister who was familiar with military law ( A good QC normally would run circles round the duty naval prosecutor), there are law firms who specialise in this area.

You may remember Terrikins that the leaders were not allowed a defence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:07 AM

Teribus, even the pillar of the uk establishment, Queen liz 2, has apologised to Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:11 AM

Joe's answer: I found your account and said what I thought about it. It seemed to be factual, with a pro-British slant. And it was interesting. I didn't find the other account.

You probably didn't look very hard for it – try

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 05 May 16 - 08:12 AM

An additional point has to be answered is the fact that those chosen for execution and imprisonment were often selected randomly by officers who had never seen those particular rebels, but judged them to be culpable on the spot.
At least one of those executed had not taken part in the Rebellion and was not even in Dublin.
"Thomas Kent: Born in 1865, Kent was arrested at his home in Castlelyons, Co. Cork following a raid by the Royal Irish Constabulary on 22 April 1916, during which his brother Richard was fatally wounded. It had been his intention to travel to Dublin to participate in the Rising, but when the mobilisation order for the Irish Volunteers was cancelled on Easter Sunday he assumed that the Rising had been postponed, leading him to stay at home. He was executed at Cork Detention Barracks on 9 May 1916 following a court martial. In 1966 the railway station in Cork was renamed Kent Station in his honour.
Jim Carroll

Notice any glaring omissions in that account Joe? You did state the following didn't you:

Joe Offer - PM
Date: 06 May 16 - 01:17 PM

Well, the discussion, though heated, continues to be interesting. I don't think anybody is lying here. Lies are false statements intentionally meant to mislead. I think people here are saying what they believe to be correct - even though it may be incorrect. Rather than respond with accusations of "lying," a factual, documented response would be helpful.

If the above post was not written and deliberately presented to mislead then nothing could be.

Now this:

Teribus - PM
Date: 07 May 16 - 01:57 AM

Thomas Kent - the whole story

(Tomás Ceannt in Irish)(1865 – 9 May 1916) was an Irish nationalist executed following a gunfight with the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) on 22 April 1916.
Kent was part of a prominent nationalist family who lived at Bawnard House, Castlelyons, County Cork. They were prepared to take part in the Easter Rising, but when the mobilization order was countermanded, they stayed home. The rising nevertheless went forward in Dublin, and the RIC was members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, Sinn Féin, and the Irish Volunteers. When the Kent residence was raided they were met with resistance from Thomas and his brothers Richard, David, and William. A gunfight lasted for four hours, in which an RIC officer, Head Constable William Rowe, was killed and David Kent was seriously wounded. Eventually the Kents were forced to surrender, although Richard made a last minute dash for freedom and was fatally wounded.

Thomas and William were tried by court martial on the charge of murdering Head Constable Rowe. William was acquitted, but Thomas was sentenced to death and executed by firing squad in, Cork on 9 May 1916. David Kent was brought to Dublin where he was charged with the same offence, found guilty and sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted and he was sentenced to five years penal servitude. Apart from the singular case of Roger Casement, Thomas Kent was the only person outside of Dublin to be executed for his role in the events of Easter Week. He is buried in the grounds of Collins Barracks, Cork (formerly Victoria Barracks).

Now oddly enough Joe I can see nothing pro-British bias at all in the above post of mine and I would be very surprised if whoever it was in the Ancient Order of Hibernians Division 61 of Philadelphia who compiled their list of "Noteables from the Easter Rising" could either.

Honest question – which of the two accounts is more factually accurate – in answering please leave your own prejudices and preconceptions at the door if you actually want what you stated on the 06 May 16 - 01:17 PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:19 AM

Teribus, how are you sure that there is no such thing as a "Field General Court Martial? If that's so, then that would tend to discredit the information furnished by An Pluiméir Ceolmhar. Information that uses such an uninformed term, must certainly be of limited credibility itself.

The UK National Archives makes extensive use of the term "Field General Court Martial" in a section that provides records of courts martial.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/courts-martial-desertion-british-army-17th-20th-centuries/

That being the case, it tends to turn a tables just a tad, doesn't it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:27 AM

Another pertinent point Joe is that FGCM were only to be used if recourse to another court was unavailable. That was not the case after the rising had failed and the leaders had unconditionally surrendered.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:47 AM

Joe Offer - PM
Date: 08 May 16 - 06:48 AM

Oh, and Teribus, you said: The round up and arrest of members and supporters of the IRB and IVF from all over Ireland numbered 3,509 Joe - ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent was executed and he was executed not for offences under the Treason Act but for the murder of a police officer, a charge he was undoubtedly guilty of. I'd blame Thomas Kent entirely.

You seem to be a little confused Joe, Out of the 1,800-odd people arrested and detained in the aftermath of the Easter Rising ONLY 90 people were sentenced to death and of those ONLY 15 IN TOTAL were executed - 15 people WERE NOT executed at Kilmainham between 3rd and 12th May, if you had bothered to look up and count them you would find that only 14 people were executed at Kilmainham. Kent was executed in Cork where he was arrested, tried and convicted for the shooting of William Rowe.

Sir Roger Casement was executed in the Tower of London and his death does not appear along with the others as he was arrested before the rising.


What about the 15 who were executed by firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol between 3 and 12 May? I don't understand why they don't fit into your count. Weren't they just as dead as Kent was?

No Joe they were all as alive as Kent was on the 2nd May. I will stand by my statement that from the thousands of people rounded up and arrested from various places outside Dublin in the aftermath of the rising ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent - was executed and he was executed for killing William Rowe an act that he was guilty of and an act that he performed entirely of his own volition

And wouldn't Kent have known that the others had been arrested and were likely to be executed?

By the 2nd May the Kent brothers would have known the following:

1: That the Aud, the ship carrying the German arms that should have been landed at Cork on the 22nd April that their group would have had to have transported to safety and stored had failed to get through.

2: They may possibly have heard about Casement's capture and arrest.

3: They would have known of the Rising and they would have received the order given from Dublin to stand down and not support the actions being taken in Dublin (The order that ensured that the rising would fail as Pearse wanted it to, and the order that betrayed every single man who fought for the nationalist cause in Dublin that Easter).

4: They would have known that the rising had failed.

5: They would have little or no knowledge relating to who had been killed or captured in the fighting in Dublin. They could have no idea what the intentions of the British would be on the morning of the 2nd May.

Had they simply surrendered on the 2nd May, 1916 all four of the Kent brothers would have lived - after all up until that point they had done nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:54 AM

"Teribus, even the pillar of the uk establishment, Queen liz 2, has apologised to Ireland"

So has T. Blair and a whole host of others including yourself GSS - What good has it done you, them or anybody else for that matter - the old hatreds are still there unforgiven and the old myths are still trotted out.

The apologies are like wetting your pants whilst wearing a dark blue suit - it momentarily gives you a nice warm feeling but nobody takes the slightest notice and ultimately leaves you feeling rather foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 04:11 AM

Thank you Joe - 09 May 16 - 03:19 AM - On FGCM I STAND CORRECTED with regard to the existence of the term - but still correct as the link you provided states on the differences in what I called a General Court-Martial and a Field Court-Martial. I can also honestly say that neither in training or during my time in the armed forces did I ever hear the term used, even with my own brush with the system which never actually made it through the door (the preceding investigation found no case to answer).

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 04:13 AM

"the old hatreds are still there unforgiven"

You know Teribus I visit Ireland on a regular basis and I have received nothing but kindness, generosity and wonderful hospitality. I could write books about the kindness and generosity. I have enough stories to fill at least two. On more than one occasion a licensee has cooked a meal for 10 of us and refused to take any money, I've had free Guinness all night on so many occasions I've lost count. I've been given paintings on two occasions.

However the most important thing I've been given is the time and friendship of some very wonderful people.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 16 - 04:24 AM

I think I'll let Teribus and Raggytash quibble about minutiae. for a while. You guys don't seem to be seeing the forest for the trees.

Teribus, my source said 15 were executed at Kilmainham Gaol. Your source says 14. My point was that you said over and over again that Kent was the ONLY ONE (your caps) executed, neglecting the 14 or 15 at Kilmainham.

I've asked several times what charges were made against those executed at Kilmainham. Somebody ranted about the charges not being treason, but they didn't say what the charges were. They seemed to think it was important that the charges were not treason, so I asked. Either I didn't get an answer, or the answer got lost amidst the silly accusations of lying. And really, I don't think it IS particularly important what the Kilmainham people were charged with, or what the charge was against Kent. The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead.

And that being the case, Teribus, I see no defect in the presentation of the Kent incident by Jim Carroll. Jim's account was brief, and not garbled by unimportant factoids.

And all of this goes to prove my initial contention: that there are certain things in this event that are factual, certain things that can vary according to the reporter's perception, and many things that are just a matter of opinion that can cover a very broad spectrum. I think we all could benefit by considering this matter more broadly, understanding that there can be many different but entirely valid perspectives.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 09 May 16 - 05:23 AM

14 at Kilmainham, Kent in Cork, Casement in England.

May 3rd 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Pádraic Pearse
Thomas Clarke
Thomas MacDonagh

May 4th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Joseph Plunkett
Edward Daly
Michael O'Hanrahan
Willie Pearse

May 5th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
John MacBride

May 8th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Eamonn Ceantt
Michael Mallin
Sean Heuston
Con Colbert

May 9th 1916        Cork Detention Barracks        
Thomas Kent

May 12th 1916        Kilmainham Gaol        
Seán MacDiarmada
James Connolly

August 3rd 1916        Pentonville Prison, London        
Sir Roger Casement

Treason was one of the charges in the drumhead court martials. The video here should contain a reading including the charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 May 16 - 05:42 AM

"The apologies are like wetting your pants whilst wearing a dark blue suit - it momentarily gives you a nice warm feeling but nobody takes the slightest notice and ultimately leaves you feeling rather foolish."
can we discuss facts, not your philosophy.
the fact of the matter is that a lot of irish people welcomed the apology from the queen,I live in Ireland and saw it and heard the reaction, it does make a difference it helps to bring the two nations closer and brings two nations a little closer.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:25 AM

" the old hatreds are still there unforgiven and the old myths are still trotted out."

On this forum Raggy - On this forum.

See you stayed true to your preconceptions Joe.

As far as this goes

I did not say - "that Kent was the ONLY ONE (your caps) executed" - did I Joe? Your contention was that Kent could have been excused his actions because he thought he was going to die anyway. I pointed out the following factual truths:

1: On the 2nd of May the day the Kent brothers decided to start a gun battle with the police NOBODY had been executed.

2: What I actually did say was as follows:

"One the raid happened, Kent had every reason to believe that his own death was inevitable...and history proved that to be correct. Sorry, but I can't place any blame on Thomas Kent." - Joe Offer

1: The gun-fight that occurred was started by the four Kent brothers, their choice, the choice taken had consequences that the Kent brothers must have known. If you shoot at police officers they are most certainly going to shoot back - The fault here was entirely on the part of the Kent brothers NOT the RIC

2: The "inevitability of death" line that you have stated. Of the four Kent brothers, one died as a result of wounds received in a gun battle that they initiated - entirely his own fault, NOT that of the RIC, another attempted to escape after having surrendered - again entirely his own fault. Of the remaining two the person who shot and killed Rowe was tried, found guilty and executed and the other was tried and acquitted. The round up and arrest of members and supporters of the IRB and IVF from all over Ireland numbered 3,509 Joe - ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent was executed and he was executed not for offences under the Treason Act but for the murder of a police officer, a charge he was undoubtedly guilty of. I'd blame Thomas Kent entirely.

I further went on to clarify:

"You seem to be a little confused Joe, Out of the 1,800-odd people arrested and detained in the aftermath of the Easter Rising ONLY 90 people were sentenced to death and of those ONLY 15 IN TOTAL were executed - 15 people WERE NOT executed at Kilmainham between 3rd and 12th May, if you had bothered to look up and count them you would find that only 14 people were executed at Kilmainham. Kent was executed in Cork where he was arrested, tried and convicted for the shooting of William Rowe."

And further clarified in the same post:

" I will stand by my statement that from the thousands of people rounded up and arrested from various places outside Dublin in the aftermath of the rising ONLY ONE - Thomas Kent - was executed and he was executed for killing William Rowe an act that he was guilty of and an act that he performed entirely of his own volition".

You have been told what the charges were for the 14 men executed at Kilmainham. You have been told what Thomas Kent was charged with, tried and executed. So why do you say that you have not been told.

Now for someone who says that they seek statement accompanied by fact I find this gem of yours absolutely hilarious:

"I've asked several times what charges were made against those executed at Kilmainham. Somebody ranted about the charges not being treason, but they didn't say what the charges were. They seemed to think it was important that the charges were not treason, so I asked. Either I didn't get an answer, or the answer got lost amidst the silly accusations of lying. And really, I don't think it IS particularly important what the Kilmainham people were charged with, or what the charge was against Kent. The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead.

And that being the case, Teribus, I see no defect in the presentation of the Kent incident by Jim Carroll. Jim's account was brief, and not garbled by unimportant factoids.

And all of this goes to prove my initial contention: that there are certain things in this event that are factual, certain things that can vary according to the reporter's perception, and many things that are just a matter of opinion that can cover a very broad spectrum.

Joe Offer unimportant factoid #1:
The 14 who were executed at Kilmainham were tried for offences detailed under the Treason Act. Kent on the otherhand was charged with the killing of William Rowe.

Joe Offer unimportant factoid #2:
Jim Carroll sought to present the arrest of Thomas Kent as a random act against someone who was innocent. Yet you Joe state - "I see no defect in the presentation of the Kent incident by Jim Carroll" - you mean apart from the fact that Thomas Kent killed a police officer in the performance of his duty - Not worth mentioning Joe? To paraphrase John McEnroe "Are you serious?" Are you really that biased?

By the way was your source that said that 15 men had been executed at Kilmainham Wikipedia?

"Ninety were sentenced to death. Fifteen of those (including all seven signatories of the Proclamation) had their sentences confirmed by Maxwell and were executed by firing squad at Kilmainham Gaol between 3 and 12 May. Among them was the seriously wounded Connolly, who was shot while tied to a chair because of his shattered ankle. Maxwell stated that only the "ringleaders" and those proven to have committed "coldblooded murder" would be executed. However, the evidence presented was weak, and some of those executed were not leaders and did not kill anyone: Willie Pearse described himself as "a personal attaché to my brother, Patrick Pearse"; John MacBride had not even been aware of the Rising until it began, but had fought against the British in the Boer War fifteen years before; Thomas Kent did not come out at all—he was executed for the killing of a police officer during the raid on his house the week after the Rising. The most prominent leader to escape execution was Éamon de Valera, Commandant of the 3rd Battalion, who did so partly because of his American birth.[133]

Most of the executions took place over a nine-day period:
3 May: Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and Thomas Clarke
4 May: Joseph Plunkett, William Pearse, Edward Daly and Michael O'Hanrahan
5 May: John MacBride
8 May: Éamonn Ceannt, Michael Mallin, Seán Heuston and Con Colbert
12 May: James Connolly and Sean MacDiarmada

Count the names Joe then add on the fact that Kent was executed in Cork.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:43 AM

Do I get an apology as Joe has. When I mentioned a FGCM I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.

What was it you posted:

"An apparent quote from somewhere cut-n-pasted by Raggy - who expects it to be taken as gospel. Unfortunately Raggy:

1: No such animal as a Field General Courts-Martial"

Now it appears there is such a thing as a FGCM.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:46 AM

"I don't think it IS particularly important what the Kilmainham people were charged with, or what the charge was against Kent. The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead."

You might not think it was important - basically I couldn't care less.

But for someone who states that in the interests of informative debate he wants the true facts backed up you personally have got some neck to come out with the following:

"The fact of the matter is that they were executed for some aspect of their participation in the Easter Rising, and they ended up dead."

It has been stated ad nauseum that Thomas Kent played no part in the Easter Rising so he could hardly be described as being a participant. The offence for which Thomas Kent was tried and executed for had absolutely nothing to do with the Easter Rising it occurred two days after all fighting in Dublin had ended. It occurred because for reasons best known to themselves that Thomas Kent along with his three brothers decided to start a gun battle with the police who had been sent to arrest them. On the 2nd May, 1916 the Kent brothers could have no possible idea for certain why the police arrived to raid their house. One thing they would have known for certain would be that it could have nothing to do with their participation in the events up in Dublin because they had after all obeyed the order to stand down and had not gone up to Dublin from Cork something that would have been easily established and verified.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:48 AM

My apologies Raggy I stand corrected

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 07:52 AM

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:07 PM

"You might not think it was important - basically I couldn't care less."
And it shows
For the rest of us it matters a great deal that Britain specify what reason they give for taking lives - natural justice, if nothing else
They broke their own rules and in a civilised society these executions would have been ruled mass murder because of the convenient way they took place this pait of clowns have yet to acknowledge that the 'trials' (for the want of a better word) were rigged.   
Have been away to the 1916 project in Galway and missed bullshitting and evasion - will catch up later.
Meanwhile - I intended to post this before I laft but the site was down.

I think it's about time we gave a little context to this argument and perhaps either moved it on or put a stop to it (which seems to be Keith's objective).
Keith made his position quite clear on Ireland some time ago - he stated he knows nothing of the subject, has never read anything on it and has no intention of doing so as it doesn't interest him.
Fine – no problem there; we all have subjects on which we know nothing and have no interest – but we do not attempt to flood and dominatesubjects with our ignorance and disinterest as Keith has on this and on other threads.
It seems to me an act of monumental trolling spite to behave in such a way on a subject on which many of us do have an interest and do possess a modicum of knowledge.
I'd like to make my own position quite clear.
I am not an Irish republican or nationalist (I'm not even Irish), in fact nationalism when misused and overstated disturbs me greatly.
I have always believed and stated that the partitioning of any country leads to ongoing strife, repression and bloodshed – plenty of examples in the world to confirm that.
I come from an Irish family background – both of my parents' families were famine refugees in the middle of the 19th century – that part of Ireland's history is part of my heritage and has been a subject that has interested me for most of my life.
My father's sister and her family lived in Derry up to the 1950s, when, along with their Catholic neighbours, they were driven out by Anti-Catholic rioters who burned their home down and forced them to leave carrying what possessions they could, my aunt pushing her baby son, my cousin, in a pushchair – they eventually settled in Dublin and spent time in Liverpool, where I got to know them well.
Last year a neighbour here in Clare gave me a book containing a large chapter on an uncle whose father was a hunger striker along with Thomas Ashe in 1918 and became one of Michael Collin's agents during the Irish War of Independence – (my neighbour spotted my father's name in the chapter as having fought in Spain).
My uncle and Aunt Nora were political activists for the betterment of Ireland and argued and campaigned for its reunification all their lives – two of my aunts were members of Cumann na mBan – I'm enormously proud of many of my family members and what I believe to be their dedication to justice and equality.
None of this gives me any special knowledge; I have never been a political activist – my 'thing' has always been song, music and folklore, but it means I don't have to scurry around the internet to root out arguments for what I believe to be fact – all this was part of my 70-odd years long life and personal experience – I certainly don't need to be told by a self-inflicted, self-declared, disinterested ignoramous that I "find this subject hard".
I am not claiming that I am automatically "right" about anything, but I do believe that my background and my interest suggests the possibility that I might just know a little about what I am talking about and am not "gullible and mislead by propaganda".
This individual has already told another member of this thread, an Irish friend of mine, who I know to have actively researched this subject in depth and is part of 'The 1916 Song Project', that he is a gullible no-nothing who has been mislead by propaganda – he has in essence told the whole of the Irish people who are noted for their interest in their own history and are on a daily basis being made aware of the subject of this discussion by researchers, historians and experts, exactly the same – there has been no outcry and accusations of "propaganda" and "brainwashing" in our national press, though there has been some very thought-provoking discussion, in the form of articles and letters.
Had this come from someone who had researched the subject, even from the other side of the argument and come to a different conclusion than ours, it might have been acceptable, even interesting and educational – it isn't; it's simply blindly arrogant and insulting and it really does need to stop now.
I don't expect him to admit to his behaviour, nor do I expect him to apologise to those he has insulted in the way he has and continues to do, but I do expect him to live up to his declared disinterest and desist.
It is against the entire spirit of this forum that someone who boasts of his ignorance and disinterest should be allowed to ruin threads, this isn't the first time this has happened – two threads on the Irish famine were deliberately spoiled by disinterest and ignorance in exactly the same manner – it was on one of these that he first admitted his disinterest.
This discussion isn't the exchange of ideas and opinions that I believe makes this Forum the enjoyable and educational place that I know it can be – it's simple fillibusting sabotage.
There is plenty more to be said and learned on this subject – I appeal to those who have no interest in it to leave it to those who wish to gain from it and give to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:30 PM

1916 documents on executions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 01:37 PM

"The offence for which Thomas Kent was tried and executed for had absolutely nothing to do with the Easter Rising "
"Most legal observers would have looked at this as a case of ordinary murder, but the British were out for blood and indicted Kent with the same charge that they were charging the Dublin rebels with: "Did an act to wit did take part in an armed rebellion and in the waging of war against His Majesty the King, such act being of such a nature as to be calculated to be prejudicial to the Defence to the Realm and being done with the intention and for the purpose of assisting the enemy.""
Thomas Kent charges
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 May 16 - 02:32 PM

Jim: Re your post of 01.07pm

Thank you, for a reasoned and measured post.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:08 PM

Jim,
Keith made his position quite clear on Ireland some time ago - he stated he knows nothing of the subject, has never read anything on it and has no intention of doing so as it doesn't interest him.

In spite of all that, you have been unable to fault my knowledge of the rising, while I have been able to fault yours on major issues Jim!

I have not insulted anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:30 PM

"Because of confusion about orders and the loss of the Aud's cargo of guns, Kent did not go out to fight at Easter."

What confusion about orders? Those conned into fighting up in Dublin were deliberately fed lies and set up as sacrificial lambs by Pearse and Connelly. While they told the Volunteers in Dublin that the whole country was rising and that reinforcements would come, they were telling the IRB and IVF elsewhere to stand down and those were the orders that Kent and the others obeyed, those were the orders that guaranteed the defeat of those fighting in Dublin.

"On May 2 at 3:45 a.m. seven members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), under the command of Head Constable Rowe, came to arrest Kent and his brothers William, David and Richard. Told to come out, the Kent brothers supposedly responded: "We will not surrender. We will leave some of you dead." In the ensuing gunplay Constable Rowe was hit in the head by gunfire and died instantly. "

Now that just simply does not square up with Kent's testimony at his trial does it.

"Kent's statement: "On May 2, 1916 during the night I was awakened by the sound of firearms and I immediately went into my mother's room, where my brother William was. They were standing on the bed in the corner of the room. I immediately went into the corner where they were, where the three of us remains till the military officers arrived when we immediately surrendered. I never fired or had arms in my hand."

"I was awakened by the sound of firearms" !!!– highly unlikely, just who or what the hell would the RIC be shooting at? If Kent did not shoot Rowe who did? There was a gun-battle and a stand-off that lasted for four hours – how could that be possible if indeed – Thomas Kent, "never fired or had arms in my hand." If they had no arms how on earth were they ever going to leave "some of you dead"?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:30 PM

"Because of confusion about orders and the loss of the Aud's cargo of guns, Kent did not go out to fight at Easter."

What confusion about orders? Those conned into fighting up in Dublin were deliberately fed lies and set up as sacrificial lambs by Pearse and Connelly. While they told the Volunteers in Dublin that the whole country was rising and that reinforcements would come, they were telling the IRB and IVF elsewhere to stand down and those were the orders that Kent and the others obeyed, those were the orders that guaranteed the defeat of those fighting in Dublin.

"On May 2 at 3:45 a.m. seven members of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), under the command of Head Constable Rowe, came to arrest Kent and his brothers William, David and Richard. Told to come out, the Kent brothers supposedly responded: "We will not surrender. We will leave some of you dead." In the ensuing gunplay Constable Rowe was hit in the head by gunfire and died instantly. "

Now that just simply does not square up with Kent's testimony at his trial does it.

"Kent's statement: "On May 2, 1916 during the night I was awakened by the sound of firearms and I immediately went into my mother's room, where my brother William was. They were standing on the bed in the corner of the room. I immediately went into the corner where they were, where the three of us remains till the military officers arrived when we immediately surrendered. I never fired or had arms in my hand."

"I was awakened by the sound of firearms" !!!– highly unlikely, just who or what the hell would the RIC be shooting at? If Kent did not shoot Rowe who did? There was a gun-battle and a stand-off that lasted for four hours – how could that be possible if indeed – Thomas Kent, "never fired or had arms in my hand." If they had no arms how on earth were they ever going to leave "some of you dead"?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:32 PM

"If the above post was not written and deliberately presented to mislead then nothing could be."
Kent was implicated with The Rising because, when arrested, he was found to be unarmed and so, could not be charged with murder - he was fitted up with taking part in a Rebellion he was not even present at - an act of revenge.
He was not a signatory, yet he was executed as a leader.
No lies.
"Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?"
Those who gave them weapons - nobody has ever accused the Irish of siding with Germany except you pair
Russia was in exactly the same position shortly after - nobody has ever accused them of being German allies either.
Maxwell instigated the executions - The British Crown court declared the proceedings illegal in the manner they were carried out.
Half way through the executions Redmond appealed to Parliament to stop them as they were doing more harm than good to the cause of Empire - Asquith refused and in doing so made the Executions acts of murder by the British Parliament rather than military executions.
"It appears to me that Home Rule had been approved by Parliament, and was soon to become a reality. If that was the case, what sense did it make to organize this "Rising""
Joe,
Some time between the Home Rule Bill being approved and July 1916, when it was re-introduced into Parliament, it was secretly altered by The British Government to accommodate the Loyalists, therefore making it invalid.
The Republicans had always opposed partition in any form and did not trust Britain to honour the "temporary" nature of its inclusion even as a temporary measure.
The details of the Bill were to be settled sometime after the War ended But Britain went ahead and partitioned Ireland without consent of the signatories.
That is why the Bill was never a reality in a completed form.
The altered form was forced through after the War of Independence, using a threat of war and blackmailing one of the signatories, Michael Collins.
That butcered treaty has been responsoble of every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now.
"Thank you, for a reasoned and measured post."
While we were having a drink following the 1916 Song Project Concert on Saturday in Galway, a relative stranger who I had met briefly at Limerick Uni came over and said, "why the feck are you treating that pair of bollixes seriously - they're a pair of no-nothing gobshites.
I tend to agree with her.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 16 - 03:42 PM

"If Kent did not shoot Rowe who did?"
"but the British were out for blood and indicted Kent with the same charge that they were charging the Dublin rebels with: "Did an act to wit did take part in an armed rebellion and in the waging of war against His Majesty the King, such act being of such a nature as to be calculated to be prejudicial to the Defence to the Realm and being done with the intention and for the purpose of assisting the enemy.""
This is how Kent was tried - you've been given the link
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 09 May 16 - 05:09 PM

Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe. Germany had sent arms in the Aud (pretty terrible guns, but guns nevertheless), and did shell England's east coast a little bit during the Rising.
Germany was Ireland's ally in the Rising, just as France (then an enemy of the English colonisers) was America's ally in the American Revolution. Washington was using an enemy of his country's enemy in exactly the same way that Pearse was; if the English had won, Washington et al would have been executed on exactly the same charges and with exactly the same drumhead court martial as happened in 1916.
And I'm sure that the people here who feel aggrieved at Ireland winning independence through a revolution to throw off a British occupation feel exactly the same about the previous American revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 01:26 AM

"Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe"
No it wasn't - Germany supplied arms to Ireland in the same way they allowed Lenin to cross Germany from Switzerland in a sealed train - it suited them to do so and that is the extent of co-operation between Germany and both those countries.
In neither case did either Russia nor Ireland co-operate with Germany in their war effort and nobody has ever been able to prove that they did.
Germany was an Imperial country fighting an Imperial war - Ireland was fighting to free itself from any Empire and Imperialism was an anathema to the Russian revolutionaries.
The Rebels at no time supported the German cause - the Home Rulers in Parliament actually supported Britain's war effort and many Irish people were recruited onto Britain's side, mainly as a way of earning a living.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:42 AM

Teribus, you have stated more than once that the Ceannt Brothers opened fire first. Could you provide the source of that information.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:51 AM

Many rebels did support the German cause — remember, this was Britain, the largest and most brutal empire in history, attempting to destroy the much smaller Ottoman empire, and Germany's first feeble attempt to have its own navy. This was an economic war, with the capitalists of Britain, then the world's dominant capitalist state, using mass murder to suppress competition.

Many Irishmen joined the British Army; their reasons varied:

1) Unionists joined because they had always been part of and supported Britain's capitalism.

2) Irish Volunteers joined because John Redmond, head of the Home Rule party, the Irish Parliamentary Party, reasoned (without any evidence) that if Nationalists and Unionists fought side by side, any hostility between them would be over after the war, and the Unionists would then want Irish independence. He pledged Irish Volunteer troops to Britain in the UK parliament; he then, in a speech in Woodenbridge, Co Wicklow, made the case for Irish Volunteers to join the British Army, and they did in their thousands, poor fools.

3) The very poor, including farm labourers and especially the workingmen of inner-city Dublin, joined the British Army because it was the only way they could support their families. The 'separation allowance' paid to their wives or mothers was far more than they could earn otherwise.

4) In every war there are some poor eejits who join up because it'll be fun; often these are young teenagers pretending to be older than their stated age.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:55 AM

By the way, I knew a song from Frongoch when I was a child, sung to the tune of Molly Malone with the chorus of "Sinn Féiners, pro-Germans, alive, alive-o".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:23 AM

"Many rebels did support the German cause"
If this is the case, I would like to learn how they did.
I wouldn't have thought they would have gained as much support as they did from the Irish people so close on the heels of the sinking of the Lusitania.
I totally agree with you about the reasons Irishmen joined the British army - pretty well for the same ones Englishmen did.
The article I put up earlier from Queens Uni. Belfast sums up the reasons pretty accurately.
Jim Carroll

The standard, public reason for joining up was the moral purpose of the war. At the time it was widely seen as a kind of crusade against 'Prussian militarism'. Tom Kettle, an Irish nationalist who had actually been in Belgium buying guns for the nationalist paramilitary Irish Volunteers, argued that men went because the cause was a just one. It was, said Kettle, the cause of small nations threatened by large ones, of Belgium and Serbia, which Germany and Austria had outraged, and Britain and her allies had taken up. This made it right for Ireland to fight on England's side, especially since England had (at last) granted Home Rule for Ireland. Kettle himself joined up and died on the Somme in September 1916.
Home Rule had been the aspiration of Irish nationalists for fifty years and, finally, in 1914 it appeared that the deed was done. On 18 September 1914 the third Irish Home Rule Bill became law, although its operation was suspended for the duration of the war. No-one (at least on the nationalist side) thought that this would be for very long, but the passage of the legislation was crucial for John Redmond, the leader of the Irish nationalist movement. On 20 September he made a celebrated speech at Woodenbridge, county Wicklow, in which he said that 'the interests of Ireland, of the whole of Ireland, are at stake in this war'. He drew out the high moral purpose of the struggle against the Germans and Prussian militarism: 'This war is undertaken in defence of the highest interests of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country, a reproach to her manhood, and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland [note the allusion here to 1848 and the traditions of Irish nationalism] confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which have distinguished their race all through its history'. Stirring words indeed, and words which clearly found a response among many young Irishmen.
But high patriotic duty was not the only possible reason why men might join up. Another factor was a simply desire for adventure. For many at home the war offered excitement and the chance of glorious opportunity. Tom Barry, later to become a leader of the IRA in Cork, enlisted in June 1915. Seventeen years old, he said he 'had decided to see what this Great War was like … I went to the war for no other reason than that I wanted to see what war was like, to get a gun, to see new countries and to feel like a grown man'. This was nearly a year after the war had started, and provides some evidence that the recruiting rush of the early days does not tell the whole story.
And if Irish nationalists were responding to their 'patriotic duty' as articulated by John Redmond, so Irish unionists, too, in Ulster and elsewhere, also joined up for patriotic reasons. Having pledged their loyalty to the Crown and the link with Great Britain, they could hardly stand back when the 'Mother Country' was in its hour of need. 'We do not seek to purchase terms by selling our patriotism', said Carson. 'England's difficulty is our difficulty.'
There were also economic motives for joining up, as there always had been. Service in the army, after all, was a steady job, and one with a pension at the end. Even in wartime, with the heightened risks of military service, many men were undoubtedly attracted by the rates of pay which the military offered (and the family allowances which accompanied them). The August 1914 rush to the colours was also boosted by the fact that across Ulster many factories laid men off, or put them on short time, when war broke out because of uncertainties in the economic situation. Irish linen mills specialised in the quality end of the market—fine table and bed-linen, high quality shirting and so on—just the sort of products which people might stop buying (as they did) because there 'was a war on'. Export markets in continental Europe and the USA were disrupted. Thus, just at the moment when there was a stirring and insistent call for troops, many workers were put out of a job, evidently making enlistment more attractive than might otherwise have been the case.
Nor were these the only possible motives for joining up. Some men enlisted through family tradition, for others it was merely a kind of emigration, though one which was not necessarily so permanent as going to America. Looking especially at big urban centres like Belfast, it is also evident that many men joined up in groups, with 'peer pressure' carrying them into the army with friends and work mates. By one account, Francis Ledwidge, the poet from Slane (and a socialist and nationalist), enlisted 'on the rebound' from being rejected by a sweetheart. Whether true or not, it adds another possibility to the wide range of motivations to joining up.
Looking at the recruiting figures, and taking into account the many possible reasons behind enlistment, it is impossible facilely or glibly to generalise about these fellows, about who they were or why they joined up. No single or simple explanation will do, and in many cases it must have been a combination of factors. Patriotic feeling might have been significant but not in itself sufficient to impel a man to enlist. Yet combine it with uncertain prospects at work and the urging of a next-door neighbour—'Come on, John, it'll be great crack'—and the lure might be irresistible. What, in any case, we can say about these men—who were both 'ordinary' and extraordinary at the same time— is that they became victims of circumstances well beyond their control.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:30 AM

Kent was implicated with The Rising because, when arrested, he was found to be unarmed and so, could not be charged with murder - he was fitted up with taking part in a Rebellion he was not even present at - an act of revenge.
He was not a signatory, yet he was executed as a leader.

So there was NO gun battle on the morning of the 2nd May 1916 at the Kent's house – strange that because that morning three men were shot, one, the first to die was a police officer who was killed outright (Suicide was it Jim? – I mean if the Kent brothers had no weapons how on earth did William Rowe die? I take it that you are aware that he did die, or was that all a fit up too, perhaps William Rowe wasn't dead at all but very much alive and they huckled him away to a quiet retirement bungalow in Bognor to live out his days?), the second died of wounds received during a gun battle that didn't take place and the third was shot attempting to escape after he had surrendered.

The raid was initially carried out by seven police officers, who having mysteriously come under fire from four men who according to Jom had no guns, requested assistance from the Army. The soldiers arrive on the scene and I would just love to know how the police managed to convince the soldiers that their presence was required to subdue four unarmed men (Maybe there was a gifted comedian and ventriloquist among the policemen present, you know like that character in Police Academy who could make a noise like a machine gun and that is what convinced the troops to hang around)

Now as to fitting up goes the link that Carroll gave is written from one perspective, one that Jom believes in its entirety. But as soldiers were present and if there was a gun battle, and I believe that there was (Only explanation for Rowe's death), and that gun battle and stand-off lasted four hours, which it did, then the Kent brothers must have fired on both Police officers and on the soldiers present.

15 executed, only seven signed the proclamation, the other eight were leaders of contingents who had fired on policemen and soldiers in Dublin and in Cork. Why was Thomas Kent executed and why was his brother acquitted? My guess is that Thomas Kent did a deal to save his brothers life.

""Who exactly were their "Gallant Allies" in Europe mentioned in the Proclamation Jom?"
Those who gave them weapons - nobody has ever accused the Irish of siding with Germany except you pair"

Really Jom? What about Sir Roger Casement's "Irish Report" requesting that German troops be landed in Ireland to assist in driving the British out? The German High Command rejected it as totally impracticable as they could not get that sort of assistance past the British Naval blockade.

"Russia was in exactly the same position shortly after - nobody has ever accused them of being German allies either."

Laughable notion, the revolution had already started and the Tsar had abdicated BEFORE Lenin started to organise his return to Russia from Switzerland. Casement and the leadership of the IRB and IVF waited until after the war had started, then elected to collude with the enemy.

"Some time between the Home Rule Bill being approved and July 1916, when it was re-introduced into Parliament, it was secretly altered by The British Government to accommodate the Loyalists, therefore making it invalid.
The Republicans had always opposed partition in any form and did not trust Britain to honour the "temporary" nature of its inclusion even as a temporary measure.
The details of the Bill were to be settled sometime after the War ended But Britain went ahead and partitioned Ireland without consent of the signatories.
That is why the Bill was never a reality in a completed form.
The altered form was forced through after the War of Independence, using a threat of war and blackmailing one of the signatories, Michael Collins.
That butcered treaty has been responsoble of every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now."

Sorry Jom but can you please give us the date when the already passed Irish Home Rule Bill was re-introduced into Parliament? I ask as that would be a first in Parliamentary Procedure and would require another Act of Parliament having to have been overthrown. As always you demonstrate a remarkable ignorance of British Parliamentary procedure, of how things are done and of what can and what cannot be done.

I also like your definition of self-determination inferred in the above. You seem to advocate self-determination on a highly selective basis, self-determination for some but not for others – how quaint. Trouble was you had two sides in Ireland who were diametrically opposed and neither appeared to be prepared to compromise. Your "men of the gun" in Easter 1916 ended all hope of any compromise ever being reached, they guaranteed the civil war at the end of the war of independence and their idiotic territorial claim, now thankfully moderated and rationalised, was been the cause of " every singly drop of blood spilled between then and now.". Thankfully however as a result of the GFA and the All Ireland referendum that followed it, the "men of the gun" have been told by the Irish people both North and South of the border that the gun, bomb and violence have no place in Irish politics and must not be used again - sort of blows all claims of their "mandate from the people" right out of the water, even going back to Easter 1916 it never existed in the first place.

The Easter Rising did nothing to accomplish what it's leaders wanted, in fact it hindered it, now one hundred years on there is still no signs of there ever being a united Ireland - unless such a union is desired by the people of Northern Ireland (Exactly as was the case in 1914). The greatest shame of the period was that there was no General Election in 1915, had there been one the IPP would have had the landslide victory in Ireland, the "men of the gun" would have been consigned to history, and some sort of compromised would have been worked out - the Easter Rising killed all chance of that ever happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:44 AM

Teribus, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 is quite different from the Home Rule Act of 1914 (also called the Government of Ireland Act).

Whether you think the Easter Rising was a success for its leaders' plans depends on what you understand as those leaders' intentions.

The main intention was to gain Ireland a place in the Peace Conference that would follow the war, and press for independence from our long forcible colonisation through that. The second intention was to arouse national spirit so that independence would be gained.

Britain (and America) blocked Irish representation to that Peace Conference.

The War of Independence, and especially the mass disengagement from all British government and civil service, and the construction of a parallel Irish system of government, and the landslide win for independence in the 1918 general election made independence inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 03:55 AM

"Britain, the largest and most brutal empire in history,

Really Thompson? Were that indeed the case could you now please explain the creation and existence of the voluntary organisation that used to be called The British Commonwealth of Nations, now known throughout the world as The Commonwealth, the second largest international organisation in the world after the United Nations itself. There are countries that have joined it who have never had any historical link to the UK - strange that for rulers who were as brutal as you claim isn't it.

attempting to destroy the much smaller Ottoman empire,

Really Thompson? Great Britain was dragged into the First World War by the German invasion of Belgium, Great Britain declaring war on the Central Powers on 4th August, 1914 - hold that date in mind Thompson:

"The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers through the secret Ottoman-German Alliance, which was signed on 2 August 1914. The main objective of the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus was the recovery of its territories that had been lost during the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78, in particular Artvin, Ardahan, Kars, and the port of Batum. Success in this region would force the Russians to divert troops from the Polish and Galician fronts"


and Germany's first feeble attempt to have its own navy.

The "Naval Race" as it was known was all done and dusted by 1912 Thompson - what ended it? The simple fact that British yards had proven conclusively that no matter what Germany did the British could always out-build them.

"This was an economic war, with the capitalists of Britain, then the world's dominant capitalist state, using mass murder to suppress competition."

Really?? I thought that it was a war of empires, Germany and the Ottomans wishing to increase the size of theirs, the Russians, British and Austro-Hungarians trying to preserve theirs. Be fascinated to read about the examples you no doubt will put forward to back up (As Joe Offer wishes) your statement about Great Britain "using mass murder to suppress competition."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:03 AM

"So there was NO gun battle on the morning of the 2nd May 1916 at the Kent's house"
This is more of your bullshit Terrytoon - there is no way you can possibly claim to know what Kent was executed for - as usual, you are making it up as you have every other 'fact' you have refused to and are continuing to substantiate.
These are the known facts of Kent's secret trial.
Once again, it shows the mealy-mouthed dishonesty of the British Government, making your claim that Maxwell had overall say in the executions utterly ridiculous.

"Kent was one of 16 men executed in between 3 and 12 May, yet the trials of none were open to the press or public. This secrecy bred suspicion which in turn gave rise to questions in both parliament and the press. On 11 May 1916, two days after Kent's death by firing squad, Prime Minister Herbert Asquith informed the House of Commons that he had been 'executed – most properly executed as everybody will admit – for murder'. But not everybody thought it proper. Four days later in the same chamber, William O'Brien addressed the Chief Secretary of Ireland and told him that Thomas Kent's family were 'respectable people' and would suffer more from 'the accusation of murder against him even than from his execution'. What's more, he pressed for the publication of the evidence given at Kent's court martial. O'Brien repeated the call to publish the evidence against Kent on 18 May as did Irish nationalist MP Laurence Ginnell on 4 July. In responding to Ginnell, Herbert Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'. This was, of course, a travesty of the truth as whatever about Thomas Kent's political convictions or his behaviour on the night of the RIC came knocking on the door of his family home (and the nobody could identify the person who had actually fired the shot that killed Head Constable Rowe), he had most certainly not partaken in the Easter Rising; rather he, like thousands of others, had become swept up in the repressive wave to which it gave rise."
Thomas Kent

You have systematically made up 'fact' after 'fact' throughout all your arguments - you have provided no evidence to your claims - you never do, and you belligerently invent claims that not even the British establishment have never made and try to bluff and bully them through.
"Jom but can you please give us the date when the already passed Irish Home Rule Bill was re-introduced into Parliament?"
The Bill was raised again in doctored form in July 1916 and was rejected by the Redmondites as "a betrayal".
You have been linked to this information earlier.
You continually hide behind "procedure" and "rule books" to claim that what happened couldn't have - yet it did.
The British courts - not the Irish - condemned the manner in which the trials were carried out as illegal - the random selection of those to be 'tried', the fact that they were chosen by involved parties who were part of the decision to carry out the executions, the fact that the men were not allowed to give evidence on their own behalf or have legal representation - all this was not only immoral - it was downright illegal and it was said to be so.
Your entire offering here has been all your own work - it has never appeared in any history book, British or Irish, much of the events remain locked away and the British establishment have never made the claims you are making - about anything.
It is all your own work - again!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:06 AM

Someone - Joe Offer I think - asked what brought the British to Ireland in the first place.

That is easily answered, but get the players correct to begin with.

1: It wasn't the British, or the Saxons, it was the Normans in the 12th century.

2: They were invited to Ireland by a disgruntled and disposed Irish King in order to help him regain his Kingdom, a kingdom that had been taken from him by the High King of Ireland.

3: The Normans then did to Ireland what they had done on the British mainland about 100 years earlier. Same sort of thing that the Americans did to the native population - they took their land by force - that most certainly was they way things were done back in medieval times, should I apologise for it? Hell no, as it had absolutely nothing to do with me - All water that has long since flowed under the bridge.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:13 AM

Home Rule Bill.
"Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader, Carson, a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced into a self-governing Ireland. His tactic was to see that neither side would find out before a compromise was implemented.[13] A modified Act of 1914 had been drawn up by the Cabinet on 17 June. The Act had two amendments enforced by Unionists on 19 July – permanent exclusion and a reduction of Ireland's representation in the Commons. When informed by Lloyd George on 22 July 1916, Redmond accused the government of treachery. This was decisive in sealing the future fortunes of the Home Rule movement. Asquith made a second attempt to implement Home Rule in 1917, with the calling of the Irish Convention chaired by Horace Plunkett. This consisted of Nationalist and Unionist representatives who, by April 1918, only succeeded in agreeing a report with an 'understanding' on recommendations for the establishment of self-government."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:43 AM

Ah Jom so the Irish Home Rule Bill did not come back before Parliament in June/July or at anytime back in 1916 - what happened was that Lloyd George and Redmond had a chat about it. Only those on the Republican side had the right to self-determination did they Jom? How egalitarian.

Thompson the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 was delayed at six month intervals throughout the course of the Great War and after during the War of Independence. That latter war caused the 1914 Bill to be repealed and the Government of Ireland Act 1920 brought in to replace it.

The Act was intended to establish separate Home Rule institutions within two new subdivisions of Ireland: the six north-eastern counties were to form "Northern Ireland", while the larger part of the country was to form "Southern Ireland". Both areas of Ireland were to continue as a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and provision was made for their future reunification under common Home Rule institutions.

Home Rule never took effect in Southern Ireland, due to the Irish War of Independence, which resulted instead in the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the establishment in 1922 of the Irish Free State."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:00 AM

There's a bit of a difference between the Normans and the 'British'.

A king of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough, was deprived of his lands by the High King, Rory O'Connor, because he had abducted Dervogilla, wife of the king of Breifne. In classic schoolyard manner, he called in a bigger bully - a bunch of Norsemen settled in Wales - to take his side. They took his side and his land and everyone else's land, and built a string of castles across Ireland. The Norsemen/Normans had a bigger bully still, the English Normans, and they agreed to make Ireland subservient to them.

(These 12th-century Normans were the descendants of the 8th-century Norsemen who had harried the coasts of Ireland and Britain.)

These Irish-settled Normans then rapidly began speaking Irish, dressing in Irish clothes, marrying Irishwomen, playing Irish games, eating the Irish diet (based on raw — ewww! — vegetables, soured-milk products like yogurts and cheeses, oatmeal bread, lots of fish, etc), using the Irish system of name and surname, and generally behaving in an Irish manner.

Fast-forward to the 16th century, and Britain is in the throes of a Protestant revolution — enormous amounts of land being stolen from monasteries to enrich the Tudor 'kings', the social welfare system of those monasteries being dismantled, statues being smashed, etc. So far, so ISIS.

It is now that the real invasion of Ireland happened.

These Tudor boyos decided, Burglar Bill-style, that they liked Ireland. "That's a nice country. I'll have that." They proceeded to spread the invasion from its former enclave in the east of the country and, using famine as a deliberate weapon, to remove the Normans' descendants (known as the 'Old English') and the Gaelic Irish, and steal their land. The south, west and north of the country were utterly devastated. Some Norman-descended quislings, notably the Butlers, helped in this, hoping to ladle in to themselves some of the spoils.

(At this stage, it was illegal for any Irish person to enter Dublin without a pass issued by the British-run Dublin government; the penalty for doing so was death.)

A couple of generations later, another Protestant ISIS type, Oliver Cromwell, invaded; he tasked William Petty with surveying all Catholic-owned land in Ireland with a view to stealing it, and then did so; he attempted to remove all Catholics to Connacht, but the farmers brought in from England and lowland Scotland could not farm the land, and the former owners often returned as illegal, insecure and impoverished tenants.

This colony continued into the 18th century — maintaining many laws under which Catholics could not practise the professions, teach school, own land, carry arms, own good horses, foster orphans, hold public office, serve in the British Army, marry a Protestant, inheritant Protestant land, etc. Catholics and 'Dissenters' (Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc) had to pay one-tenth of their income to support the Protestant Church of Ireland.

The Act of Union of 1801 (secured by massive bribery of the Protestant-only parliament in Dublin, which was then repaid to the British exchequer through Irish taxes) closed down that Dublin parliament and removed the rule of Ireland altogether to London. The removal of this 'Union' and the return of the government of Ireland to the people of Ireland was the main focus of Irish political life throughout the 19th century. It was from this that the Irish Parliamentary Party and Gladstone's plan for Home Rule came about.

Home Rule was not independence; it was a very limited devolution, in which all decisions of the Irish parliament would have been subject to a veto by the British-imposed Lord Lieutenant.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:10 AM

"Jim, of course Germany was Ireland's gallant ally in Europe"
No it wasn't -

The rebels said they were.
Why should we believe you over the rebels themselves Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:54 AM

"The rebels said they were."
And they did nothing other than accept the weapons - do you have any evidence that they did - no - thought not??
" what happened was that Lloyd George and Redmond had a chat about it. "
It was invalid because it had been unilaterally altered to appease the Unionists by permanently Ireland - very egalitarian.
Redmond's "chat" was to reject the doctored version as "a betrayal" - as the Rebels always knew would happen. or something of the sort
Asquith made an effort to reintroduce it in 1917 but by then even the Redmondites would not associate themselves with it - British dishonesty had put paid to that.
Home rule never too effect because it was dead in the water long before The Civil War which took place as a result of the stitched-up version being forced through at gunpoint.
I take it we're now agreed on the Kent trial, though I don't expect you to acknowledge that fact in a million years
Do you not realise how stupid your making up 'facts' then doing a runner when they are shot down in flames makes you look?
Obviously not.
Stop making things up and arrogantly presenting them as fact.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Thompson - 10 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Very lazy and one-sided synopsis

No mention of overtures made by self-serving Irish Nobles hoping to claw their way to the top of the pile by selling "their" country out to either the Spanish or the French - The Catholic Church didn't mind, as long as the Protestant English were kicked out.

The other thing you omitted - when the Normans came to Ireland the High King of Ireland swore an oath of fealty to King Henry II - that still held good at the time of Henry VIII.

Besides none of that matters Thompson I answered Joe Offers original question - what were the British doing in Ireland. All the rest - water under the bridge - now irrelevant except to those looking to stir up trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:27 AM

Sorry Thompson, I forgot this bit - That ISIS Cromwell chap you mentioned, if you do a bit of checking up on him you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English, Welsh or the Scots. Scotland, Ireland and parts of England were ripe stamping grounds for Royalist supporters ever keen to reignite the flames of rebellion and civil war - he put all down equally ruthlessly.

Again in today's world his actions are totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:31 AM

It might be water under the bridge to you but to the people of Ireland it is their history for good or ill. Do you really expect them to say that it doesn't matter.

For over 700 years the British (in various guises) trampled over the people for their own ends. The native population suffered at the hands of the British (in various guises) and to compound the matter some idiot on a folk forum tells them it's all water under the bridge.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:45 AM

" you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English"
Utter bloody nonsense
He did not carry out wholesale massacres of entire towns, such as Drogheda, or Wexford" or the Protestants of Ulster floooews by the razing of entire towns and the destruction of crops; he didn't drive entire populations off their land to "Hell or Norfolk" as he did "To Hell or Connaught"
Is there no limit to your invention?
Take it we're finished with your colourfully creative history of Home Rule as well??
Still no links to your claims??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:52 AM

"Why should we believe you over the rebels themselves Jim?"
By the way Keith - you don't have to "believe" anything I say, you just have to produce examples of how the Rebels actually supported the Germans rather than pay lip-service to it to get guns.
The Rebellion was an Anti Imperialist Revolt - Germany was an Imperial power - speaks for itself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:58 AM

Rag, the Irish people considered it water under the bridge.
They did not want a rising in 1916.
210 000 volunteered to fight for Britain in WW1.
Just twenty years after the tans, when Britain seemed to have no hope but to go down fighting, they volunteered to save her again despite the ban on leaving the country, some even deserting the Irish Army.

Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but the number of 'new travel permits', identity cards and passports issued to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8 per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state, except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible population.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:00 AM

Source last quote,
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-forgotten-volunteers-of-world-war-ii/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:33 AM

"They did not want a rising in 1916."
Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916 as soon as Britain revealed what an appalling load of shit they were and that there was no hope whatever of obtaining Independence in any other way - repeating this piece of misinformation just confirms your dishonesty
Irish people always wanted Independence from Britain - Britain's "traitorous" behavior was n indication that even the limited aims of 'Home Rule would never be honoured so within months the call went out for full Independence - **** the Free State.
Forcing The Free State was the final straw.
By then, even the Free Staters wanted no part of a partitioned Ireland and belived it could be a temporary thing.
If you have been honest in what you';ve said and are genuinely ignorant and disinterested in the history of Ireland, where are you getting this and why are you persisting in it?
Who the hell are you to claim that you know more than the Irish people
This is no more than open dishonest trolling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:48 AM

Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916

Not before, not during, and not after the rising.
Only the executions brought them onside, so nothing the rebels said or did.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:50 AM

"the Irish people considered it water under the bridge"

Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject. Over 20 new books were published last year alone. The country has been awash with memorial dedications to the fallen. Art, Literature, drama, music have all paid homage over the last few months to say nothing of the Government involvement. Last week and this there are ceremonies each day at Kilmainham Jail to remember those executed. In 2015 Thomas Ceannts remains were given a state funeral reinterred in Cork at a ceremony attended by the President Michael D Higgins and the Taoiseach Enda Kelly. Ask Jim how many programmes on the TV and radio have been given over to it.

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 07:57 AM

"Not before, not during, and not after the rising."
Within weeks of the Rising - show that this is not the case Keith
I ask again Keith - If you have been honest in what you';ve said and are genuinely ignorant and disinterested in the history of Ireland, where are you getting this and why are you persisting in it?
Who the hell are you to claim that you know more than the Irish people
This is no more than open dishonest trolling.
What the hell is Ireland celebrating at the present time.
If they did not support the Rising they have never ever supported Britain's behaviour towards the Rising since - not ever.
You haven't even been able to come up with one of your "historians" who have - not one.
Do you still believe Irish people to be gullible and fooled by propaganda and her children brainwashed to hate Britain as you have claimed?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:32 AM

I've mentioned this before, but up to recently there have been few books dealing specifically withe the Easter Rising - a few books of essays at the time of the 50th anniversary in 1966, but very little before that or since.
While we were in Galway over the weekend we went into Charlie Byrne's Bookshop to find a virtual landslide of well-researched books on the subject, from the actual events in Dublin to how it was received locally throughout Ireland - it seems that the predictions that this would happen have been proved right.
Those on the Rising include a set of volumes covering each of the executed.
I believe that this is only the beginning and between now and the hundredth anniversary of independence we will see more and more, from the War of Independence to the Black and Tan Period right through to the signing of the Treaty - hopefully, the Civil War will be part of this historical soul-searching.
It's always seemed to me sadly ironic that the best book on The Civil War was by Englishman, Carlton Younger, which struck me as being extremely balanced at the time but as it was written nearly fifty years ago, could probably do with updating.
Like the Famine, many of these subjects have been avoided so as not to disturb the neighbours, but since Ireland joined the European Community, and are no longer reliant on it young people looking for work in Britain, as they once where, things will hopefully change.
"the Irish people considered it water under the bridge"
More utter nonsense - Cromwell remains the archetypal English bogeyman, still very much discussed by historians and remembered in the poorer rural areas
What planet do you occupy - read a book.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:40 AM

Rag,
Once again you clearly demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject.

I think not. Identify something I got wrong.

Jim,
Within weeks of the Rising - show that this is not the case Keith

It was the case Jim, but they did not want the rising before it started, while it was going on, or after its defeat.
Not until the executions did they start to sympathise, so it was nothing the rebels said or did apart from being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:46 AM

Is it really water under the bridge when much of the country has been involved in commemorations for the past few weeks, when one of the men killed is given a STATE funeral attended by the President AND the Taoiseach, when more than 20 new books have been published in the past year, when literature, art, drama and music have all remembered the Rising, when TV and Radio produce a myriad of programmes about it.

The word cretin comes to mind, but I mustn't say that even though it fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:58 AM

Rag, "water under the bridge" referred to ancient history back to the Normans, not the rising!

Read the posts using that phrase.
That was my context.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:59 AM

I think not.

Spot on, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:07 AM

I don't know of another country were the people are so well versed in their own history.
In the pub a young lad will be able to tell you the legends of prehistory, the invasion of Strongbow and the reasons for it. They know all about Elizabeth and Cromwell, the Famine, Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell and the Rising.
What's more they are interested in it for good and ill. History is not water under the bridge for them it's a part of their very being.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:23 AM

Rag,
They did not want a rising in 1916.
210 000 volunteered to fight for Britain in WW1.
Just twenty years after the tans, when Britain seemed to have no hope but to go down fighting, they volunteered to save her again despite the ban on leaving the country, some even deserting the Irish Army.

Total figures on Irish volunteers and war workers remain uncertain, but the number of 'new travel permits', identity cards and passports issued to men and women in 1940-1945 was in the region of 200,000. To this should be added the 45,000 which the Department of External Affairs estimated went to the UK between September 1939 and the fall of France in June 1940, after which restrictions were imposed. In other words, out of a total population of approximately 2,968,000 (1936 census), over 8 per cent emigrated during the war. This is all the more significant when it is appreciated that those living in agricultural areas and all those under twenty-two years of age were prohibited from leaving the state, except in exceptional circumstances. If those under fourteen and over sixty-five are excluded, the figure rises to over 13 per cent and if we factor in the restrictions on those under the age of twenty-two, the number who travelled may have been well over 15 per cent of the eligible population.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:31 AM

I suppose that's why all the books, TV programmes etc, etc have been produced.

As to the rest of your "contribution" the rest of us recognise the reasons were many and varies and have been discussed here and elsewhere at length.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:33 AM

Incidentally, I see someone above rather cavalierly referring to the men and women who went out in the Rising as "fools" because they had supposedly prevented a peaceful transition to independence via Home Rule.
Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.
Really, some of the ideas posted here are a little bizarre. It's a bit like saying the Native Americans were awfully foolish not to sit and wait for the peaceful transition to the justice promised by the treaties they made with the US government in 1778, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1789, 1790, 1794, 1795, 1805, 1816, 1818, 1826, 1828, 1830, 1832, 1852, 1853, 1865, 1867 and 1868. The fools! They could have had a peaceful transition to co-ownership of the land!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 16 - 11:39 AM

"It was the case Jim, but they did not want the rising before it started"
They wanted independence - when they relised they wouldn't get it they opted for full revolution
Your statement was actually "Not before, not during, and not after the rising" which, as you well know was not true.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Your exact statement - in full context was; "The rights and wrongs of the 1916 events are, well, not exactly irrelevant, but they happened and they are water under the bridge which is arrant nonsense.
Since the British betrayal"
You have proved that the only concept of the Irish you have is your utter contempt for them and their history
You really should have stuck at your "contemptible joke" exposure and left it there and not dug your self as deeply as you have now.
the pair of you have disgraced yourselves with your ignorance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:42 PM

Raggytash - 10 May 16 - 06:31 AM

C'mon then Raggy tell us all how that 700 years has actually personally affected you.

Me with my 70 years it hasn't affected me one iota - basically I couldn't give one single F**k about it. I find it incredibly ridiculous how people like you and Jom hype your "victimhood" into what is almost an art-form and adopt this supposed moral high ground - give you a hint buddy - it doesn't exist - live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:49 PM

"" you will find out that he treated the Irish no differently than he treated the English"
Utter bloody nonsense
He did not carry out wholesale massacres of entire towns, such as Drogheda, or Wexford"

Seriously Jom - read some history will you - not just the bits that you like - and them Jom comes the important question - what the fuck does what "so-and-so" did 300 years ago affect life today - look forward not BACKWARDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 16 - 02:55 PM

Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.

Really?
Do they not know that the Unionists were happy with the 1914 Act.
It was the rising that soured everything.

They wanted independence - when they relised they wouldn't get it they opted for full revolution

They never "realised" any such nonsense because it was all agreed and accepted until the rising violently polarised everyone.

Your statement was actually "Not before, not during, and not after the rising" which, as you well know was not true.

Thyat was not my statement.
By editing out the second sentence you change its meaning.
Dishonest of you Jim.

My full statement, which as you now know, is the absolute truth.
"Not before, not during, and not after the rising.
Only the executions brought them onside, so nothing the rebels said or did."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:08 PM

Thompson says: Some modern historians say that if Home Rule had been brought in, the result would have been civil war in Ireland, between the heavily armed unionists, resisting it, and the majority nationalists, defending it.

Wait! Wait! Wait! What was that thing that happened in Ireland between 1922 and 1923?

I wrote up a theory of combat this morning, applying it to the conduct of discussions at Mudcat, but I think it applies to many things in life: The militants who promote a cause, are convinced that because their cause is unquestionably righteous, all means are justified in their quest to ensure that the cause prevails. In most cases, there is another group of people (usually a much larger group) who also support the cause, but are unwilling to employ coercive measures. They prefer to use facts, logic, persuasion, and patience.
And then there is a huge number of people who don't really care, and are simply annoyed by all the squabbling. They are much more concerned about keeping their jobs and making sure their kids do their homework at night; and they have no time to concern themselves with lofty political matters. And at Mudcat, those people have the annoying habit of wanting to talk about folk music rather than politics, but that's another matter. In Ireland, I'm sure the dairy farmers were far more concerned about cows, than they were about Home Rule. Annoying, but true.

Anyhow, my thinking on all this is starting to gel as this thread progresses (at those times when it's not going around in circles).

I'm sure there were many moves to separate Ireland from England in earlier years, but it seems to me that the final drive to separate Ireland began in 1798 - and lasted until 1921, more or less. I'm sure that for most of the people of Ireland, life went on during the 19th century; and most people were not constantly involved in the campaign to separate from England. And it seems to me that at times, people would have grown weary of the whole thing. So, it would seem to me that by 1916, most people in Ireland just didn't care any more. I think Keith may be quite right that most people in Ireland didn't want the Rising. The militants did, and it seems to me that credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule bill that had passed Parliament. So, the militants brought about the Easter Rising. And it's clear that the campaign was a failure, and that a whole lot of people just didn't care about it. Most of Ireland was calm - the battle was only in a small portion of Dublin. But it was guerrilla warfare in the middle of a crowded city, so many noncombatants were affected.

But then the British responded to the Easter Rising by condemning ninety Irish militants to death. Now, it's true that only 15 were executed, but 90 families were at one point quite sure that their sons were to be executed. On top of that, Wikipedia says a total of 3,430 men and 79 women were arrested, although most were subsequently released. 1,836 men were interned at internment camps and prisons in England and Wales. Although Teribus finds it significant that only Kent was executed because of how he responded to this widespread roundup of Irish people, I'm sure most of the people of Ireland viewed these mass arrests as brutal imperialism on the part of the British.

Now, it appears to me that Britain had stationed officers in Ireland who were considerably less than the cream of the crop. A number of these officers were political extremists, not prone to diplomacy. And so, their response to the Easter Rising was brutal.

All of a sudden the Irish people had a reason to care about independence - and they got it.

And after that, they got the Irish Civil War and more than a half-century of Protestant-Catholic conflicts. I'm still trying to understand that part of the story, but I think my analysis of the Easter Rising has some merit. Thoughts?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 May 16 - 04:25 PM

not far off the mark, joe however
"So, it would seem to me that by 1916, most people in Ireland just didn't care any more"
no, that is overstated, imo, my impression is that it was about 50 per cent, but I   could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Thompson
Date: 10 May 16 - 05:01 PM

The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:30 PM

Your true colours have once again come to the fore Terikins.

Does one have to be personally affected to know that something is inherently wrong.

If you child was murdered does it not matter because it wasn't YOU that was murdered.

Some of us are only too well aware that you and your ilk don't give a single f**k about it or about the world in general as long as you can adhere to your MYTH that the "British Empire" was wonderful.

I've got news for you, a good part of the world, America included think the "British Empire" were out and out bastards, to a man.

It is arrogance like your that creates so many problems in the world, not just Ireland, but globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 May 16 - 06:39 PM

Joe, There were other, albeit small, disturbances in many other parts of Ireland, in Galway, Mayo, Cork and Kerry for certain. I'd have to do some more research to be entirely confident (fbecause of the obvious doubters) before I cited other towns.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 16 - 10:07 PM

True, Raggytash - but from what I've read, it seems that in most parts of Ireland, it was impossible to tell that anything was going on at the time of the Rising. Certainly not a justification for arresting thousands of people.

So, Teribus, you go to great lengths to emphasize very minor points and attack insignificant discrepancies. What is the point you are trying to make? What is your overview of what happened and its significance? Are you mourning the lost Empire?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 06:46 AM

Terrytoon
"look forward not BACKWARDS."
British policy down the centuries has effected the lives of every country they have ever ruled over, usually adversely.
It has destroyed existing cultures and manipulated economies to suit the Empire's interests rather than those of the people they ruled.
In the case of Ireland, an enforced and permanent partition has been the cause of inequality, persecution, ongoing violence and death - in the seventies and eighties, that spread to mainland Britain.
You're "forgive and forget" plea doesn't hack it and it won't begin to until the past is acknowledged and matter put right - it's called 'coming to terms with your history'.
Following the Famine, Ireland was left with a legacy of massive depopulation caused by avoidable death and enforced emigration.
The 'gunpoint' 'treaty' led immediately to civil war and a divided Republic on one side of the border and viciously violent sectarian riots and demonstrations on the other, lasting to the present day.
Your behaviour on this forum and your open defence of the 'good old days of Empire' is a perfect example of why that period of history is a thing of the past and why it was necessary to end it - you display all the strutting mannerisms of the Empire at its worst - and long may you continue to do so as an example of what it represented.
As with Keith, your contempt for the Irish and the other ex subjects is manifest.
Keith has at least had the balls to articulate his contempt even to the point of demonstrating how he believes it is not even necessary to seek knowledge or be interested in the subject in order to dismiss Irish history as "a contetible joke"
You, on the other hand, strut around, declaring that the world was better off as loyal subjects of her Maj.
You have Ballsed up big-time here - on The Treaty, on mutiny. on the fitting-up of Tom Kent, the kangaroo courts, the breaches of laws and rues by the British authorities...... on virtually everything you have claimed.
You declare rather than attempt to actually prove what you say; you put up your statements without evidence and expect them to be accepted without question, and when they are questioned, you sneer at those who don't accept what you have to say - a bit of a mess really.   
You have convinced nobody and now appear to have given up trying to, resorting to "go read a history book" - when you obvousley never have.
Think you're done here, don't you?
Keith - "Not before, not during, and not after the rising.." was what I was responding to - your addition alters that not one iota
Dishonest of you to have denied it and stupid for you have to done so publicly, as is your present attempt top extract yourself from it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 08:05 AM

"British policy down the centuries has effected the lives of every country they have ever ruled over, usually adversely."

Yes I dare say it has, but most would disagree with your opinion regarding "usually adversely" - as others have ignored it I will say again - if that was indeed the case there never would have been a Commonwealth, having shaken off what you seem to view as the brutal tyranny of British Rule by bloody rebellion they would naturally enough would want absolutely nothing to do with their former rulers - But that was not the case was it?

Largest democracy on the planet is? INDIA - not even an entity when the Europeans first arrived to trade, just a group of separate Kingdoms. Now who was it that gave them democracy and rule of law and order? The British knew that they were going to have to leave India shortly after the end of the First World War, here as in Ireland two distinct religious groupings came to the fore - now unlike Ireland they didn't undertake to advance their cause by violence, all three parties talked, neither of the two religious groups trusted the other and they elected for partition and two countries were formed India and Pakistan (East and West). It was only then after the British left that horrendous violence flared fuelled by religious hatred, mistrust and intolerance.

The Home Rule Bill of 1914 was the declaration of intent on the part of the British Government that it would grant self-government to Ireland - it was then to be up to the pro-independence group to talk to the pro-union group and come up with a compromise that would work. The British Government's declaration of intent that they would support that effort was signalled by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Unfortunately the 1916 rising hardened attitudes all round both Nationalist and Unionist. What happened after the Treaty that saw the creation of the Irish Free State was a tiny civil war that the newly formed Irish Government could contain, fight and win. Had the massive pro-union support base in the North been forced into an independent Ireland the newly created country would have been destroyed. That was the reality that Michael Collins & Co recognised and Eamon de Valera DID NOT. The Irish civil war demonstrated clearly to those in the North that they had chosen wisely and had done the right thing.

Support for armed struggle in Ireland has always been extremely weak.
The rising in 1916 had to be kept secret from the men who were in charge of the IRB and the IVF as they would have prevented it from happening - participation amounted to 0.004% of the Irish population.

The War of independence only managed to excite the interest and participation of 0.04% of the Irish population - hardly massive by any stretch of the imagination.

The civil war that followed attracted participation by 3.33% of the population so incensed were they at the partition - basically they could have cared less - they had to deal with life, loss of markets, and the "dog-in-the-manger" destruction of property and essential infra-structure wrought by the IRA in the death throws of their idiotic and completely unnecessary conflict.

Mourn the loss of Empire? Don't be ridiculous, I lived through the transition of many countries to independence all of them peacefully.

"It has destroyed existing cultures and manipulated economies to suit the Empire's interests rather than those of the people they ruled."

Examples please Jom. Give you a couple Hawaiian culture was all but totally destroyed by American Missionaries, elsewhere in the Pacific Islands missionaries from the British Missionary Society recorded the native languages, created written word where none existed and translated the Bible into those native languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 08:35 AM

Sorry Terri - no valid verification of your claims, no response - don't ring us, we'll ring you.
And don't demand an answer until you start giving them yourself.
"Anyhow, my thinking on all this is starting to gel"
That's a nice, handy summing up of the chronological reality of Irish history Joe.
I've just had a dip into my 'Chronology of Irish History' (one of those handy little books you can still pick up for half-nothing in many bookshops – also available on 'British', 'Scottish' and 'World' history – all indispensible little aides memoires in my opinion.
The timeline between 1798 to the Independence is an interesting one to work through.
You have Emmet's rising in 1803, the Thresher agitation in Longford (1807), the Ribbonmen, Rockites and Whiteboys (1820s), the Tithe War in Kilkenny (1831) and masses and masses of political activity right up the Great Famine in 1845.
The years following The Famine with the evictions and the sheer callous brutality of Britain's response to the Famine brought about more or less permanent struggle, including the Fenian Rising in 1867, followed by the Land Wars, which actually continued right up to and in some places, after Independence.
Even up to the Eve of the Rising, there was an active anti-recruitment campaign in cities such as Dublin and Cork.
Easter Week didn't come as a spur-of-the-moment whim – it was part of long line of protests and revolts dating back to over a century earlier.
To say the Irish people didn't want change is utter nonsense – some may have been happy to get World War One over certainly – that was the Redmondite line, but most people were under no illusion that Britain would give up Ireland and go quietly – they wouldn't and they didn't, and that was what Easter Week was about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 09:20 AM

By the way.
Those who argue about what the majority of the people want or don't want are invariably those who don't give a toss what ordinary people want until it becomes a handy alternative to arguing on facts - as is the case here.
We don't know what the people wanted one way or another because they were never consulted, including changes in Ireland.
Revolutionary changes of the left, right and centre are invariably brought about by a tiny minority.
The people did not oppose the changes brought about by Easter Week other than to take up arms against the decisions forced on Ireland by the imposed Treaty - by anybody's logic, an indication that those changes were unacceptably wrong.
One of the great mistakes in assessing history, Irish history in particular, is to judge it by at happens in the cities, ignoring the fact that Ireland is a largely rural nation.
It's still a truism that if it rains in Dublin, then it must be raining everywhere - I know that to be a fact, that nice weather-forecasting lady told me!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:38 PM

"By the way.
Those who argue about what the majority of the people want or don't want are invariably those who don't give a toss what ordinary people want until it becomes a handy alternative to arguing on facts - as is the case here." - Jim Carroll

You mean people who make statements like this?

"Sigh - they totally supported the Rising in 1916 as soon as Britain revealed what an appalling load of shit they were and that there was no hope whatever of obtaining Independence in any other way - repeating this piece of misinformation just confirms your dishonesty
Irish people always wanted Independence from Britain - Britain's "traitorous" behavior was n indication that even the limited aims of 'Home Rule would never be honoured so within months the call went out for full Independence - **** the Free State." - Jim Carroll

So Jim how long have you been the spokesperson for the Irish Nation?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:49 PM

But you have to admit, Jim, that the views from Teribus are interesting. A(n) historical curiosity, almost a trip back in time. I didn't think there was anyone left living on the face of the earth who would still defend British and American imperialism (well, he condemns the American and missionary imperialism, but thinks British imperialism benign). I can picture him now, in his pith helmet and Bermuda shorts with black stockings and garters, drinking tea and ordering the natives about - benignly, of course.

I think, though, that the British and American imperialists did have good intentions, and may truly have believed that they were giving the natives a better life. And yes, there were many things that they and even the missionaries did, that were not all bad. Nobody is all bad, and nobody is all good.

I think it's worthwhile to explore things from the point of view of the imperialists, too.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 02:52 PM

And yes, Keith, you are spending a lot of time defending yourself and not adding to the discussion. This is not a battle to see who wins or loses. Your messages are getting boring and repetitive.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:13 PM

😉

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:17 PM

"that the British and American imperialists did have good intentions"
Some may have done Joe, but don't forget, 'Gallant Little Belgium' slaughtered up to ten million Congolese Colonials and cut the hands of countless numbers of rubber workers who did not meet their quotas, in pursuit of profit.
Britain wasn't above massacring and ill treating its inferior colonials, and I'm assured by Terribus, Keith and others that life for the colonials under Germany, had they won W.W.1. would have been pretty intolerable.
There were certainly those who believed they were doing a favour to 'The White Man's Burden' (as our colonial brothers were known) and there were those who actually contributed to the lives of some under their care (often by offsetting the excesses of colonial life), but it needs to be remembered that the Empire was a profit-making business, not a charity.
Loved the "pith helmet and Bermuda shorts with black stockings and garters" image - didn't take you to be old enough to remember 'Jungle Jim'.
"So Jim how long have you been the spokesperson for the Irish Nation?"
I'm not a spokesman for anybody, though I am a keen observer who has had the privilege in hearing about these events from people who were there and who took part in much of what is under discussion.
I'm also here at the present time and have the opportunity to shower in the delights of wall-to-wall programmes on The Easter Rising put together by scholars and researchers - all praising the people they regard as national heroes who have changed Irish History, never mentioning the terms "gullible" or 'contemptible joke".
Perhaps reading books and showing an interest disqualifies me from having strong opinions on these matters.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:29 PM

Jim, I think there's a lesson here - partly thanks to the advance of technology, the 19th Century was THE century of brutal imperialism and oppression, particularly on the part of Americans and Europeans. The upper classes seemed to believe they had a right to oppress all others. I wonder what rationalization they used to justify that mindset.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:37 PM

Great believer in generalisations and stereotypes are you Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 03:48 PM

It's called humor, Teribus - or "humour," if you prefer. Nonetheless, I think it's worthwhile to take a broad look at things at times, and not get bogged down in minutiae.

If you look at individual situations, I'm sure you can find examples of slaves who were happy on their plantations, and Irish farmers who loved their landlords - and I'm sure it's true that there were plantation owners and landlords who were truly benevolent. You may call a broad overview a generalization, but it's clear in the overview that there was mass oppression in the 19th century by the upper classes - slavery, especially in the Americas; serf labor in Europe; the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the famine in Ireland; workhouses all over Europe; the systematic extermination of Native Americans in the United States; the European colonization of Africa and much of Asia.

What can you say that's good about all that, Teribus?

Oh, yeah, they gave us Kipling and Little Black Sambo, and for that we are eternally grateful.

Admit it, Teribus - it was a century of oppression, and I would really like to know where the goodness was in that mindset. But hey, I think you'd look cute in garters and a pith helmet.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 16 - 05:20 PM

"but it's clear in the overview that there was mass oppression in the 19th century by the upper classes - slavery, especially in the Americas; serf labor in Europe; the Highland Clearances in Scotland and the famine in Ireland; workhouses all over Europe; the systematic extermination of Native Americans in the United States; the European colonization of Africa and much of Asia."

Really Joe - may be "clear" to you but then as you are not so keen on detail you miss quite a lot out in your rather biased perspective.

You mention slavery - no nation on this planet did more to eradicate the slave trade than the British

Serf labour in Europe? Hardly Joe the only country where serfs existed in "Europe" in the 19th century was Tsarist Russia - nowhere else.

Highland Clearances? More a 18th century thing greed on the part of land-owners was the motivation not Government policy.

You ignore the massive advances made throughout the 19th century in a vast variety of fields. The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan commented on it comparing the social and economic improvements made between 1815 and 1914.

In Africa for the tribes who were subservient to the Zulu, or further North the Maasia definitely found the British to be more benign rulers.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 16 - 06:00 PM

You sure look cute in those garters, Teribus...

You refute my examples of brutality by saying that they didn't happen somewhere where they didn't happen. But my point was to give examples to show that brutality existed the world around, in one form or another. It was a brutal age.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 03:30 AM

The 19th century "a brutal age"? Relative to the centuries that preceded it? Don't think so and neither does Margaret MacMillan. The dark ages, medieval and renaissance times were far more brutal. Are you seriously attempting to tell us that the root cause of all the brutality in the world during the 19th century was "imperialism" - utterly ridiculous.

But I suppose as an American to you the dark ages, medieval and renaissance times are abstracts and don't really count much in the scheme of things - so Joe if I am to you a "pith helmet, shorts and gaiter" wearing defender of empire, you are a hair-shirt wearing, self-flagellating failed?wannabe priest.

But if I look at Thompson's list of treaties broken by the US Government from 1778 onward and look at just what happened in the USA and elsewhere in the Americas I can see your point. And in all fairness to Thompson he probably does not know that the US Government had no intention at all in honouring, or enforcing any of the Treaties it signed with the native North Americans - hells teeth your War of Independence was fought specifically to break a treaty made between the five nations and the British Government in 1754 - a treaty that the British Government not only kept but enforced - and that Joe did not suit the greedy ambitions of the colonists who wanted to expand westward - your war of independence had absolutely S.F.A. to do with taxation or representation, they were just the excuses latched onto. Same opportunistic attempt at a land grab was made in 1812, fortunately for those who call themselves Canadians it didn't come off. Elsewhere in the Americas you had the Spanish who DID established their empire through ruthless and brutal conquest where whole races were destroyed in the name of Holy Mother Church - the main point of difference between the Spanish and the British Empires that you as an American reader of historical fiction can't seem to grasp is that the British Empire was founded on trade NOT conquest - and the plain fact of the matter is that you cannot trade with dead people.

Throughout the 19th century the British fought hard to abolish slavery and eradicate the slave trade - the Americans did little or nothing about it until the century was almost three-quarters past and even then freedom didn't mean freedom did it? That took almost another hundred years - true? You wear your hair-shirt if you like, I will continue to explode ill-informed and inaccurate myths whenever they are trotted out on this forum by those who are clearly biased.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 04:44 AM

Joe, sorry I keep defending myself, but Rag and Jim keep making false accusations that I can not allow to stand.

it seems to me that credible evidence has been presented here that there were significant shortcomings in the Home Rule bill that had passed Parliament.

I do not recall any such evidence presented.
Could we have a reminder please?

Thompson
The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd.

It is isn't it, but true all the same.
They volunteered in huge numbers to fight for Britain in WW1 and even after independence in WW2!
Because it was not an occupation. Ireland was an integral part of the UK just as Scotland and Wales were and still are.
Their independence movements never refer to an occupation, so why do you?

Jim, I have only expressed contempt for the 1916 rebels, never for the people of Ireland who shared my contempt for them.(Sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:31 AM

Ah the old game of trying to have the last word.

When you actually learn something of Irish History, when you take an interest in the subject, when you actually read a WHOLE book and not just snippets trawled from the Internet, then and only then will you have a useful contribution to make. Given that these things are not going to happen you will continue to snipe uneducated comments from the wings, because in your ignorance that's what you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:38 AM

Once again Rag, produce one historical fact I have got wrong instead of just accusing me of it.
(sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 May 16 - 05:49 AM

Still trying to have the last word, read a book on the subject yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"you just have to produce examples of how the Rebels actually supported the Germans rather than pay lip-service to it to get guns.
The Rebellion was an Anti Imperialist Revolt - Germany was an Imperial power - speaks for itself."
Jim Carroll

Casement's "Irish Report" - Which required German troops to be landed on the west coast of Ireland

The aim of the "rebellion" as put by both Plunkett and by Casement in 1915 to the Germans was that with German support the rising would draw British troops away from the fighting in France - Now in time of war I would call that active support of the enemy.

The "Rebellion" as you call it was a sham from start to finish. It was deliberately set up to fail by those who led it. It had absolutely no other purpose than to keep the "men of the gun" and Sinn Fein in the game - Pearse's "Blood Sacrifice". The men who fought in Dublin believed in their cause and in their leaders who deliberately fed them lies and threw their lives away in an exercise of wanton destruction mounted to achieve nothing. It's crowning achievement? Rather than further the cause of an independent united Ireland it hardened "Unionist" opposition and guaranteed that the "Unionists" in the North would insist on partition, and for all the attempts by the "men of the gun" down through the years since 1916, that goal of a united independent Ireland is further away today than it was then - why do I say that? Because back in the early part of the 20th century all the nationalists had to do was convince the "unionists" in the North, today written into law not only do those living in the North have to decide for themselves that they want to be part of a united independent Ireland, then the second part of the process has to be fulfilled - those living in the Republic of Ireland have to agree to the union - and if the "men of the gun" in the North have their say then the Republic of Ireland has to take one enormous leap of faith and trust.

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

"Jim, I have only expressed contempt for the 1916 rebels, never for the people of Ireland who shared my contempt for them.(Sorry Joe)"
Your contempt was in describing the Irish people as being gullible and supporting murderers - you specified Fergie, but he said what is being said throughout Ireland now and will be for the rest of the year
You have apparently laboured over an excuse for your behab=viuour.
Simple question - why do you think Ireland is celebrating this in the way they are at the present time
Please take Joe's adivice an leave this.
Terrribus
Can't believe you are still attempting to salvage this from the ashes of your failed arguments.
Germany certainly expected the Rebellion to act as a diversion, as they did when they gave safe passage to Lenin in their revolution the following year, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY "SUPPORT IRELAND EVER GAVE TO GERMANY AND NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE
The Irish made a bid for self-determination while the empires were tearing each other apart - no better time to choose.
I didn't see Michael Portillo's programme on Easter week but this was hit take on the affair.

"Martyrdom
Portillo puzzles over the reference in the Proclamation to "our gallant allies in Europe", namely Germany.
He believes the reference was put there by Patrick Pearse to provoke the British into an over-reaction.
"How do you expect the British not to shoot people who refer to the gallant allies? It is not central to declaring independence for Ireland.
"The whole thing makes sense without having to mention Germany at all. If you pursue this theory that Patrick Pearse wanted martyrdom, then you know this is all part of it."
Hence, he believes the British fell into the "propaganda trap" set for them by the leaders of the Rising."
How Britain Lost the Easter Rising

Was fascinated to read your defence of Empire - like taking the dog for a walk through Jurassic Park.
When I described you as a "Empire Loyalist jingoist", I really didn't mean that literally - my, my, my!!
Nobody supports that garbage now, nor have they for decades.
The British Empire was a predatory set-up based on extracting wealth from those the conquored - no different from any other Empire throughout history - It was like a giant beehive with all it's occupants living only to serve a queen.
The Famine ws typical of how it could work - despite a catastrophic natural disaster, Britain continued to export food from Ireland for the merchants to sell off to Britain.
The warehouses, full of food, were locked and guarded.
Relief was sent from Britain to be sold to the starving at the going price so as not to interfere with the profits of the merchants.
If native cultures or practices got in the way of British rule (little more than absentee landlordism - it was removed - a typical example being the Irish language, which was all but systematically destroyed.   
Are you planning a further film in the series, 'Jurassic Park" - look forward to it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 07:19 AM

Like the way Thompson compares apples to oranges in his attempts to make a point:

"The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?"

Anybody see anything wrong with that? Shouldn't he have more accurately stated:

The idea that people in an occupied country should be loyal to the occupying power is distinctly odd. If Germany won WWII and occupied Britain, and then having ruled Britain for 700 years and incorporated Britain into the German State went to war with, say, Scandinavia, would the British be considered treacherous or treasonous for failing to support Germany in this war?

I'd say yes they would.

Numbers who fought for "the cause" in 1916 - 1,250
Numbers potentially available to fight for "the cause" but who were deliberately ordered to stay home and do nothing in 1916 - 13,750

Number of Irishmen who fought in the British Armed forces in the First World War ~210,000 - Those numbers speak volumes for a country of roughly 3 million in 1911, it clearly demonstrates which conflict they were more concerned with.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:09 AM

"Germany certainly expected the Rebellion to act as a diversion, as they did when they gave safe passage to Lenin in their revolution the following year, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY "SUPPORT IRELAND EVER GAVE TO GERMANY AND NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED OTHERWISE" - Jim Carroll

Agreed Jim - so will please stop claiming that the Leaders of the rising did not support the Germans - after all you've just admitted quite clearly in Upper Case above that they did. And at that time, two years into a world war involving Great Britain and Germany, that constituted an offence under the Treason Act, namely these two facets of it:

"levied war against the King in his Realm;" The rising in Dublin

"adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere" Colluding with the Germans in an attempt to land arms supplied by the enemy and create a diversion that would draw troops away from the war in France thereby giving comfort to the enemy.

Nobody supports that garbage now, nor have they for decades.

Oh dear Jom, speaking for everybody else again? Delusions of grandure or what?

The British Empire was a predatory set-up based on extracting wealth from those the conquored - no different from any other Empire throughout history - It was like a giant beehive with all it's occupants living only to serve a queen."

Ah so no such thing as outward investment then? I think the Indians would disagree with you on that.

Which nations did we conquer Jom? Care to tell us how with a population the size of Great Britain's between 1690 and 1916 we managed to "conquer" two thirds of the earth's surface and hold it?


"The Famine ws typical of how it could work - despite a catastrophic natural disaster, Britain continued to export food from Ireland for the merchants to sell off to Britain.
The warehouses, full of food, were locked and guarded.
Relief was sent from Britain to be sold to the starving at the going price so as not to interfere with the profits of the merchants."

Want a thread on the famine Jom? then open one detailing in your OP your case with all statements made backed up by real evidence (First looking up what constitutes real evidence)

One inconvenient fact for you Jom the imports of grain into Ireland during the "famine years" was four times what was exported.

Please explain to us how all the food in those warehouses was to be transported and distributed.

Another inconvenient fact for you Jom - the primary cause of the drop in population during the "famine" was emigration, the second was death from disease (Diseases that for the next thirty years would know no cure - so hardly avoidable as you claim) and the third, by a long way was starvation (IIRC in the worse of the "famine years" the number that died from starvation numbered 6,000)

"If native cultures or practices got in the way of British rule (little more than absentee landlordism - it was removed - a typical example being the Irish language, which was all but systematically destroyed."

Better example for you Jom - General Sir Charles James Napier, the Commander-in-Chief in India from 1849 to 1851 is often noted for a story involving Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of sati by British authorities.

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

The practice of burning widows on the death of their husbands ceased - Oooh nasty British Empire eh Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:21 AM

"The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan", T-Bird? You obviously haven't read her works on WW I.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:26 AM

Well then GregF from what you say you certainly haven't - or listened to her lectures either I'd guess:

Salzburg, Austria, 2014:

"How could a Europe that had been so prosperous and so largely peaceful for so many years, that was basking in a glorious period of trade and technological advance, that was flourishing within a long-established global order, have been thrown — in the course of a month — into the bloodiest conflict the world had then ever seen?"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 16 - 09:37 AM

Jim,
Your contempt was in describing the Irish people as being gullible and supporting murderers

I never have. (sorry Joe)

Simple question - why do you think Ireland is celebrating this in the way they are at the present time

I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate.
Is St.Pat's Day celebrated as an historical occasion?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 16 - 10:00 AM

Raggytash - 12 May 16 - 05:49 AM

Still trying to have the last word,

No Raggy he was simply asking you for once to provide an example to back up your accusations.

My bet is that not a single one will materialise - par for the course - no surprises there at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 16 - 08:47 PM

Terribus
"Agreed Jim - so will please stop claiming that the Leaders of the rising did not support the Germans"
'bout time we finished this, doncha think?
It's always intrigued me why you never link your claims to anything - whenever I've tried to trace your statements I've drawn a blank
I've confess I've been a bit slow on the uptake on this- YOU HAVE MADE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM UP.
Take this one for instance.
Nobody claims nowadays that the Rebels ever supported the German war effort - they took guns - nothing more.
They were not tried for treason - in your own words they were charged with "in other words" and their trial was rigged in order that they could be executed.
Technically, of course, they were guilty of nothing - they received no proper trial, they were not allowed to mount a defence, they were allowed no legal representation, the proceedings were condemned as illegal by the British courts, the 'trials' were held in secret and the details of those proceedings have never been released a century after they took place.
It remains to be seen whether Britain will apologise of this miscarriage of justice as they did over The Famine.
Their "collusion" is simply an invention on your part.
Even good ol' Norman Portillo describes the Irish 'support' for Germany thus:
"Martyrdom
Portillo puzzles over the reference in the Proclamation to "our gallant allies in Europe", namely Germany.
He believes the reference was put there by Patrick Pearse to provoke the British into an over-reaction.
"How do you expect the British not to shoot people who refer to the gallant allies? It is not central to declaring independence for Ireland.
"The whole thing makes sense without having to mention Germany at all. If you pursue this theory that Patrick Pearse wanted martyrdom, then you know this is all part of it."
Hence, he believes the British fell into the "propaganda trap" set for them by the leaders of the Rising."

The trained section of the Rebel Forces actually posed in front of the building shelled by the Helga, Liberty Hall, under a banner reading "We serve neither King nor Kaiser"
This photograph has been put up several times, but I'm happy to dig it out again, if you wish.
The Rebels did not support Germany, they were not charged with supporting Germany - you and Keith made it up, individually or between you, neither of you has produced proof - (or a historian between you)
Casement's case was different; he was tried for treason based on his 'Pro-German' statement
He was given a trial, allowed to offer evidence and had legal representation.
He was found guilty, allowed to appeal, his appeal was turned down and he was hanged.
Even here, there is a question mark hanging over whether Casement actually said what he said.
Britain mounted a campaign to smear Casement, using his supposed homosexuality so he would not be regarded as a hero as were the Rebels.

"Whitehall was guilty of plain blackguardism in deploying private documents to manipulate public opinion in Britain, Ireland and America during the Great War," he said. The diaries, written in an Army field notebook, three pocket diaries and a cash ledger, chart Casement's prolific homosexual activity at a time when such exploits were not only discreditable but illegal.
Home Office papers released in 1995 by the PRO showed how the "black diaries" were used to turn public opinion against Casement. The Cabinet was told as Ministers considered clemency that he "had for years been addicted to the grossest sodomical practices." They were advised that if he were executed "the knowledge of his immoral character. . .will alienate sympathy and prevent his being treated as a martyr".
The Telegraph, March 2002.

For a long time it has been claimed that these "Black Diaries" were faked, though now, it appears they were probably genuine and Casement committed the 'unforgivable sin' of being a homosexual.
Though the matteris still contested
Given that the Government colluded with Maxwell to have Tom Kent executed for something he did not do, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same to smear Casement - the British Dirty Tricks team left today's Israeli propaganda efforts at the starting post when it came to Ireland.
One thing is certain; when Casement was in Germany negotiating for weapons, he was under constant surveillance by German Security men because they suspected him of spying for Britain - some friendship.   
Anyway - you can clear all this up by breaking your life-long golden rule and actually producing some proof that anybody other than you pair actually claims that the Rebels supported the German War effort.
Keith
"I never have."
Yes you have and you've taken this long to get round to denying it.
The next step is that you only said it because someone told you to - unfortunately, there you have been unable to find any "real historians" to back your claims.
"I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate"
More racist stereotyping and more sneering at the Irish and their traditions - keep it up Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 12:59 AM

DE VELERA, took part in the easter rising, here is an interesting book.The book, provocatively titled 'England's Greatest Spy: Eamon de Valera', suggests that Dev was terrified of being executed after the Rising and was "turned" in exchange for his life. For some years afterwards, the book claims, Dev was under British control.
The 470-page hardback is published by Stacey International, a London publisher specialising in politics and history.

The author is retired US naval officer and historian John Turi from Princeton, New Jersey. He developed an interest in Irish history through his wife, who was born in Ireland. Turi has been researching his controversial book for a decade.
The case against de Valera by Turi is based firstly on a detailed analysis of Dev's emotionally stunted formative years.

He claims Dev was rejected by everyone in his early life -- his mysterious father in New York (in fact, Dev was probably illegitimate), his mother, his uncle in Ireland, who treated him coldly, even the Church, which rejected his ambitions for the priesthood because of his probable illegitimacy.
His miserable upbringing left Dev with an inadequate personality, Turi suggests, which made him susceptible to being influenced later on.

Turi is scathing about Dev's erratic behaviour during the Rising, when he was in charge of the men at Boland's Mill.
He stayed awake for days, became disorientated and issued confused, sometimes ridiculous, orders. "It was not just his tactics the men questioned," Turi writes, "they questioned his sanity as well."

Dev kept his men "sitting on their heels" while a short distance away at Mount Street Bridge eight Volunteers were trying to hold off hundreds of British soldiers.
In fact the men at Boland's Mill played little or no part in the Easter Week fighting, Turi says, because Dev was so exhausted and fearful.

At the end of the week, when word reached Boland's Mill of the surrender, Turi writes that de Valera "abandoned his men and slipped out of Boland's at noon on the Sunday, taking with him a British prisoner . . . as his insurance against being shot before he could surrender".


Cowardly

"De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops was (later) repackaged as de Valera the lonely hero fighting valiantly against overwhelming odds."
What followed was also suspicious, Turi says.

Dev later claimed that he was tried with a number of other men and sentenced to death.
Turi writes: "Not one of the men allegedly tried with de Valera ever confirmed that such a trial took place, and there is no trace in the British Public Record Office of any trial."

He also quotes the flat denial by the army prosecuting officer, William Wylie, that de Valera had been tried.

Turi also considers Dev's fragile mental state and tearful collapse at Richmond Barracks the night before he was taken to Kilmainham, to where condemned prisoners were sent.
All the events indicate that Dev was terrified of dying, Turi suggests, and that it would have been easy for the British intelligence officer Ivor Price to turn Dev into a British collaborator. Major Price was "skilled at manipulating weakness".

Turi notes that Dev was the only one of four Dublin commandants not to be tried and executed.

He dismisses theories that Dev was spared because he was born in America or because the British realised that further executions would be a mistake; as others were executed later.
The only reasonable explanation, Turi claims, is that Dev was "turned". In all, Turi sets forth a dozen instances of what he calls "de Valera's machinations that aided and abetted British interests" to support this claim.



Collins

Some of this 'evidence' concerns Dev's activities in the US after he was released from prison -- which split the powerful Irish-American lobby.
Turi also says the British feared what Michael Collins might do in the North and used de Valera to engineer the situation that resulted in Collins's death.

Turi also calls Irish neutrality during the World War II "a hoax on the Irish people and a major boon for English interests".

His book, which ends with a call for a posthumous trial of de Valera, was published in Ireland and Britain on November 30 and in the US last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:53 AM

"It's always intrigued me why you never link your claims to anything - whenever I've tried to trace your statements I've drawn a blank"

Three points on that Jom:

1: Both Keith A and myself have in the past given references and links which you dismiss or do not bother to check.

2: I don't know why it intrigues you Jom as it would not make the blindest bit of difference to you, what evidence was laid before you - you would ignore it. Your bigotry, rascism and Anglophobia is far too ingrained.

3: As far as your ability to trace and check facts given - Try harder, I am not going to do your homework for you.

But we will try a couple shall we, just to demonstrate:

Example 1:

In previous threads on WWI you stated that Kitchener was forced to resign from his post as Secretary of State for War.

Lord Herbert Kitchener

Time taken to find and put that link up was less that a minute from the easiest source of information on the internet - yet you say you have trouble doing that?

List of Secretaries of State for War

OK then Jom give us the date he was forced to resigned or state unequivocally that you were wrong and that the truth was he was never forced to resign - he was appointed as Secretary of State for War the day after war was declared and he died in office 5th June 1916.

Example: 2

You have repeatedly come out with the dissembling rubbish about there being no evidence of collusion between the IRB, IVF and the Germans.

Sir Roger Casement:
"Casement helped to form in 1913 the Irish National Volunteers, a nationalist organisation. The following year, in July 1914, Casement visited New York in an attempt to garner support for the organisation. With the outbreak of war the following month Casement similarly hoped for German assistance in gaining Irish independence from Britain.

With this in mind Casement travelled to Berlin in November 1914; once there however he found the Germans reluctant to undertake the risk of sending forces to Ireland (Indicates that he must have asked them). He was also disappointed in his hopes of recruiting to his cause Irish prisoners taken to Germany.

"While in Germany Casement strove in particular to effectively borrow a number of German officers to assist with a planned Easter rising in Dublin; again, he was disappointed. Believing the planned rising unlikely to succeed at that stage Casement arranged to be taken by German submarine to Ireland where he hoped to dissuade nationalist leaders from undertaking rebellion for the present.

Consequently he was landed near Tralee in County Kerry on 12 April 1916. Twelve days later he was arrested by the British, taken to London, and charged with treason. At about this time copies of a diary (the 'Black Diary') reputed to be written by Casement were circulated among government officials, detailing alleged homosexual practices with native boys.

Although clearly an attempt by the British to discredit Casement the diaries' authenticity was verified by an independent panel of scholars in 1959 and, more recently, in 2002. With an appeal dismissed Casement was taken to Pentonville Prison in London where he was hanged on 3 August 1916."

Source - Casement

Time taken about one minute - of this you are incapable?

Then there is this one Jom:

"In November 1914[23] Casement negotiated a declaration by Germany which stated:


"The Imperial Government formally declares that under no circumstances would Germany invade Ireland with a view to its conquest or the overthrow of any native institutions in that country. Should the fortune of this Great War, that was not of Germany's seeking, ever BRING IN ITS COURSE GERMAN TROOPS TO THE SHORES OF IRELAND, they would land there not as an army of invaders to pillage and destroy but as the forces of a Government that is inspired by goodwill towards a country and people for whom Germany desires only national prosperity and national freedom".[24]

Source - Casement

Casement went to Germany with the knowledge and consent of the leaders of the IRB and the IVF this piece of information backed up by:

"The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany.[22]   Source - Caulfield, Max, The Easter Rebellion, p. 18

Then there is this:

After the war began, Roger Casement and Clan na Gael leader John Devoy met the German ambassador to the United States, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, to discuss German backing for an uprising. Casement went to Germany and began negotiations with the German government and military. He persuaded the Germans to announce their support for Irish independence in November 1914.[31] Casement also attempted to recruit an Irish Brigade, made up of Irish prisoners of war, which would be armed and sent to Ireland to join the uprising.[32][33] However, only 56 men volunteered. Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.[34] The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers.[35]"

Collusion on a massive scale and as the Military Council took over the Easter Rising and kept the details of it secret then those who signed the Proclamation were guilty of Treason - They were accordingly charged with committing offences UNDER THE TREASON ACT namely:

1 Taking up arms against the King - which they most undoubtedly did.

2 Providing aid and comfort to the enemy - which they most undoubtedly did and for which you have previously been given the links to the Treason Act and the actual Anglo-French wording of these two specific charges.

But none of that matters to you does it Jom - so be intrigued no more. You and your pals rarely if ever provide substantive evidence for either your claims, statements or accusations - you just fling shit and run.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 02:30 AM

"Tom Kent executed for something he did not do"

The Treason Act 1351 is an Act of the Parliament of England which codified and curtailed the common law offence of treason. No new offences were created by the statute.[3] It is one of the earliest English statutes still in force, although it has been very significantly amended.[4][5] It was extended to Ireland in 1495[6] and to Scotland in 1708.[7] The Act was passed at Westminster in the Hilary term of 1351, in the 25th year of the reign of Edward III and was entitled "A Declaration which Offences shall be adjudged Treason". - Source - Treason Act 1351

Extract from the above:

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

"compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned; the original Norman French was "fait compasser ou ymaginer") the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 on 26 March 2015,[10] this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest child and heir);

violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir (following the coming into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, this has effect as if the reference were to the eldest son only if he is also the heir[11]);

levied war against the King in his Realm;

adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;

counterfeited the Great Seal or the Privy Seal (repealed and re-enacted in the Forgery Act 1830; death penalty abolished in 1832;[12] reduced to felony in 1861[13] (except in Scotland[14]));

counterfeited English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage (reduced to felony in 1832[15]);

killed the Chancellor, Treasurer (this office is now in commission), one of the King's Justices (either of the King's Bench or the Common Pleas), a Justice in Eyre, an Assize judge, and "all other Justices", while they are performing their offices. (This did not include the barons of the Exchequer.[16])

In firing on the Police and the army and initiating the gun-battle that took place in Cork on the 2nd May 1916, with the country under Martial Law, Thomas Kent was guilty of levying war against the King in his Realm.

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

More uncorroborated bullshit.
"Thomas Kent was guilty of levying war against the King in his Realm."
Kent was tried and executed for murder - after his execution " "Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'"
What part of the English book of rules does that appear in?
"Both Keith A and myself have in the past given references"
Keith carefully selects and quotes out out context, from books he has never heard of up to that point, bits which suit him - you provide nothing but expect us to accept your declarations without question.
"it would not make the blindest bit of difference to you, what evidence was laid before you"
I respond to everything put up - you respond to nothing and certainly qualify nothing.
You have the arguments for the position of the rebels on Germany and the War - nothing you have put up in any way changes their 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser" stance.
How about putting up someone who is actually making the same claims aas you are, but be careful not to make Keith's mistake of persistently backing the wrong horses?
Your flag-wagging, pro-Empire struttings are things of the past - they went with 'Empire Day' and 'From Greenland's Icy mountains', where, to be foreign was to be "in error's chain".
I assume your continued silence means we are in agreement of the illegal conduct of the trials
"Kitchener"
We all make mistakes - I could sit here all day discussing "democratic Britain at the time Trade Unioninists were being transported" or "prosperous Liverpool at the beginning of the 20th century", or the "poppies for profit" enterprise of 2014 - or even your defence of the Kent fit-up - or every single argument you have ever put up, drawn a blank and fallen silent on - but why take part in a pissing competition with someone with a flow problem?
Your vicious and archaic two-man arguments have totally failed to ring any bells here as they failed to on The famine - they appear to be as unaccepted here as they are in the rest of the modern world.
I repeat, nobody is putting up these arguments any more - even Keith, with his assiduous trawling of the net, has totally failed to come up with one "real, living historian" who backs your case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:28 AM

Jim,
"I never have."
Yes you have and you've taken this long to get round to denying it.

No. I denied it last time you made that accusation.
I only expressed my contempt for the rebel leadership, never the Irish people. (sorry Joe)

"I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate"
More racist stereotyping and more sneering at the Irish and their traditions - keep it up Keith.

Not sneering. I love to celebrate too, especially Paddy's day. (sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:33 AM

"You have the arguments for the position of the rebels on Germany and the War - nothing you have put up in any way changes their 'We serve neither King nor Kaiser" stance."

So Jom all you have to refute the Easter Rising's Leaders and the Supreme Council's documented collusion with an enemy power in time of war is a F**kin' photograph - are you serious? Just by taking up arms and diverting British troops from the front was giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then we have the minor detail of the German weapons in their hands with which they gunned down unarmed policemen and civilians right at the start of the "Rising".

Don't just scream in multi-coloured upper case rants that what I have put up is incorrect you cretin - prove it. I don't think that you will you never do.

"Poppies for Profit" - Amazing how I forgot that classic example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit", those were the 888,000-odd poppies that were made for £9 a piece that raised £15 million for charity - Come on the Jom tell us all about it and I will knock you flat again with straightforward facts from the Royal British Legion website.

Still no thread on the Famine then Jom - speaks volumes for your confidence level in carrying that argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 03:36 AM

Keith carefully selects and quotes out out context, from books he has never heard of up to that point

Not true.
I quoted from whole articles written by historians and available on line, with a link so they could be seen in their original, intended context.

Only you have quoted from a book you have not read, O'Callaghan's of which a few pages are available on line and which you quoted without link.
(sorry Joe)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:24 AM

You are responding to nothing I put up Terribus other than to deny it.
You want to show that The Rebels were all German agents - where's your evidence and who agrees with you?
I repeat
Kent was tried and executed for murder - after his execution " "Asquith offered a different explanation for Kent's execution to that which he had previously provided. Where, on 11 May, he declared the crime committed by Kent to be that of 'murder', by early July it had changed to that of 'taking part in an armed rebellion'"
What part of the English book of rules does that appear in?
The trials of the Rebels were rigged, even by British standards making their executions an act of mass-murder.
The Empire was a corrupt and predatory business that habitally led to those it ruled over.
A total justification for The Easter Rising which set in motion its downfall
Game, setand match, I think - you didn't even get up the ladder as far as Tim Henman.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:38 AM

Game, set and match, I think

"This is not a battle to see who wins or loses. Your messages are getting boring and repetitive."
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 04:48 AM

Apologies goe - I was responding to unnecessary aggression
Won't happen again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:03 AM

Iput up an interesting aticle related to the easter rising and dev, and both sides continue to sqabble and score points and ignore, a dbatable article about dev and how the easter rising affected him, are you lot interested in the easter rising orinterested in scoring points and childish alterations of each others names ,examples jom and terribus, puerile infantile behaviour absolutely pathetic on both sides

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:04 AM

Don't know if they are "boring" but any repetition is an attempt to get responses to points I put up - I've certainly put enough of them up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:25 AM

"You want to show that The Rebels were all German agents"

Do I Jom? I have never laid any claim that "ALL of them" were any such thing. That their leadership colluded with the German Government in time of war is undeniable.

That their leadership in the form of the secretive Military Council that Pearse and Connelly set up to isolate the Leadership of the IRB and act against their wishes is undeniable.

That the leadership of the Easter Rising deliberately set it up to fail is undeniable.

That their leadership deliberately lied to their men is undeniable.

But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them. Permanent partition would have been guaranteed under Wilson's right of self-determination as the pro-unionist North could clearly demonstrate that they had always opposed those who sided with Germany and quite rightly wanted to be treated as being entirely separate from the enemy of the victorious Entente powers.

Funny thing about military law, there are offences and charges against which there is no defence, no question of guilt, if you have been charged with the offence you automatically are guilty, all you can plead is mitigation. The most common is being AWOL, doesn't matter how or why you were absent, you were absent full stop. Now then Jom the same would be true of those who signed the Proclamation, they had no defence, to those who had taken up arms and fought, there is no defence, so witter on all you like about rules, etc - The rules under Martial Law were whatever they needed to be as viewed by the Officer Commanding - they were guilty as charged and the vast majority of them were treated with extreme leniency considering that they had acted in the way they had in time of war.

The Easter Rising brought about the collapse of the British Empire - DREAM ON. What collapse? What Downfall? if as you state it started in Easter 1916 it must be the slowest collapse in History.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:37 AM

Did either side in 1916 know who would be dictating terms at the end of the war?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:41 AM

Apologies GSS, I did read your post with interest. The author's POV is certainly plausible but I think I would have to read his book, before I could comment on the balance of probability.

The "De Valera the cowardly, incompetent, mentally unstable officer who deserted his troops" is certainly believable and borne out by the man's own actions.

Since the formation of the Irish Free State and the declaration of the Republic there have been two occasions where British Prime Ministers have offered their full support for union between the South and the North - on both occasions the offer has been refused in seconds.

I also apologise for apparently boring you with our squabble, but when Carroll persists in putting forward his cock-eyed Made-Up-Shit version of history to advance his Anglophobia, you can rest assured that I will draw his attention to details that tend to blow his dearly held myths clear out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 05:41 AM

An interesting resume Good Soldier I shall look out for the book by John Turi.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:18 AM

Raggytash - 13 May 16 - 05:37 AM

The answer to your question Raggy would tend to swing rather dramatically during the course of that year.

In the first half of the year I would imagine that the Germans started out feeling fairly confident that it would be them dictating peace terms.

In the second half of the year the Entente powers started to gain confidence in their ability to win the war.

The events of 1916 that support that (The Easter Rising being a flea-bite on the backside of an elephant - ["And the world did gaze with deep amaze" my arse]):

1: Battle of Verdun when Falkenhayn put into practice his strategy of attrition to bleed the French and British Armies in France white. Simply put he failed to do this, the Battle of Verdun would last until December 1916 and proved to be a decisive French victory.

2: Battle of Jutland 31 May – 1 June 1916 after which the German High Seas Fleet never again set sail. So where it could be argued that it was tactically inconclusive it was an overwhelmingly important strategic victory for the Royal Navy.

3: Battle of the Somme 1 July – 18 November 1916 the first battle to be fought by Britain's new citizen army. Fought to relieve pressure on the French Armies fighting at Verdun a goal it did accomplish. By the time the battle was over Falkenhayn's strategy had failed to achieve its goal and the German High command came to realise that their armies in the west could not defeat the French and British. Falkenhayn was dismissed and Britain's new citizen army knew that it could take on and defeat the best Germany could throw against it - and that is precisely what proved to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Sorry - missed a bit Dick
Your article on Dev may be of interest to you, but he played a peripheral part during Easter Week, though it might be worthwhile discussing what happened to the ideals of the Rising under his leadership of Ireland, which is partly what Coogan's book and and Diarmaid Ferriter's response is about - but not necessarily here though
I would remind you that you are one of the last people to accuse others of abuse and "puerile, infantile behaviour" - glass houses etc.
THe rudeness that happens here - from all sides - does not change any of the arguments
"That their leadership colluded with the German Government in time of war is undeniable"
It's been denied and proven to be not the case - they accepted guns and no more.
The leadership did not set it up to fail - where is there a modicum of proof to suggest they did?
They thought they could win and had things gone to plan and the Rising been backed throughout Ireland (and unofficially called off), it might have got further than it did.
You are still avoiding the fact that Britain behaved illegally in the way the trials were conducted (after the crisis was over) and the Prime Minister actually altered the reason for one execution after it had been carried out - SFA to do with "martial law" - it was a face-saving attempt to cover up the illegality of what had happened.
The Rising did not bring about the fall of the Empire (the term I used was "set in motion") but it inspired enough opposition to eventually bring the entire system tumbling.
"must be the slowest collapse in History."
I suggest you read Gibbon if you wish to learn how long it actually takes for an empire to collapse - centuries rather than a few decades.
As it was, a handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels kept the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week - comparable to the peasant army which kicked the U.S. off the roof of Saigon Embassy after over a decade of armed struggle.
Credit where credit's due, I say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:26 AM

My word, that doesn't actually answer the question though does it.

We have discussed often enough WW1 and we will never agree on the details so can we move back to the Rising of 1916 and your statement that said:

"But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them"

I asked if anyone knew in 1916 the outcome of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:39 AM

I would point out Teribus I suggested a short time ago we should use the given name of the other individual at all times (as I had been doing for a few days) your reply was less than accommodating and you continued to refer to me as Raggy. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:42 AM

By December 1916 - the Entente Powers knew that they would win. German losses could not be sustained, that was the bitter truth that Falkenhayn's failed attempts at attrition proved throughout 1916. After November 1916 the German Army on the Western Front went onto the defensive and even then British and French bite-and-hold assaults kept them moving back. It was only the collapse of Russia and it's withdrawal from the war that allowed the Germans to make one last desperate effort in 1918. That attack through a series of five offensives failed for exactly the same reasons their initial attack in 1914 failed and then within 21 days of the last of those offensives petering out the British, French and American Armies went over onto the offensive - 100 days later the First World War was over. British leaders Lloyd George and Churchill thought that the Entente powers would have to wait until 1919 to defeat the Germans, Haig proved them wrong, the tactics developed from 1916 and 1917 were refined and put into effect as the Germans ran out of steam and once the offensive started there was never going to be any chance of the Germans stopping it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:49 AM

By December 1916 ............ the Rising took place some 9 months prior. Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:51 AM

Besides Raggy your question was moot - The Entente Powers DID win the war and had the Leaders of 1916 won their place at the table it would only have been to get themselves new arseholes reamed - In those days the inevitable penalty for picking the losing side in any conflict.

Their actions whilst inspiring the "men of the gun" to falsely claim they had the sole mandate to decide the future of the Irish Nation, undoubtedly hardened pro-union opposition and guaranteed partition. In doing this the "heroes of 1916" did neither Ireland or their cause any good at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 06:54 AM

Quite agree Dick. However I held an olive branch out quite recently and was told by Teribus to **** off (for want of a better expression)

It would appear he considered my approach a weakness. I would be quite happy to use the given name if the same consideration was extended to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:05 AM

If the point is moot why did you try to use it to further your argument. Yet another incorrect statement hoping no-one would pull you up no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:06 AM

But Raggy in the general scheme of things related to the prosecution of the First World War the Easter Rising meant absolutely nothing, and as far as Jom's - "a handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels kept the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week" - that's right Carroll big up the opposition after they have knocked seven bells out of you.

Your handful of ill-trained, ill-equipped volunteer rebels:

1: Had numerical superiority at the beginning of the rising and did nothing with it.

2: Had been drilled and trained for a period of at least three years.

As for - "the army of the world's richest and mot powerful Empire at arms length for a full week":

1: Initially ~1,000 men and police officers that increased to 4,000 troops all of them raw recruits straight out of training in England.

2: Historically this went the same way as most attempted rebellions in Ireland or Scotland. The rebels initially make gains against the local forces and militia, but as soon as the regulars arrive on the scene the rebellion is toast.

3: The fact that the conflict was fought in the centre of a city with a population of over 305,000 the fact that fatalities were held to less than 500 shows amazing restraint compared to what the armed forces of the world's richest and most powerful Empire could have done had it actually deployed an army to do the work. Besides Jom an army wasn't available they were doing far more important things elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:11 AM

Ehmmm Raggy' if the point was moot why ask your question in the first place? Totally irrelevant, although the possibility of being tried and executed for treason might have put a few people off and explain the astounding lack of support your rising had.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:14 AM

Nicely glossing over the poor nature and the scarcity of the weapons available to the Irish forces.

You know enough about weapons, so you constantly tell us, did the Irish forces have anything like the weaponry of the British.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:18 AM

The point was raised by you not I.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:25 AM

Sorry Raggy' the question I was referring to was your one about who would know what when. That question I believe I answered fairly comprehensively and factually

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 16 - 07:41 AM

Not factual at all. In April 1916 neither side knew who the victors would be. You were trying to claim something that could not be guessed at, at the time.

Anyhow, That's me done for a while I'm off on holiday and hopefully will be out of contact for over a week.


Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 08:21 AM

"Had numerical superiority at the beginning of the rising and did nothing with it."
Numerical superiority over whom - the population of Dublin?
Immediately the revolt broke out the Army moved in.
The Rebels took over the GPO and read the Proclamation - it had no intention of taking over the City - it was a demonstration in support of Independence.
"Had been drilled and trained for a period of at least three years."
A tiny handful had - the majority were raw volunteers.
Certainly none had the ability and experience to match those they were fighting.
"but as soon as the regulars arrive on the scene the rebellion is toast."
And yet they brought about the beginning of the end for the Empire
"shows amazing restraint"
Yeah sure - the wind blew down all the buildings and killed all the civilians - and the murder of the Rebels with a afked trial never really happened.
"it becomes tedious and boring,"
As does all rudeness Dick, including your own, which is quite often tinged with insulting nastiness
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 09:11 AM

The ridiculousness of your suggestion has just struck me Terri
By the end of the Rising there were 19,000 (have no idea where your 4,000 was conjured up from) British troops in Dublin, some new recruits, but the vast majority trained in weapon use, cavalrymen, heavy-gunners, a battleship and highly trained and log-serving officers - against how many?
Those Rebels who were trained, did so without weapons, whiche were not available, and without experienced officers - their 'training' was little more than a few Sunday afternoons marching with broom-handles over their shoulders and listening to lectures in The Dublin Hills.
The Irish Citizen Army (the 'trained' rebels) was a small group of trained trade union volunteers from the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union established in Dublin for the defence of worker's demonstrations from the police. It was formed by such seasoned and battle-scarred leaders as James Larkin, James Connolly and Jack White on 23 November 1913. Other prominent members included Seán O'Casey, Constance Markievicz, Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and P. T. Daly. In 1916, it took part in the Easter Rising
Those were the ones who started the dominoes of Empire tumbling and gave inspiration to those who were part of its eventual fall.
You really do make this up as you go along, don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 16 - 09:35 AM

In April 1916 neither side knew who the victors would be. You were trying to claim something that could not be guessed at, at the time.

Ah but Raggy you didn't ask about who thought that they would win in April 1916 did you, you asked the following question:

Did either side in 1916 know who would be dictating terms at the end of the war?"

To which I answered first half of 1916 the Germans might have been confident that they would win. By December they would not have been so confident while France and Great Britain would have had grounds for optimism, serious damage inflicted on the German Army forced to retreat on the western front, dismissal of their Commander, realisation in the German High Command that having given it their best shot they could not defeat either Great Britain or France, the German Highs Seas Fleet confined to port where it would remain for the rest of the war. Great Britain's new citizen army had just forced the best army in the world to retreat.

This statement of mine is perfectly true and requires no guessing and no crystal ball at all:

But the thing that really does amaze me is that the clowns who set all this in motion back in 1916 claiming that if their "Provisional Government" stood for a week, then they would have a place at the Peace talks and Peace Treaty negotiations at the end of the war, obviously didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks and treaty negotiations - they like Germany would be having terms dictated to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 16 - 10:50 AM

"Didn't realise that in describing the Germans as their "Gallant Allies in Europe" their Irish delegation would have been sitting on the wrong side of the table at those peace talks"
You have had a reasonable explanation for this fro one of your own - Thatcherite, Michael Portaloo.
You have also been given adequate proof that the Rebels wanted nothing of either Imperial power - "We serve neither King nor Kaiser" - not an empty slogan but a policy statement by James Connolly, one of the leading architects of the Rising (see his gathered essays 'Labour and Easter Week').
The Rebels had no sympathy whatever for either side and you now should know that fact - you've been given enough evidence.
It seems little more than a malicious attempt to distort their position - nobody else anywhere is making such a suggestion.
Those "clowns" still managed to kick the arse of the most powerful Empire on the planet though - no getting away from that fact.
Diarmaid Ferriter who "really knows Irish history."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:04 PM

From your Ferriter link Jim.

"Others see the 1916 Rising as a bloody act by a few unelected individuals. The Rising, they say, increased the divisions between Ulster unionists and southern Irish nationalists, and was the start of an era of unnecessary bloodshed and violence. Many of these people say that independence for Ireland could have been achieved peacefully, without the Rising.
The Rising destroyed the Home Rule project. For 40 years, a group of Irish politicians had campaigned for an arrangement that would keep Ireland inside the British empire, but would allow some decisions be taken by Irish members of an Irish home rule parliament.
The Rising killed off this idea."

"What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 May 16 - 01:35 PM

"What is indisputable is that 1916 was a hugely significant event that transformed the focus of Irish nationalism, increased divisions and made people more politically aware and active."
I think that is a reasonable statement, unfortunately De velera put the clock back by revising the constitution and making reactionary and backward looking deals with the catholic church, and now we appear to have irish politicians the majority of whom are intent on looking after themselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? How?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

2: Ireland would have been given independence,

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

3: the people supported the war,

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

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

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

5: pro-Imperial rebels fighting for Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waiting Jom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Joe-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Offer - 14 May 16 - 01:49 PM

You ask for refutation:

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

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

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

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

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

No "secret alterations" were made to either:

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

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

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

Britain tore up NOTHING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anglo-Irish Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What problem do I have with that?

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

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

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

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

I would prefer to quote the entire sentence:

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

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

Now looking at this piece of nonsense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 14 May 16 - 05:53 PM

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

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

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

Does that make any sense to anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In black and white

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS
In Black, White and Red
Jim Carroll

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

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 01:40 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 06:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prepared to back the claims of the Unionists

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

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

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

WRONG – The Irish Citizen Army:

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

At most they numbered less than 300 men.

As opposed to :

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

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

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

But here's one for you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind I will give you the figures:

Easter Rising 1916 – 485 killed (Includes 260 civilians)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 11:20 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 11:02 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three points here:

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

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

3: There was no Mutiny.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Now then a couple of questions for you:

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

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

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

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

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

Whew - that was a close one!
Jim Carroll

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

More denials eh what
Jim Carroll

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

Whew - that was a close one!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for that single act of dishonesty in 1916
What??

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

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

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

Just to show how prepared to accept the Treaty the Unionists were, this is a description of the Parliamentary debate after the the details of the Treaty had been agreed in 1914 - James Craig, the leading protagonist in this debate, was the leader of the Unster Unionists and became the first Prime Minister of the Six Counties after Independence.
The footnote to the piece is an interesting example of how attitudes had hardly changed at the time of the publication of this book (1999)
Jim Carroll

From 'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce (1999)
Craig, the earnest non-employer of Roman Catholics on his estate, disliked contradiction, of which there is a good deal in Parliament. His friends 'lay open to the grossest taunts and insults from members on the other side'. They were 'met in the most flippant and jeering way with members of the Cabinet sitting there and grinning like apes at us'. He was tired and wouldn't stand for it.
"The north of Ireland will be forced from under the shelter of Great Britain and from under the British flag, and will have to go. In future we will have to take our orders from the hon. and learned member for Waterford [Redmond] and the nationalist rebels. *
That is the position I say so far as I am concerned - and this is a serious statement - I am tired: I repeat it, I am tired. I believe that my proper place and the proper place of all the other Ulster members is among their own trusty friends in the north of Ireland, for I believe that this government is not to be treated as a government, but is to be treated as a caucus led by rebels. The only way to treat them is for us to go back quietly and assist our loyal friends there to make what preparations are necessary."
Craig's sullen rage was infectious. A few minutes later, while a Tory member, Pollock, was renewing the attack on Asquith - 'quite ready to throw aside every possible precedent in order to maintain his own contemptible position' - the skies broke in ways best set out by Hansard: 4
SIR WILLIAM BULL, COLONEL CHALLONER AND OTHER HON. MEMBERS: Traitor, traitor!
MR SPEAKER: If I knew the hon. member who made use of that expression—
SIR WILLIAM BULL: I did.
COLONEL CHALLONER: I did.
MR SPEAKER: I tell both members that it is not a parliamentary expression.
MR CHARLES CRAIG: How can hon. members be expected to use parliamentary expressions under circumstances such as these?
MR SPEAKER: However strongly hon. members feel they have been treated, they are not entitled to use that particular word.
MR CHARLES CRAIG: I echo everything that has been said by the hon. member.
(HON. MEMBERS: Traitor! )
MR SPEAKER: What hon. members used that expression?
SIR WILLIAM BULL: I used it."

* Ireland had not rebelled in any meaningful sense since 1798, but Ulster Unionists always cultivate a taste for anachronism. To this day they speak of the Republic of Ireland - established under that name in 1949 - by its treaty title, the 'Free State'.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 06:51 AM

"Treaty"
Should read - "The Bill" of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 06:58 AM

Just been through this entire thread

As far as supplying links and corroboration of what he has said in his posts no-one comes close to the number of links and quotes submitted by Keith A of Hertford.

Jim Carroll hurls out accusations of no links being provided when it is plainly obvious that they have. His posts to this thread have contained massive cut-n-pastes of material that is largely irrelevant, attempts to divert the thread onto past topics when he feels he is coming under pressure, complete and utter denial of fact (Irrespective of evidence that prove him to be in error) and convoluted arguments based entirely on things that people haven't stated.

GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion.

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

"Jim Carroll hurls out accusations of no links being provided when it is plainly obvious that they have."
You haven't and you never do, and that is all I have ever commented on.
Keith's links are a bit of a standing joke, with his "real historians selling books in real bookshops".
This appears to be a bit of a diversion - the pieces I have offered may be trivia to you (you would say that, wouldn't you?), but they all reference statements you have made, which logically makes those statements "trivia".
"Trivia" appears to mean "Everything I disagree with" in your dictionary.
Why not try to respond to the points rather than trying to denigrate those who don't agree with you.
Jim Carroll

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

"GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion."
You also appear to have resorted to swinging wild in denigrating and insulting other members of this forum on the basis of what they have and have not said - nobody should be allowed to do that.
Greg has offered his opinion, which is basically, all you have done as you never link to what you claim.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 16 - 08:39 AM

Jim,
Read their proclomation

Britain was and is ruled by Parliament not Proclamation.
The Home Rule Act was agreed by all sides in Parliament.
That is a fact.
Home rule was assured.
That is a fact.

The rising poisoned the well of peaceful negotiation for ever, and led to years of bloodshed.
It achieved nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 09:07 AM

"Britain was and is ruled by Parliament not Proclamation."
We are talking about where the Unionists stood on Independence, not what happened in Parliament.
They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring - quite clear from both their proclamation, which was an open statement of defiance and from the proceedings recorded in Hansard ( 18 months before The Easter Rising).
The Unionists had actually armed themselves against having to accept Independence in any form.
To suggest that The Easter Rising in any way posed the threat of an "unstable state" is utter nonsense; The Unionists had destabilised the situation long before the rising was a twinkle in anyone's eye.
The Easter Rising became an excuse to succumb to the demands of the Unionists.
Partitioning Ireland was utterly undemocratic, even by British Parliamentary standards - a little like allowing South East to secede from the rest of the Britain because that's where the work is.
It is no different to what happened in America when the South attempted to withdraw from The Union - also leading to Civil war.
One of the realities of all this is that in genaral, Northern Irish people in the main consider themselves Irish rather than British - it is the bowler-hatted and be-sashed nutters who are very much in the minority and who cause the bloodshed, not the Northern Irish people.
If you visit any part of the North (East) you will find friendly people who have no problems in communicating with each other - go there on the 'Glorious Twelfth' and you will see how that situation annually changes for a short period (in a couple of cities rather than throughout the country).
Leon Uris and others have rightly described it as "hate-invoking tribalism"      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 09:15 AM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 07:14 AM

"Jim Carroll hurls out accusations of no links being provided when it is plainly obvious that they have."
You haven't and you never do, and that is all I have ever commented on.

REALLY JIM? Then please explain this little passage of posts it relates to the number of officer resignations in March 1914 – you know – that "Act of Aggression" you initially introduced into this thread:

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 06:14 AM

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

Teribus -15 May 16 - 10:23 AM

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 15 May 16 - 11:02 AM

"This is YOUR OPINION and about as factually wrong as you could get it."
No it is not - it is a direct quote from Asquith -
"Asquith confided to a friend 'there is no doubt if were to order a march upon Ulster that about half the officers in the Army would strike."
so maybe he got it wrong and your source got it right - whoops - you didn't give a source, did you?

BUT I HAD GIVEN THE SOURCE HADN'T I CARROLL

And what you were presenting as a fact was a remark reportedly made by Asquith who could only have been stating an opinion.

You clearly cannot differentiate between fact and opinion

You have got no clue whatsoever as to what constitutes evidence – that you mistake for unsubstantiated rumour but only if it suits your point of view.

As to the Government of Ireland ACT 1914 that you keep insisting was altered in July 1916 and was further altered in 1918 – here is what it covered when it received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914

The Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, introduced the Bill on 11 April 1912.[2] Allowing more autonomy than its two predecessors, the bill provided for:

A bicameral Irish Parliament to be set up in Dublin (a 40-member Senate and a 164-member House of Commons) with powers to deal with most national affairs;

A number of Irish MPs would continue to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom (42 MPs, rather than 103).

The abolition of Dublin Castle administration, though with the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.

The financial situation was a concern. Irish taxes had yielded a surplus of £2 million in 1893, that had turned into a current spending net deficit of £1.5m by 1910 that had to be raised by London. An annual "Transferred Sum" mechanism was proposed to maintain spending in Ireland as it was.[3]

The Bill was passed by the Commons by a majority of 10 votes in 1912 but the House of Lords rejected it 326 votes to 69 in January 1913. In 1913 it was reintroduced and again passed by the Commons but was again rejected by the Lords by 302 votes to 64. In 1914 after the third reading, the Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent.

Now that is fact – simple recorded Parliamentary Fact – you can use the internet to check it out – as you obviously will not accept any link I put up regarding this Act of Parliament – Only trouble is that you cannot be arsed to do that – so you persist in repeating your ill-informed and totally incorrect fairy stories. Mind you, you are not alone on this forum who cannot be bothered to check facts, there are quite a few of you including Joe Offer.

Now where is the Government of Ireland Act 1914 as subsequently amended 1916 Jim?

Where is the Government of Ireland Act 1914 as subsequently amended 1916 and further amended 1918 Jim?

Good luck in coming up with those because they simply DO NOT EXIST

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 07:29 AM

Greg has offered his opinion

Yes Jim he has offered his opinion but in doing so "GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 09:48 AM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 09:07 AM

"Britain was and is ruled by Parliament not Proclamation."

We are talking about where the Unionists stood on Independence, not what happened in Parliament.

They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring - quite clear from both their proclamation, which was an open statement of defiance and from the proceedings recorded in Hansard ( 18 months before The Easter Rising).

1: Where the Unionists stood on Independence?? I would have thought that that would be obvious - they would be against it - and that is what they stated.

2: So "They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring" - I take it here you are referring to the Temporary six years exclusion amendment that was discussed but never was actually written into the Act that obtained Royal Assent in 1914. But if what you said is true, then it shows that the Unionist side was prepared to make a compromise. The Redmond-ite Nationalists were content with first obtaining Home Rule and they were backed by a vast number throughout Ireland.

What they were being offered was Home Rule and Dominion status just like Canada and Australia - both countries are federations of individual States (Australia) and Provinces (Canada) - why couldn't the same thing have applied to Ireland? (Had they done so, the Home Rulers would have had a sovereign independent united Ireland by 1931 under the Statute of Westminster). The exclusion from rule from Dublin proposed was temporary and it should have been in the gift of all minds assembled to demonstrate a way that a United Ireland could be made to work during the course of those six years. Unfortunately for all parties the Great War delayed everything.

The other fly in the ointment were the Irish Republicans who wanted immediate independence in 1914 they were a small minority. They plotted a rising and colluded with the enemy in order to make it happen. Their rising of 1916 which has demonstrably been proven to have had very little support failed and served only to politically polarise those seeking independence and those wishing to remain in the Union with Great Britain - after the '16 rebellion the War of Independence and the ensuing Civil War that immediately followed it, there was no way on God's earth that the Unionists could be tempted into a United Ireland, and that is where things stand today.

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

Still no links which makes everything here uncorroborated opinion which has been covered over and over again by identifiable facts.
No intention of going over any of this again - it's all here.
"GregF has said absolutely nothing in connection with the subject under discussion."
Couldn't agree more - why bring him into it - I didn't?
"CARROLL"
Jim Carroll is the name I have chosen to be identified by - if you can't manage respect - why not opt for dignity - you're not doing yourself any favors here - mounting hysteria really doesn't help.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 16 - 10:27 AM

They reluctantly accepted a compromise which they had no intention of honouring - quite clear from both their proclamation, which was an open statement of defiance and from the proceedings recorded in Hansard

There was no reluctance. They could have rejected it.
They fully backed the Bill, just asking to be left out for a while to see how it turned out.

Your baseless claims are all false Jim.
No "evidence" at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 11:07 AM

"There was no reluctance. They could have rejected it."
Tactically they couldn't - they did not "fully back the bill" you have Craig's statement and their continuing behaviour right up to the present day has confirmed that fact.
Where is your evidence for any of this Keith - you appear to have abandoned even your "real historians" - oh fickle, fickle man!!!
Can we just sort out this temporary/permanent nonsense once and for all.
In his Limerick speech Redmond described the idea of partition as "an unthinkable abomination"
He was only brought around to the idea by the promise that it should be only for a temporary period - six years.
Lloyd George was fully aware of this - that is why he separately and secretly negotiated with both sides, promising one side a temporary partitioning, the other, a permanent one.
Not only did that dishonesty kill The Home Rule movement stone dead and lead to a demand for full independence for Ireland, but it has been responsible for every bomb exploded and every bullet fired in here and on mainland Britain ever since.
It was described as a "betrayal" by Redmond, who as a supporter of The British Empire, and that is exactly what it was.
Now, unless anybody has any fresh information on the matter I suggest we stop peddling lines that have long been discredited and move on.
NEXT
Jim Carroll

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

Perthaps this might put paid to the claim that the Unionists supported The Home Rule Bill (though I doubt it)
From The Troubles Thames Television 1980
THE ULSTER VOLUNTEER FORCE
In January 1913, the Ulster Unionist Council, led by Carson, decided to bring the various ad hoc groups who were drilling in northern Ireland into one unit, the Ulster Volunteer Force. This was to be organised on a military basis under the command of a retired professional army officer, Sir George Richardson. Volunteers started assembling and drilling openly throughout Ulster, although at first they carried only wooden replicas of rifles and it is probable that they were not taken seriously. Soon, however, their numbers amounted to some 100,000 men.
One of the most fanatical of Ulstermen, Major Fred Crawford (who had signed his name in blood on Ulster's Solemn League and Covenant), brought several thousand rifles, some machine guns and a large stockpile of ammunition into Ulster during the year to arm the UVF. The Government, alarmed by the growth of this private armoury, clamped down and in December prohibited the import of arms and ammunition into Ireland. With instructions from the Ulster Unionist Council and with funds raised in England and Ireland, Crawford disappeared to Germany to purchase whatever weaponry he could, planning to smuggle it back into Ulster by sea. On the night of 24 April 1914, 20,000 German rifles and 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition were landed at three Ulster ports and distributed throughout the UVF within twenty-four hours. The gun-running restored a position of military supremacy in Ireland to the Ulster Unionists, at a crucial time during the delicate negotiations over Home Rule. It helped to persuade Asquith and the Liberal Cabinet that the Ulster threats were no bluff.
By July 1914, the Ulster Volunteer Force was well armed and well trained. In the case of a complete breakdown in the Home Rule discussions, they threatened open war against anyone who tried to impose a Dublin Parliament on Ulster. UVF units were standing by, awaiting the telegraphed order from Carson to move into action. Detailed and intricate plans had been made to evacuate the women and children from Belfast in the event of an outbreak of fighting. The UVF medical corps was prepared to deal with thousands of casualties. Then, suddenly, the problems of Ulster were overwhelmed by a far greater conflagration.
The photograph shows Sir Edward Carson, with his characteristic blackthorn stick, inspecting a UVF unit in 1914, after the Larne gun-running. Note the German rifles and the military regalia.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 12:33 PM

Still no links which makes everything here uncorroborated opinion which has been covered over and over again by identifiable facts.

Ah it has to be links that you can click on does it Jom. I believe that I have given a few of those and Keith A has given you many, but here we go:

1: Curragh Incident

Extract 1:
On the evening of 18 March Paget wired Maj-Gen Friend that the troop movements were to be completed by dawn on Sunday 31 March. Paget was summoned to another meeting on 19 March at which Seely declared that the government was pressing ahead with Home Rule and had no intention of allowing civil war to break out, suggesting that the Ulster Volunteers were to be crushed if they attempted to start one. Prince Louis of Battenberg (First Sea Lord) was also at the meeting, as that day the 3rd Battle Squadron was ordered to steam to Lamlash on the Firth of Clyde (the following night Churchill told French that his ships would have Belfast in flames in 24 hours), whilst other vessels were ready to help deploy troops to Ulster (in case of a strike by railwaymen sympathetic to Ulster).

Extract 2:
On the evening of 20 March Paget sent a telegram to the War Office in London announcing that almost all the officers of 5th Lancers intended to resign and the same was probably true of 16th Lancers. Seely replied, on behalf of the Army Council, telling Paget to suspend any senior officer who had offered to resign, and ordering Gough and 2 of his 3 colonels (the attitude of the third was unclear) to report to the War Office. A second telegram just before midnight confirmed 57 officers preferred to accept dismissal (it was actually 61 including Gough[9]):


Officer Commanding 5th Lancers states that all officers, except two and one doubtful, are resigning their commissions today. I much fear same conditions in the 16th Lancers. Fear men will refuse to move. Regret to report Brigadier-General Gough and fifty-seven officers 3rd Cavalry Brigade prefer to accept dismissal if ordered North.


The officers were not technically guilty of mutiny, as they had resigned before refusing to carry out a direct order. As all were in Gough's brigade, and as they were informed of his reservations about Seely's orders, he was portrayed as central to the whole incident.


Extract 3:
General Sir Charles Fergusson, then commanding the 5th division in Ireland, toured units on the morining of Saturday 21 March to ensure their future compliance with government policy. One of his officers said later that:

"He [Fergusson] reminded us that although we must natur­ally hold private political views, officially we should not be on the side of any one political party. It was our duty to obey orders, to go wherever we were sent and to comply with instructions of any political party that happened to be in power. There was no sloppy sentiment, it was good stuff straight from the shoulder and just what we wanted."[10]

Paget did the same but his speech was described as "absolutely unconvincing and inconclusive". However Paget was able to conduct the precautionary moves planned on 18 and 19 March.[11]

Extract 4:
Gough, summoned to the War Office, confirmed (Sunday 22 March) that he would have obeyed a direct order to move against Ulster.

2: Government of Ireland Act 1914

3: Republican Nationalists Collusion with Germany

Sir Roger Casement

Extract 1:
In August 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, Casement and John Devoy arranged a meeting in New York with the western hemisphere's top-ranking German diplomat, Count Bernstorff, to propose a mutually beneficial plan: if Germany would sell guns to the Irish revolutionary and provide military leaders, the Irish would revolt against England, diverting troops and attention from the war on Germany. Bernstorff appeared sympathetic.

Extract 2:
In October 1914 Casement sailed for Germany via Norway — In November 1914[23] Casement negotiated a declaration by Germany which stated:


"The Imperial Government formally declares that under no circumstances would Germany invade Ireland with a view to its conquest or the overthrow of any native institutions in that country. Should the fortune of this Great War, that was not of Germany's seeking, ever bring in its course German troops to the shores of Ireland, they would land there not as an army of invaders to pillage and destroy but as the forces of a Government that is inspired by goodwill towards a country and people for whom Germany desires only national prosperity and national freedom".[24]


Planning the Easter Rising

Extract 1:
The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany.

Extract 2:
After the war began, Roger Casement and Clan na Gael leader John Devoy met the German ambassador to the United States, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, to discuss German backing for an uprising. Casement went to Germany and began negotiations with the German government and military. He persuaded the Germans to announce their support for Irish independence in November 1914.[31] Casement also attempted to recruit an Irish Brigade, made up of Irish prisoners of war, which would be armed and sent to Ireland to join the uprising.[32][33] However, only 56 men volunteered. Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.[34] The German military rejected the plan, but agreed to ship arms and ammunition to the Volunteers.[35]

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 12:47 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 11:24 AM

Perthaps this might put paid to the claim that the Unionists supported The Home Rule Bill (though I doubt it)

Your "cut-n-paste" from a TV Programme shows nothing of the sort, the Home Rule Bill is not even mentioned in it. What it does show without any shadow of a doubt - the lengths that the Ulster Unionists were prepared to go to make it perfectly clear to anybody that they were not under any circumstance prepared to be coerced into a united Ireland governed from Dublin by a government seeking full independence, a government in which they would always be a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:22 PM

"Your "cut-n-paste" from a TV Programme shows nothing of the sort, the Home Rule Bil"
Wasn'tr from a "Television programme" - it was a series of essays based on the research for a series of Programmes.
We know what the Curragh Mutiny was - it was a threat to disobey orders if troops were sent to prevent an armed insurrection in Ulster - in other words, to support that armed insurrection by neutralising the British Army in Ireland - sounds like mutiny (or something more sinister) to me.
Been here, done that - go and read the tee-shirt - all the facts are there for all to see other than those who don't wish to read them.
No more on the "betrayal" of the British Empire's Irish allies in parliament - at least that one's out the way.
Or the fact that the "traitorously" rebellious Ulstermen were the first to import arms into Ireland to be used by paramilitaries for a political purpose SUPPLIED BY GERMANY - now there's a coincidence .

NEXT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:27 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 11:07 AM

Your time line is flying all over the place.

John Redmond

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."

Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination, they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms. The USA at that time was and still is a Federal Union of individual sovereign states, the Dominion of Canada a Confederation of Provinces and Australia a Commonwealth of States.

John Redmond and the Easter Rising: Many in the south of Ireland were initially angry with the rebels, but the executions caused widespread resentment. Fatally for his political ambitions, Redmond supported the British government. Many of his supporters turned to a new anti-British political party called Sinn Féin.

Redmond foresaw anarchy "when every blackguard who wants to commit an outrage will simply call himself a Sinn Féiner and thereby get the sympathy of the unthinking crowd".

Here he is describing the "Men of the Gun" who have been a bane and a brake on progress in Ireland since seven men decided to have a go one Easter one hundred years ago. The excuse always used is their ludicrous claims of having a mandate for violence on behalf of the "Irish people" based on the illegal territorial claim that up until 1998 was enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:44 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 01:22 PM

Ah even when given links and sources it makes no difference (Well I knew that before I posted them) so why bother.

What was the order that was supposed to have been given that caused the resignations?

The prospect of being ordered to Ulster to supress any action taken by the UVF? - Nope.

The orders being considered was the movement of troops to secure arms depots in the North. Those were the measures being planned on the 18th and 19th March. Apart from the threat of resignation by a few officers, those orders were carried out by the original planned date of 31st March. As a contingency should the UVF have interfered with these precautions, the fleet was standing-by ready to intervene and supply ships to bring troops across from the mainland.

But then you would have known all that if you had read the link provided. But as you don't read 'em why should anybody supply 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 01:54 PM

"Cannot really see why it should be such an abomination,"
You're not Irish are you
Though you said you did't believe Ireland should have stayed in the Empitre -make up your mind.
"Many of his supporters turned to a new anti-British political party called Sinn Féin."
Sinn Fein arose out of a number of Anti-British parties stretching bak into the 19th century - like the Rising - it didn't come out of thin air..
Sorry do you mean the ""Men of the Gun" who threatened violence prior to WW1 or the "Men of the Gun" who Rebelled against British rule in 1916 - all very confusing?
"What was the order that was supposed to have been given that caused the resignations?"
Your'e the military "expert" you tell me.
I do know that the Curragh traitors supported the armed Ulstermen who were threatening to wage war against what was then a part of Britain nasty men!!!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 02:13 PM

"they were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms
aRE YOUJOKING - PRIOR TO THE ***** NORMANS - where exactly was the British Empire then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 16 - 02:35 PM

Jim, all that stuff you posted about Craig and Hansard was from 1912!
In 1914 the Unionists supported the Home Rule Bill and it was passed with a large majority.

All your claims about it are false.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 02:47 PM

"In 1914 the Unionists supported the Home Rule Bill and it was passed with a large majority."
The Unionists were getting arms from Germany in April 1914 (three months before war broke out) to invade the South if things didn't go their way.
The army officers refused to support threatened violence from Usltermen in March 1914
The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914 - up to then it had been only for six years, which meant they were opposed to The Home Rule agreement as it stood until it was altered.
Please don't be so obtuse (or dishonest) Keith - and do not accuse me of making 'false' claims - I leave that to experts like yourself
Jim Carroll

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

Carson described the proposal to partition Ireland for six years as
" we do not want a sentence of death, with a stay of execution for 6 years."
How does that indicate in any way that he did anything but oppose the proposed bill?
The Unionists have always said that they will never accept a United Ireland -
How does that indicate in any way that they were not totally against the proposals contained in the Bill?
Give us a break
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 05:18 PM

"The army officers refused to support threatened violence from Usltermen in March 1914"

Exactly, on the orders of the British Government the Army moved troops to the six armament depots in the North to safeguard against those arms falling into the hands of the UVF if they decided to take any action. They most definitely were not going to support any threat of violence from the UVF in the North. Now tell us all how they managed to do that in the middle of this mutiny of yours were "half the officers in the Army" were refusing to obey orders, unless of course there wasn't a mutiny at all.

"The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914"

Oh dear Jim, time lines crossed again, nobody was talking about any permanent partition in 1914. You've got your July right but the year is two years out, it was in July 1916 that Carson got Lloyd George's assurance in writing that Ulster would never be forced into a united Ireland - but he {Lloyd George} did not give Carson any guarantee of a permanent partition. Now you tell me what happened in 1916 in Ireland that might have given the Unionists pause for thought and harden their attitudes to a united Ireland (HINT - Have a look at Dublin in April that year).

Jim Carroll - 16 May 16 - 02:13 PM

Joking no - prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 16 - 08:04 PM

Right - finished with you pair.
This is the situation you have been given, by all the evidence you have been provided.
The Unionist, armed themselves with smuggled weapons and declared that, under no circumstances they would accept a United Ireland - they were no more than an armed group of traitorous paramilitaries.
The Government were well aware of this, which is why they altered the agreed conditions (Redmond had made it clear he would accept no other) from "six years" to "permanent partition", in doing so, they colluded with armed paramilitaries who had been assembled and egged-on by Carson, Craig and other fanatical nutters while at the same time destroying the Home Rule movement which would possibly have kept Ireland within the control of the Empire.
High ranking officers in the British Army pledged their support to this bunch of fanatical paramilitaries by saying that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland - traitors all, prepared to take part in what amounted to a military coup in the event of part of the British Isles being attacked by self-declared, fanatical nutters (one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).
The Conservatives in the Government backed these the nutty Paramilitaries.
Probably, one of the few good things to come out of W.W.1. was that it dissipated a potentially disastrous Civil War in Britain.
When the Republicans eventually forced Britain to give 26 counties full independence, the fanatical nutters who had brought Britain to the brink of Civil War were put in charge of the six counties, and mounted a nearly half-a-century reign of terror and persecution on one third of the population which lasted to the late 1960s when, after an attempt to gain civil rights was brutally put down by the fanatical nutters, aided and abetted by the R.U.C. - this erupted into 'The Troubles' which spilled over onto mainland Britain.
And the Easter uprising was a "contemptible joke" - sure it was!!
To to top all this - Ireland, who had no right to independence (which one of you have denied claiming) had never really existed as a nation anyway (as claimed by the same feller)
Those who the gods wish to destroy must be first made mad - as the saying goes.
G'night George, g'night Gracie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 16 - 10:08 PM

Nice fairy tale Jom but it does not stand up when you put the events in order and apply a time line to them.

I have always said that your attention to detail is almost no-existent and your ability with regard to research is careless and shoddy.

1: "The Unionist, armed themselves with smuggled weapons and declared that, under no circumstances they would accept a United Ireland - they were no more than an armed group of traitorous paramilitaries."

But they didn't did they Jom - here's the actual time line for you:

11th April, 1912 - Asquith introduces the Third Irish Home Rule Bill

28th September, 1912 'Ulster Day' - The day when 447,197 people signed the Ulster Covenant, which bound those 447,197 signatories to resist Home Rule by use of "all means necessary".

13th January, 1913 - The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed to resist any attempts by the British Government to 'impose' Home Rule on Ulster.

25th November 1913 the Irish Volunteer Force created - its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland" (Shall we just ignore/deny the existence of such previous Nationalist groups as the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians, Sinn Féin, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood who for reasons best known to themselves joined the IVF secretly)

December 1913 - British Government ban the import into Ireland of arms.

March 1914 - British Government order troops based in Ireland to deploy to armament depots in the North to safeguard the contents from possible theft by the UVF. By 31st March the troops are in place and the arms depots are secured.

25th April, 1914 - UVF successfully smuggle arms into Ulster - the guns and ammunition having been purchased in Hamburg from a private arms dealer.

21st May, 1914 - A proposed amendment to the Bill that temporarily excludes the whole of Ulster from Government from Dublin for six years is proposed.

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

26th July, 1914 - IVF successfully smuggle arms into Howth - the guns and ammunition having been purchased in Germany.

4th August, 1914 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declares war on Germany. UVF members were subsequently to volunteer for service in the British Army. Asquith abandons his Amending Bill.

5th September, 1914 - The Supreme Council of the IRB meet and decide that they will stage an uprising before the war ends and to do this they will secure help from Germany.

18th September, 1914 - The Government of Ireland Act 1914 receives Royal Assent.

Doesn't quite tally with your little one liner does it Jom. The UVF never using the guns it smuggled in and then the UVF almost to a man go off and volunteer to fight the Germans (To be fair quite a number of the Redmond faction of the IVF did the same). The Pearse faction of the IVF just one month after the war starts votes to collude with the enemy in order to turn it's guns on British Troops and Irish Policemen in Dublin on the 24th April, 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:36 AM

"The Government were well aware of this, which is why they altered the agreed conditions (Redmond had made it clear he would accept no other) from "six years" to "permanent partition"

Of course the only problem with this bit of your story Jom is that:

The Third Home Rule Bill put before Parliament in April 1912, received Royal Assent in September 1914 in its original form, Asquith having abandoned his Amending Bill in August 1914 when the country went war with Germany.

So you see the Government altered nothing. As would be plainly obvious if you bothered to read the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - you won't do that I know and you will cling to your MYTH.

Now let us take a look at the alteration of "agreed" conditions and the your next bit of nonsense that can be shown for the misleading claptrap that it is by looking at dates events happened (Referring here to your - "they colluded with armed paramilitaries who had been assembled and egged-on by Carson, Craig and other fanatical nutters while at the same time destroying the Home Rule movement which would possibly have kept Ireland within the control of the Empire.). It comes in two parts:

1914 - Asquith's Amending Bill

21st May, 1914 - A proposed amendment to the Bill that temporarily excludes the whole of Ulster from Government from Dublin for six years is proposed.

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

4th August, 1914 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland declares war on Germany. UVF members were subsequently to volunteer for service in the British Army. Asquith abandons his Amending Bill.

18th September 1914 - Home Rule Bill becomes a Home Rule Act

Fast forward to 1916

24th April to 29th April 1916 - IVF stage the rising in Dublin

3rd to 12th May 1916 - Leaders executed, the manner in which the British Military authorities in Ireland deals with the aftermath causes previous Home Rule moderates to sympathise with the harder line Independence Republicans.

July 1916 - Asquith attempts to enact the 1914 Home Rule Act and Lloyd George is sent to broker some sort of deal. Redmond is still prepared to accept the temporary six year exclusion for Ulster. Carson, Craig and the pro-unionists for some obscure reason have now backed away from that and want a permanent partition. Lloyd George in attempting to get back to the 1914 agreement assures Carson that Ulster will not be forced into any united Ireland against its will (Nowhere in that correspondence is any permanent partition promised). All negotiations breakdown when Redmond hears of this assurance and the attempt to enact Home Rule for Ireland is abandoned.   

Now in the summer of 1916 who were the armed paramilitaries that the Government were colluding with? In 1914 and 1915 the members of the UVF were volunteering in droves to join the Irish Regiments in the British Army, as to a lesser extent were members of the Redmonite Home Rule faction of the IVF, leaving only the hardline leadership of the Republican Independence Pearse faction of the IVF to plot their rising in secret from their own members between 1915 and Easter 1916.

What hardened the pro-unionist stance - the Easter Rising
Was the Government of Ireland Act 1914 altered in 1916 - no it was not.

Redmond basically went into a sulk and that was that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:47 AM

Jim,
The Unionists were totally opposed to the Home Rule Bill unless it included permanent partition which was granted to them in July 1914

You are inventing history again Jim.

The Unionists were not "totally opposed," they voted for it!

In July 1914 they agreed a temporary not permanent partition.
There was no suggestion of any permanent partition until after the rising, and because of the rising.

You have all your facts completely wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 04:56 AM

"To to top all this - Ireland, who had no right to independence (which one of you have denied claiming) had never really existed as a nation anyway (as claimed by the same feller)"

Now then a couple of questions for you about that:

1: When and where did I ever say that I thought that Ireland was not entitled to independence? (You've been asked for proof of this claim of yours a number of times now and you have rather significantly been unable to come up with it - yet another baseless accusation - more Jim Carroll "made-up-shit")

2: "Ireland never really existed as a nation"? I do not recall saying that. What I did say was: "they" {the Irish} were never a united nation prior to the arrival of the Normans, they were a collection of small kingdoms" I think if you study your history of Ireland you will find that that statement is perfectly correct.

Oh and while you are at it, you could answer and back up another of your baseless accusations:

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 05:38 AM

On to the next bit of complete and utter twaddle:

High ranking officers in the British Army pledged their support to this bunch of fanatical paramilitaries by saying that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland - traitors all, prepared to take part in what amounted to a military coup in the event of part of the British Isles being attacked by self-declared, fanatical nutters (one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).

High ranking officers pledged their support to bunch of fanatical paramilitaries did they? Specifics, where, when and how? The most senior Officer involved in the Curragh Incident was Gough, who when summoned to the War Office on the 22nd March stated quite clearly and unequivocally that he would obey any order given him.

57 Officers out of 70 in one Brigade stated that they would tender their resignations rather than face dismissal. As events progressed none of these officers resigned, and the orders to deploy North to secure six armament depots were carried out and completed on schedule (31st March, 1914).

Where on earth did you get this from:

High ranking officers in the British Army said that they would refuse to order their men to stop them if they{these fanatical paramilitaries presumably} mounted an armed revolt on then British Ireland.

Have you any proof at all for this, or is it more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" presented as fact that we all must swallow. But here are a few facts for you:

1: The men were ordered North, those orders were obeyed to the letter.
2: Not only were the British troops in Ireland prepared to act against any armed insurrection, contingencies for six scenarios related to possible UVF activity had been considered and prepared for.
3: Measures were in place to reinforce the troops in Ireland if need be with troops from the Mainland, these measures even took into account the possibility of strike action by railwaymen, dockers and merchant seamen in sympathy with the Ulster Unionists.
4: The Royal Navy's 3rd Battle Squadron was off Lamlash in the Clyde with orders to bombard Belfast if required.

There were no UVF plans to take over the armaments depots, they thought that doing that would be too severe a provocation, they decided to purchase arms abroad instead and the plan to smuggle these arms into Ulster was well underway even before the Curragh Incident happened.

There was no UVF plan to march on Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 05:53 AM

Apologies - I forgot this bit:

(one high-ranking nutter had signed the Covenant in his own blood).

Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 06:08 AM

The Conservatives in the Government backed these the nutty Paramilitaries.

Only one tiny thing wrong with that - It was a Liberal Government in power from 5 April 1908 – 25th May 1915 and then a Coalition Wartime Government under Asquith's leadership from 25th May 1915 until 5th December 1916. So in the time frame you are attempting to squeeze all this into there were no Conservatives in the Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 10:05 AM

"Probably, one of the few good things to come out of W.W.1. was that it dissipated a potentially disastrous Civil War in Britain."

Oh don't be such a grump Carroll, there were lots of good things that came out of WWI. The one that you mention is a minor one, primarily as it is based entirely on conjecture, it is only your opinion that has converted the possible to the probable. Noted however that you glossed over the fact that after war had been declared the men of the UVF joined the British Army - What did Pearse's 15,000 do? Ah yes they colluded with the enemy and planned a rising and set it up to fail thereby betraying their own men and throwing their lives away.

When the Republicans eventually forced Britain to give 26 counties full independence, the fanatical nutters who had brought Britain to the brink of Civil War were put in charge of the six counties, and mounted a nearly half-a-century reign of terror and persecution on one third of the population which lasted to the late 1960s when, after an attempt to gain civil rights was brutally put down by the fanatical nutters, aided and abetted by the R.U.C. - this erupted into 'The Troubles' which spilled over onto mainland Britain.

First question when exactly did the pro-union UVF bring Britain to the brink of a civil war in Britain? They clearly stated what their red line was (Ulster being forced into a united Ireland governed from Dublin) and at no time from April 1912 to 7th December 1921 did that ever look as though it was ever going to happen.

When the truce was called in June 1921 the war had been fought to a stalemate. In the ensuing negotiations the parties involved agreed to honour and respect the right of self-determination for both Northern and Southern Ireland - on the 6th December 1921 a united and independent Irish Free State came into being and in accordance with the terms of the Treaty that created it on the 7th December 1921 the six counties of the North exercised their right to cede from that State to become a self-governing autonomous part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But I note your bias - the pro-unionists you portray as fanatical nutters who in the period we are talking about did not fire a single shot or kill anyone and who when their country went to war they willingly volunteered to fight the enemy. Those who were put in charge to run the six counties were elected to do so by the electorate of Northern Ireland.

Now what about the fanatical paramilitary nutters of the IVF led by Pearse. SEVEN men plotted a rising that they kept secret from their own IVF Executive and colluded with the enemy in time of war. They lit the blue touch paper and stood back and watched as their actions in Dublin bore fruit. All the destruction wrought was THEIR responsibility. Their actions polarised opinion and ended all hope of a united Ireland as far as the North was concerned. As with those elected to run things in the North those elected in the South were elected to do so by the electorate of the Free State and those elected in the South taking into account the rising, the war of independence and the civil war had a damn sight more blood on their hands.

If you wish to discuss, sectarianism, bigotry and civil rights abuses post 1921 then open a thread about it but if you do then make sure your opening post covers those that occurred in both the North and in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Once again, no links, no proof, just declarations - you've stopped even pretending to link your claims - none of which dispute anything I have put up with verification.
Nothing you offer disproves anything I have put up, mostof it doesn't even realte to it.
I've just about had it with you pair of anachronistic Empire Loyalists – your 'Ireland has no right to claim independence as it isn't really a nation' because of the situation 800 years ago, really was the limit of the time I'm prepared to waste with a pair of hate-filled dinosaurs – I have come to the conclusion that people who advocate the type of fundamentalism expressed by you are really not 'the full shilling', as they say around here.
You've already claimed that Ireland has no right to unity, denied you said it and now you've repeated it
Of course Ireland has every right to be considered a full Nation   - it was a Nation when America was no more than a collection of colonial settlers from all over the world, under British rule, on the one hand, slaughtering the native Americans and robbing their land, on the other, driving off other Empires so they wouldn't have to share the loot.
Ireland was a nation when Australia was a British penal colony, and the when their New Zealand Colonial neighbours were doing the same to the Maoris as was being done to the Native Americans.
It was a nation when England was still fighting its nearest neighbours, Scotland and Wales, destroying their cultures, languages and ways of life and bringing their leaders to heel as faithful servants of the Empire.
You reflect everything that made The British Empire the evil predatory leech that it was, it's arrogance, its hate filled superiority and its contempt for everybody it controlled and everybody who ever opposed its despotic rule.
I was educated into believing that to be foreign was to be inferior, that Britannia still "ruled the waves", that we, as Britons, were "special" and that we had "civilised a world filled with savage barbarians – that was right up to the mid 1950s.
The hangover from that 'brainwashing' remains the cause of many of the crises and sufferings in the world today – the state in which we left the economies, industries and cultures of the countries we enslaved, the still-predatory way we regard and treat the Third World, where we help maintain a form of slavery with our demand for sweat-labour cheaply produced goods and oil – all have fuelled wars, oppression and terrorism.
Nearer to home, the instilled racism of many British people still makes the lives of visitors from abroad and British citizens with the 'misfortune' to have been born elsewhere miserable and dangerous (it is calculated that over 50% of the British population hold and have openly expressed racist views).   
I grew up in Liverpool, a city which prospered, along with other seaport cities like Bristol and Plymouth, from The British Empire's leading involvement in the international slave trade.
The hangover from that evil trade, established in America in States like Virginia under British rule, brought about the vicious American Civil War in the middle of the 19th century and was still being felt in the Southern States right into the 1960s when its Civil Rights movement was popularising the songs and black laments which first enticed me into folk song.
"Great" Britain (doesn't its arrogance resonate in that name?) has little to be proud of; it conquered a large part of the world by military force, enslaved its people and crushed their cultures and religions.
We once recorded interviews with a dear, long-dead friend, Paddy Boyle, from Donegal (father of the superb flute player, Maggie Boyle, who died last year, and uncle of highly-respected actor, Seán McGinley).
Paddy told us how, when he was a child under British rule, he and his Donegal, native-Irish-speaking fellow pupils were given small sticks to wear around their necks on a string; when the master heard one of them speaking Irish, he carved a notch into the stick and at the end of the week, the 'offender' would be given a stroke of the cane for every notch – that epitomised the British Empire's 'respect' for other cultures.   
The arrogance of Empire wrought suffering on the Irish people for at least six centuries, within my grandparent's lifetimes its handling of The Famine robbed Ireland of a third of its people, either through disease and starvation or by enforced emigration.   
That arrogance inspired the paramilitary Ulster Unionists to threaten British democracy with armed resistance and eventually brought about decades of inequality, poverty and violence to the Catholics of the Six Counties, leading to virtual Civil war and attacks on the British mainland.
Attempts to gain independence from Britain were met with military opposition, slaughter and the mass murder of its leaders in the form of rigged, undefended trials and summary executions.
Easter Week helped to put a stop to British rule in most of Ireland and to the eventual collapse of the "Evil Empire" (to borrow a phrase), though I have to admit that the callous butchery of best part of a generation of young men in defence of that Empire helped.
You pair have given us a clear picture of why that Empire was so hated – in your arrogance, in your dismissal of the rights of other nations, in your contempt for them – actually expressed by Keith in his writing off of the respect and the knowledge the Irish have for their history as "a contemptible joke, brought about by propaganda" and putting the demonstration of that respect as "the Irish loving to celebrate" and comparing the recognition of one of the most decisive acts in Irish history to "St Patrick's Day".
Your – "Ireland has no reason to desire independence because it was never really a united nation" is beyond belief as a statement which typifies the hatred and contempt that was passed on to us through the post-Empire education system.
You are the Punch Cartoons, the writings of Charles Kingsley, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson all rolled into a neat bundle of two.
I'm more than happy, anxious even, to continue this discussion with any seriously interested posters who wish to – for the blast of fresh air it would bring, if for nothing else – but I've finished with you two – life really is too short.   
"Jom"
You will never cop on, will you?
Your inability to control your bad mannered contempt for those who disagree with you is proof, if proof were needed, of your ineffectuality in persuading others of your argument and your insecurity of those arguments – if you can't get people to accept them, or if they dare to criticise Britain or, in this case, it's long-dead Empire, or the Establishment, then talk down to them and bully them into silence - it really does typify your archaic Empire Loyalism.
Every time you find yourself in a dilemma, your self-applied straightjacket works loose, your instinctive ill-manners kick in and you revert to what Joe Offer has rightly described as "childish and boring name-calling" - if I can make an effort to clean up my act, you really need to try cleaning up yours, though it really doesn't matter too much to me; if I was into scoring points, which I am not, each time the mask slips is the mark of another 'hit'.
I choose to call myself Jim Carroll, and in case we ever get around to a half-decent exchange of ideas and knowledge I would ask that you use it – all academic anyway – who on earth wants to waste time and energy on such an unpleasant and insecure pair?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 11:18 AM

Jim Carroll - 17 May 16 - 10:45 AM

Once again, no links, no proof, just declarations"

Nope Jom just dates that put things in the right sequence, not the mish-mash, jumble, invention and confusion you normally have to cobble together.

Dates and events are easily checked - not to you of course - you simply do not bother.

As for the downright lies you employ as gap fillers in your rants, I just shrug them off and have done for a long time, but as an example:

" your 'Ireland has no right to claim independence as it isn't really a nation'"

At no point on any thread on this forum have either Keith or myself ever said anything remotely like that - you know it, we know it - and now having been challenged repeatedly to back your lies up and having demonstrated your reluctance and inability to do so - everyone else on this forum who has read this thread knows it.

As to the rest of your bigoted, rascist, Anglophobic rant - I simply just did not bother to read it - I doubt whether I will ever read another post of yours again - like GregF you have absolutely nothing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 May 16 - 12:01 PM

"Dates and events are easily checked"
Your job to provide backing for your claims - I do.
"At no point on any thread on this forum have either Keith or myself ever said anything remotely like that"
Then what the **** is this about.
"Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous."
or this
"prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth."
You are now falling into Keith's habit of lying about what you have put up.
Why it's not worth continuing this farce with you pair
"The most senior Officer involved in the Curragh Incident was Gough, who when summoned to the War Office on the 22nd March stated quite clearly and unequivocally that he would obey any order given him."
And General Haig or did he resiign because he wanted to put his feet up??
This type of dishonesty is exactly why you never link to your claims.
"Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth."
By whom and where is this proof available.
"So in the time frame you are attempting to squeeze all this into there were no Conservatives in the Government."
You know as well as I do how the British Parliamentary system works - the Governance of the country is down to the controlling majority, the opposition and The House of Lords.
The Tories in opposition and the House of Lords fought tooth and nail to defeat any attempts to Unite Ireland.
The book I quoted from earlier "'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce" is dedicated to the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time
Whatever your "timeline" means the Unionists armed themselves in readiness to oppose any attempts whatever to include a united Irelan - they were the first group of the 20th century to brin arms into Ireland for political purposes and they were backed by the Conservatives in Government and my officers i the British Army - Asquith calculated how many might be involved - including senior officers.
You have been given all this, all with named sources and none of it my opinion, yet you have consistently and dishonestly referred to it as being mine - Keith continues to accuse me of making these facts up - every single of has been taken from the wors of researchers - he has offered nothing - uyou have attempted to bluff from start to finish offering not even the semblence of evidence.
Nor you scream "thread drift" as Keith does when he is in a corner "If you wish to discuss, sectarianism, bigotry and civil rights abuses post 1921 "
Are you seriously suggesting that the ongoing behaviour right up to the present day has nothing to do with this - I seem to remember that you have taken it up to The Good Friday Agreement
Oh yes here it is:
"This was thankfully ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement:"
Thank you for confirming that you pair are not worth the efforty of responding to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 16 - 07:19 PM

Pre-Norman Ireland

"Your pathetic attempts at portraying Ireland as a united entity where everything was peace and light before the arrival of the Normans is ludicrous."
or this
"prior to the arrival of the Normans in Ireland there was no united Irish Nation any notion that there was is a myth."
You are now falling into Keith's habit of lying about what you have put up.

Lies? no I will leave that to you - you are after all very good at it - read the link supplied to find out more - somehow don't think that you will - but rest assured others might.

OK then Jom tell us all what Lt-General Haig had to do with the Curragh Incident. As far as is recorded it was this:

Haig stressed {To Gough's brother} that the army's duty was to keep the peace and urged his officers not to dabble in politics. - WOW.

By the way what post did Haig resign from? Or is this just another example of those totally incorrect claims about Kitchener resignations that you are now infamous for?

"Proved by forensic science to be false - nothing more than an urban myth."
By whom and where is this proof available.

Date 27th September 2012 BBC:

Scientific test carried out on the signature by Dr Alastair Ruffell, of Queen's University Belfast, has found no evidence to support the claim.

Dr Ruffell's test used Luminol, which reacts with the iron present in haemoglobin and produces a blue-white glow.

He told the BBC the results carried the possibility of a margin of error because "this material has been uncontrolled for 100 years."

But according to Dr Ruffell, the test is capable of detecting tiny traces even in old samples.

"Some years ago we did a test in the Colorado desert where they put some blood on some rocks and we went back ten years later and we were able to find the blood using the Luminol test", he said.

"The iron in the blood degrades very slowly."

Now tell us Jom what tests did you do that counters the work done by Dr Alastair Ruffell of Queen's University Belfast? My guess is that you didn't do any.

"You know as well as I do how the British Parliamentary system works"

Judging by the crap that you have come out with I know, and have clearly demonstrated that I know, a damned sight better than you how the British Parliamentary system works. What is it that demonstrates this?

1: Your ignorance about the Parliament Act 1911 and how it affects Bills proposed by the House of Commons.
2: Your idiotic assertion that Opposition Parties Govern - quite simply put - They don't.
3: The fact that for long enough you claimed that the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 had been defeated - when of course it hadn't.
4: The fact that you persist in claiming that alterations were made to an Act of Parliament when in fact they hadn't and refusal to accept that that Act of Parliament was repealed, replaced and never enforced.

The book I quoted from earlier "'Lines of Most Resistance' (The Lords, the Tories and Ireland, 1884 – 1914) Edward Pearce" is dedicated to the behaviour of the Conservatives at the time

And the relevance of that from April 1912 until September 1914 is what exactly? April 1912 Home Rule Bill introduced, September 1914 Home Rule Bill becomes the Government of Ireland Act 1914, the Bill having received Royal Assent - But I forgot Jom-the infallible stated that that never happened. Oh dear Jom just one more historical inexactitude of yours to add to your list.

the Unionists armed themselves in readiness to oppose any attempts whatever to include a united Irelan - they were the first group of the 20th century to brin arms into Ireland for political purposes and they were backed by the Conservatives in Government and my officers i the British Army - Asquith calculated how many might be involved - including senior officers

Number of points here that I feel I must draw to your attention:

1: The year is 1914 - THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVES IN GOVERNMENT. - ( JOM deliberate lie and misrepresentation No:1)
2: " my officers i the British Army" Good heavens Jom I didn't know that you had any back there in 1914. Tell me how many did you have? Where did you keep them?
3: Tell us all how Asquith calculated what any group, or professional body in the entire length and breadth of the British Empire might, or might not do in 1914? - absolutely dying to hear what our little Marxist comes out with on this - crystal ball, Ouija Board perhaps? Pure conjecture, no calculation, but pray tell having made these imaginary calculations ( Based on God knows what) what instructions did he as Prime Minister give, if what you say is correct?

You have been given all this, all with named sources

Most of it being irrelevant twaddle to be perfectly honest.

Oh and yes I did reference the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as its introduction replaced the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which previously replaced the Government of Ireland Act 1914 - and that Jom the infallible is where we came in wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 04:01 AM

You are still insisting on your arrogant rudeness which underlines why you neither have a case nor are worth discussing with or even listening to - take a pill.
Your 'Norman' argument is utter nonsense - if it was the Unionists would have no case whatever in Ireland.
The religio/political divides in Ulster are the result of settlers being deliberately planted there in the 1600s (how long is that after "The Normans?"and today's situation in The Six Counties is a result of the British Government enforcing a division in the 1920s - the Protestants are 'Blow-in newcomers' in both cases and, by your reckoning, can have no claim to a recognised presence in Ireland - certainly no claim to a Protestant State.
For ***** sake, stop talking down to people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 05:14 AM

I must say, I have tried, but this ahs become like trying to have a serious conversation with a truculent drunk with learning difficulties and someone who constantly accuses you of telling lies - also with learning difficulties.
Between them, they have driven this subject into the ground, as far as I'm concerned - it is neither educational, inspiring or in any way enjoyable.
Pity - it's a subject which interests me and, I suspect, many others and it is far too important to some of us to have to put up with this behaviour.
Perhaps, having learned our lesson, someone might consider opening another - this one has been kicked to death by thugs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 06:33 AM

Too good to pass up.
The claim of 'blood signing was not an "urban myth" – if it was a false claim, as is 90% probable, it was one started by Unionists, circulated by Unionists and still maintained by some Unionists – a sign of their fanaticism, which was the point I was making in drawing attention to it.
Jim Carroll

"and the other incident was that, among some twenty men who signed the Covenant in Belfast with their own blood, Major Crawford was able to claim that he was following a family tradition, inasmuch as a lineal ancestor had in the same grim fashion emphasised his adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant in 1638."
The Claim

The Covenant had two basic parts: The Covenant itself, which was signed by men, and the Declaration, which was signed by women. In total, the Covenant was signed by 237,368 men; the Declaration, by 234,046 women. The most passionate signatories signed in their own blood.
And again

A forensic test determined to recognise the iron content of blood has now returned a 90% confidence that the signature was not in fact made in blood - though some Unionists are still holding onto the 10% uncertainty factor!
hThe ongoing claim by Unionists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 16 - 06:56 AM

So Jom if you haven't lied then you can give everybody on this forum the reference of the post where either Keith A of Hertford or myself said

That Ireland is not entitled to independence.

Simple enough task surely - I mean apart from the fact that no such post exists - But that you know perfectly well - But you still felt free to make accusations that you knew to be 100% false - speaks volumes about you and the lengths your Anglophobia drives you to.

As to where the Normans come into it Jom? It was under THEIR rule that the concept of the Irish being a nation was created. You should have read the link.

Another thing that speaks volumes, on one hand you condemn me for referring back to the Normans (Even although that was in response to a specific question raised by Joe Offer) then you refer to the Protestants in Ireland as 'Blow-In Newcomers' because they arrived in the early 1600s. Any idea why they were "Planted"? Any idea who "Planted" them ?

Ever heard of Chief Hugh O'Neill that great "Irish" patriot, who worked tirelessly to make Ireland a colony of Spain's in the hope that he would be Spain's Viceroy. Caused no end of problems towards the end of Queen Elizabeth the First's reign and in the early part of the reign of King James VI of Scotland & I of England. O'Neill's lands were in the North and when he fled to Spain after his defeat at Kinsale James the First of England found what he thought was a perfect solution to two problems. He transplanted the troublesome and infamous "Riding" Families who lived either side of the Anglo-Scottish border who basically had been living in a perpetual state of war for 350 years, and he granted them land in Northern Ireland to fill the vacuum left by O'Neill. If the Irish wanted to fight then they might as well fight people who would be more than prepared to fight back, and King James knew that if he could rely on the borderers to do anything it would be to fight for the land that had been given them. The other thing he could now rely on was that even if the Catholics of Ireland were still prepared to be played with as dupes and pawns of the Spanish and the French, he would always have a safe base and territory that he could rely on in the North, from which he could defeat any rebellion. Now having been there for the best part of 500 years they are as "Irish" as anyone else living there. They have and have always had as much right to self-determination as anyone else and to have that right respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:28 AM

"So Jom"
Your behavior on this thread is very reminiscent of that of the thuggish Unionists 'Billy-Boys' I used to argue with in my youth in Liverpool, bullying and bascally all empty bluster.
Until you clean up your act, I would highly recommend to all that they steer a wide course from you and anybody who chooses to behave like you.
Never mind, you'll find someone to talk to on The Glorious Twelfth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 16 - 02:17 PM

Jim,
The Tories in opposition and the House of Lords fought tooth and nail to defeat any attempts to Unite Ireland.

That is the job of the opposition and is what always happens.
That is how parliament works.

In 1914, the government, Unionists and Nationalists agreed and passed the Home Rule Bill with a large majority, with no suggestion of permanent partition.

Instead we had the rising and years of war and death.
What do you find to celebrate in that?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 02:51 PM

The Shelling of Dublin City Centre
Eye witness account from 'The Scrap' Gene Kerrigan.

The shelling of Dublin city centre continued through Thursday. Unable to do their job, the Dublin Fire Brigade watched helplessly as the flames spread. Around 7.30pm, the outsize DBC building collapsed into Sackville Street - a terrible noise, a vast mass of falling bricks and debris, the impact shaking the whole street. Colossal clouds of dust and smoke rose into the sky. Watching from the Imperial Hotel.
Having consumed the Hibernian Bank, flames continued moving north along the block. Hoyte's, a chemist's premises equipped with barrels of turpentine and methylated spirits, caught fire and the whole building went up. Barrels of chemicals exploded, some of them landing on the roof of the Imperial Hotel.
The immense conflagration at Hoyte's took the fire to the end of that block, with just the narrow lane of Sackville Place separating it from the block dominated by Clerys department store and the Imperial Hotel.
The flames crept along the barricade at the top of Sackville Place - the barricade through which Frank Henderson and his F Company comrades had passed when they arrived in the city centre on Tuesday evening. The fire soon reached the building on the other side of the lane and began to crawl up the window frame. Clerys and the Imperial Hotel would be next.
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.
Besides drenching the Volunteers, the direct hit on the water tank had deprived the Imperial garrison of water to fight fires.
A shell hit the roof of the Metropole Hotel.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 16 - 03:40 PM

Keith,

In 1914, the government, Unionists and Nationalists agreed and passed the Home Rule Bill with a large majority, with no suggestion of permanent partition.

Had there been no Easter Rising and had the Nationalists kept faith with John Redmond Ireland would have got Home Rule in 1919, probably with the previously agreed temporary arrangement. Both parties then would have six years to arrive at some sort of working compromise or some alternative solution and Ireland would have gained its independence in 1931 under the Statute of Westminster and not one drop of blood would have been shed.

RTE - Chronology of the Easter Rising

Fires in Sackville Street:
Monday 24th April, 1916
15:30 Looting starts
20:30 Looting continues in Sackville Street, and fires also begin breaking out in premises on the street.

No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings.

Tuesday 25th April, 1916
Reserve Artillery arrive during the morning from Athlone
15:00 British 18-pounder artillery based at Grangegorman Asylum opens fire on rebel positions in the Phibsboro area.
20:15 British gun yacht, the HMY Helga has entered the Liffey and fired at Boland's Mills damaging the upper storeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 07:53 PM

Compulsory conscription sorted.
Jim Carroll

From Ireland's Civil War, pp 68 and 69, Carleton Younger (1968)   
The alternative was adopted but Lloyd George was adamant that a Home Rule Bill must be introduced also, otherwise "it would be stated, and rightly so, that the pledges given on this subject had not been redeemed". Government supporters, the whole of the Labour Party, the American people and he. himself, would not accept one measure without the other.
Brushing aside Bonar Law's objection that if there were not substantial agreement in the Convention, the pledge that Ulster would not be coerced might be difficult to sustain, the Prime Minister stated his intention to carry through a bill based on the Convention's recommendations if possible, and, if not, then based on the original letter to Sir Horace Plunkett.
Only in the event of Irish Members of all sections opposing the Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons would Lloyd George concede conscription without Home Rule. Barnes went further and declined to be party to the application of conscription in Ireland unless Home Rule went through. 8
On April 6th, the Prime Minister sombrely reported to the Cabinet that great numbers of men had been lost in France and that hundreds of thousands more would be needed. He had now received the Report of the Convention, but his determination of the day before not to introduce one measure without the other had wilted. The calamitous situation in France had impelled him to come to a decision that legislation should be passed providing for conscription in Ireland. There would be trouble, perhaps bloodshed, he acknowledged, but this he now believed had to be accepted.
He then stated the considerations which had weighed with him.
"Even if Home Rule were carried tomorrow, the army and navy would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament.
The claim has never been put forward by any Irish party that the army and navy and the defence of the Realm are local matters. In the second place, I do not believe it possible in this country to tear industry about, to break up single businesses, to take fathers of forty-five and upwards from their homes to fight the battles of a Catholic nationality on the Continent without deep resentment at the spectacle of sturdy young Catholics in Ireland spending their time in increasing the difficulties of this country by drilling and by compelling us to keep troops in Ireland. I do not know any grounds of justice or equity on which conscription could not be applied to Ireland. "
The Government had shown indulgence to Ireland, "wise and reasonable indulgence", he thought, in the hope that she would become "reconciled to her Imperial association". But they could not "go to the House of Commons and ask our people to make sacrifices, sacrifices which the Irish in America are making, and leave the Irish at home out. I think we ought to accord to Ireland the same rights as Irishmen are enjoying in America. "

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM

"No artillery at all in Dublin at that time and it was the looters who set fire to the buildings."
Too good to pass up again!

Evidence of "no artillery!!!!"
The Irish Times article actually says:
"The naval bombardment of Liberty Hall has effectively destroyed the building. The HMY Helga has now turned its guns on targets on Sackville Street."
" Artillery attacks on rebel positions on Sackville Street continue, as do the exchanges of sniper fire around St Stephen's Green and at Marrowbone Lane."
And
"The British begin throwing hand grenades into Clanwilliam House. Fires start burning in the building. "
And
"British begin to shell Sackville Street area. An 18-pound shell hits the Irish Times building and ignites rolls of newsprint."
And
British infantry attack on Sackville Street has stalled. Fires in the area are intensifying and spreading from building to building on Lower Abbey Street.
And
"The fires in and around Sackville Street have taken hold, and are burning freely, and the shelling of the area continues unabated."
And
"The combination of the fires and the heavy shelling means that rebel held buildings such as the Imperial Hotel and Clery's will have to be abandoned."
And
"The inferno on Sackville Street, coupled with the British advances during the day, means that some of the smaller outposts held by the rebels are being evacuated and they are moving back to the GPO."
And
"Fire out of control in Sackville Street and the Dublin Fire Brigade is stood down due to danger of small arms fire in the area."
And
"Shelling resumes targeting the GPO."
And
"The fires on Sackville Street have taken hold in most buildings along the street."
And
"The artillery attack on the Sackville Street area, particularly the GPO, shows no sign of slowing down. Much of the area is destroyed and the fires still burn intensely."
And
"The walls of the GPO, damaged by flames and artillery fire, have begun to collapse.
Just thought I'd mention it - it must have been "the looters" who had all the artillery
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:14 AM

Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 07:53 PM
No time lines - That is the trouble with people who post great swathes of text that they have scanned and forget to clearly indicate the date the events described took place. For example the post detailed clearly relates to a time AFTER the rising had been put down, as Lloyd George is clearly the man driving things and America has obviously joined the war. The poster also omits to inform everyone that no Irishman was ever conscripted. But thanks for the "cut-n-paste"

He then stated the considerations which had weighed with him.

1: "Even if Home Rule were carried tomorrow, the army and navy would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament.

The claim has never been put forward by any Irish party that the army and navy and the defence of the Realm are local matters.

2: In the second place, I do not believe it possible in this country to tear industry about, to break up single businesses, to take fathers of forty-five and upwards from their homes to fight the battles of a Catholic nationality on the Continent without deep resentment at the spectacle of sturdy young Catholics in Ireland spending their time in increasing the difficulties of this country by drilling and by compelling us to keep troops in Ireland. I do not know any grounds of justice or equity on which conscription could not be applied to Ireland. "

The Government had shown indulgence to Ireland, "wise and reasonable indulgence", he thought, in the hope that she would become "reconciled to her Imperial association".

3: But they could not "go to the House of Commons and ask our people to make sacrifices, sacrifices which the Irish in America are making, and leave the Irish at home out. I think we ought to accord to Ireland the same rights as Irishmen are enjoying in America. "

Personally I think that Lloyd George makes three very valid points there, none of them are important however as conscription was never applied in Ireland. But I wonder what John Redmond's take would have been had subsequent to being given Home Rule an enemy invaded Ireland would he have been content to see the armed forces of Great Britain stand aside and watch from the side-lines? Somehow don't think so.

Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM

Again a list of events with no time line. The link I posted has fires being started in Sackville Street around 20:30hrs on the 24th April and at that time no artillery had been brought up. The Army's reserve artillery battery arrived some time in the morning of the 25th April and opened fire that afternoon at 15:00 at targets (barricades) in direct line of sight in the Philsborough area of the city. Naval gunfire from the armed yacht Helga commenced at 20:15 that evening when two rounds were fired into the upper part of Boland's Mill.

It is however clear from the post that the rebels had clearly fortified positions on Sackville Street and were fighting from them - which rather makes them legitimate targets doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 16 - 03:42 AM

One obvious question though. Had those seven men not gone ahead with their "Sacrifice in Blood" Rising, would there have been any looting, would unarmed policemen have been gunned down, would any building have been set on fire or shelled? The answer of course would be NO. The responsibility for what happened in Dublin and to Dublin during the Easter Rising lies with those who planned and initiated the Rising.

Seen from the perspective of the pro-unionist North the events of Easter week would be viewed as a traitorous attack by a minority republican nationalist group, who it would appear would stop at nothing to gain independence. So what prospect would there be of expecting any compromise to find a middle-road from this element? Little wonder that their attitude to partition hardened after the rising. The actions and behaviour of the Irish Parliament set up after the 1918 general elections would also have a negative effect in the North, but what really put the cap on it and killed any chance of a union between North and South was what happened when leading Irish political leaders failed to honour and respect their own democratic process during the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 which resulted in a civil war breaking out in the South between two nationalist groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 16 - 04:39 AM

"The link I posted has fires being started in Sackville Street around 20:30hrs on the 24th April and at that time no artillery had been brought up"
Every single example of "no artillery" was directly taken from the link you posted - nowhere else.
I didn't "forget to mentioning" that conscription was never enacted - it's common knowledge and has been mentioned several times
It was a permanent threat, as the posting shows and was suggested right up to 1918; it was even considered by Lloyd George as a solution to 'The Irish Problem", pretty much as the Famine was by Trevelyan, this time by forcibly conscripting the imprisoned rebels to fight in Europe.
Think these two problems are put to bed safely, don't you?
Jim Carroll

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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:40 AM

Taking this as the subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
Here is how much of this post is relevant
From: Jim Carroll - 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.

You mean irrelevant factoids such as you were wrong about the Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 being defeated and thrown out – When in actual fact it passed as an Act in 1914 When it received Royal Assent - Not thrown out or defeated at all.

You mean irrelevant factoids such as the Home Rule Act was never altered.

You mean irrelevant factoids like conscription never existed in 1914 – therefore it could never, ever have been a consideration with regard to what directed the IRB to mount an armed rebellion and collude with the enemy as they undoubtedly did - both decisions taken in September 1914, so what happened after that is irrelevant the decision had already been taken to collude with the enemy and resort to violence - an undemocratic decision taken by seven men.

You mean irrelevant factoids like the Military Council set up by Connelly and Pearse to purposely by-pass and highjack the Irish Volunteers deliberately keeping the Executive Council and leaders of that organisation in the dark.

You mean irrelevant factoids like seven men who had absolutely no mandate at all completely and deliberately set out to destroyed any chance of any peaceful resolution of differences between the North and the South and in so doing destroyed any chance of a united independent Ireland. They are further away from that today than they were on August 4th 1914.

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.

of that subjective twaddle is relevant but it does explain you biased, bigoted views and explains your rampant anglophobia.
"Jim, none of your paste jobs contradict the facts I gave you."
True statement if you examine facts – then compare them to the Jim Carroll version and presentation of events.
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 - But OK for you to do that as self-appointed spokesperson for the Irish People of 1916.
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.

Only problem with that Jim was the 1920 Act mentioned a temporary not a permanent partition. Fact look it up – As you wouldn't believe me if I said so.

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

Gone into a bit of a rest because the bulk of the people were content with Home Rule first independence later, the rising kicked that into touch.

the demand for full independence was supported - By a tiny minority

What " led to the Civil War was de Valera not accepting and following the democratic process – ten years later he admitted that the Free Staters in 1922 had been right – another inconvenient irrelevant factoid.

"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."

So pure supposition on your part Nothing factual about it at all.

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?"

OK then Joe when have I ever said that – OR this:

""They were conned by Spain and France into demanding Independence in the first place"

More Jim Carroll Made-Up-Shit"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:53 AM

Joe, we keep telling you that we support independence but not the rising.
What is there not to understand about that??

Jim, if I am repeating things that are untrue, identify one.

Also Jim,
It is extremely presumptuous of whoever wrote the BBC piece to suggest who wanted what in 1916 -

No. They have teams of historians, and you will find no historian who claims anything but a minority support for the rising.
Sinn Fein campaigned for full independence but got few votes and went broke for lack of support.
All the elected leaders supported the 1914 Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:34 AM

"Joe, we keep telling you that we support independence but not the rising."
And we keep telling you that The British destroyed ny chance of Independence by its support of an aggressive armed group of extremists which succeeded in turning the wished of the Irish people to a demand for Irish Independence.
Your continuing ignoring of that fact is not only an insult to the wishes of the Irish people then, but an indication that you both have no interest in Ireland gaining freedom unless it was that demanded by a long-dead Empire.

"More Jim Carroll Made-Up-Shit""
"As to the various "Irish Rebellions" down through those 800 years if you look into them you will find that they were mainly instigated either by Spain or France who promised much but delivered little"
"For the catalogue of how France and Spain cynically used disaffected elements in both Scotland and Ireland"
"it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt,"
Don't you think it rather stupid to describe as "made up shit" something that is readily available on this thread - in multiple examples?
Every single statement I have put up I have taken from accredited and identified sources, everything you have claimed has been concocted with no attempt to identify, using your, "Let's Re-write Irish History' manual.
If nothing else, your refusal to invalidate anything - anything at all - you have claimed is indicative that it is pure invention on your part.
This has now become an exercise in moving away from the actual facts of the argument and arguing about arguments.
"As stated by Keith A - I too am a great believer in supporting the right to self-determination for ALL"
Political lip-service when it is contradicted by everything you say, sort of like "Some of my best friends are black....."
Respond toi what YOU have said, not what you claim to believe.
You have questioned the validity of Ireland as a united nation by travelling back thought time to the Normans, you have suggested that Ireland has been conned by France and Spain into demanding Independence in the first place, you have suggested that the Uprising which was followed by a War of Independence was not supported by the Irish people, and your friend has suggested that the present celebrations talking place in Ireland is down to the Ish love of celebration, respective of the cause.
Keith's actual pearls of wisdom - "I am not aware of how they are celebrating, but the Irish love to celebrate."   
You have about as much respect for national Insependence as did your Empire before you.
Back up your case with facts - not empty rhetoric.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 04:45 AM

"Jim, if I am repeating things that are untrue, identify one."
Now you really do have to be joking
Every time you have written that Ireland would have become independent if it hadn't been for the uprising, you have repeated a lie.
You have been given masses of evidence that this was not the case, you have not countered that with anything whatever of your own, yet you have continued to repeat it as if you were saying it for the first tome
It is not true, it has been proven to be false with accredited facts, you have totally failed to come up with an accredited fact - not one singe "real historian", yet you continue to repeat it.
That is just one of many of your 'cracked record impressions'.
If thete are no responses from this pair, I will continue with my assesment of the period, moving on to the enforced Treaty and probably finishing with the effect that that Treaty had on the Catholic minority of the six counties - that shoul;d sort out the rest of the week.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 05:08 AM

"Every single statement I have put up I have taken from accredited and identified sources"

And nearly all of them are writers expressing their OPINIONS - not necessarily quoting or detailing facts:

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. - Joe Devlin's Opinion.

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 criticized 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". - The OPINION of Robert Blake

Those are examples of OPINIONS here are examples of FACTS

1: The Irish Volunteers split into two groups in 1914 a Redmondite Faction and a pro-IRB Pearse Faction. The split was roughly 92.5% Redmondites and only about 7.5% supporting Pearce - It was this latter group who were responsible for planning and carrying out the Easter Rising of 1916.

2: In September 1914 the Supreme Council of the IRB decided that they would mount an armed insurrection in Ireland during the course of the Great Britain's war with Germany and that they would seek German assistance to do it.

3: It is a fact that the Third Irish Home Rule Bill was passed by the Westminster Parliament and that it was passed without any Amending Clauses. For it to have done that it is a fact that there had to have been agreement on it.

4: It is a fact that Connelly and Pearse set up the Military Council of the Irish Volunteers to isolate the Executive Council of that organisation and its Leaders.

5: It is a fact that this Military Council plotted their rising in secret and deliberately mislead the rest of the membership of the Irish Volunteers and its leaders - When the Executive heard of the rising on or about the 21st/22nd April they immediately countermanded the orders given.

6: After the rising had been suppressed an attempt was made to enact the Third Irish Home Rule Act - negotiations came to nothing because in the wake of the rising pro-unionist views had hardened. Nothing apart from the rising had happened in Ireland between 8th July 1914 when there was reluctant agreement to a temporary arrangement and July 1916 when Lloyd George entered into discussions with both John Redmond and Sir Edward Carson - this time Carson sought firm assurance that Ulster could not be forced into all Ireland Government against the wishes of the people of Ulster.

7: The decision by the IRB/Pearse faction of the Irish Volunteers to resort to armed struggle was taken in September 1914 therefore conscription (March 1916 which excluded conscription in Irleand) or even the prospect of conscription (April 1918) could not in any way, shape, or form be a relevant reason for, or cause of the events that occurred in Dublin that Easter week-end in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:28 AM

"And nearly all of them are writers expressing their OPINIONS -
One again , a total distortion of what I have put up,
The overwhenlming number are either direct quotes or linked to statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, The Proclomation and cabinet notes.... and others involved at the time.
In return you have offered totally zero - the nearest t you cone to a piece of documented evidence is a vague wave (with identification) of a manual or law book - about as valid as "everybody believes...."
Your dishonesty is now palpable.
The OPINION of Robert Blake
Who was Bonar Law's biographer - are you suggesting he made it up - without having read it even? You're getting better even than Keith at this style of arguing.
That is one singlle quote from a larger selection of many such
selections.
"here are examples of FACTS"
Where is your proof they are facts - have you linked us to your sources - NO YOU HAVEN'T - you never do
Have you responded to requests to do so - NO YOU HAVEN'T - you never do
Where is your evidence that all of these are not just conjured up out of your head?
Your no 7 piece of nonsense is typical of the crassness of your argument
Conscription was always an issue in Ireland - enforced conscription was first introduced in Britain in January 1916 - three months before the Rising - it was inevitable that, should it be deemed necessary, it would be introduced into Ireland - the possibility of Conscription threatened the existence of Ireland as a nation - you have been given the facts surrounding bringing in conscription - including the cabinet debate.
This piece of knitting seems to have become completely unravelled - I can't remember an argument we have had that has ever reached such a stage of completion as this one.
I assume that you haven't responded to your Spain, France, Norman allegations we have to conclude that, despite your protests, you believe that not only is Ireland not entitled to independence but she has never really wanted and has been conned by foreigners into asking fr it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 06:47 AM

You are still trying to divert this argument away from the actual subject on to an argument about argumnets - your stance it to reject documented facts and opinions based on those facts and have us accept your unqualified opinions without makin any effort to peroduce facts to back them up.
Time to move on, I think.

How the Risinfg was conducted.
From The Making of Ireland James Lydon
"Far from being a military shambles and the misconceived plot of poets and idealists intent on a blood-sacrifice, the organization of the rising in Dublin was praised subsequently by the British. The Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police said that the military articles published in The Irish Volunteer before the rising were worthy of praise and that the conduct of the rising itself was 'all done very well'. No less a person than General Maxwell reported to the war office in London that 'the fighting qualities so far displayed by the rebels gives evidence of better training and discipline than they have been credited with'. A member of the royal commission set up to investigate the rising, Sir Mackenzie Chalmers, was convinced by the evidence that it was 'exceedingly well arranged'; and Sir Mathew Nathan, a former soldier who became Under Secretary for Ireland, told the commission that 'the conduct of the insurrection showed greater organizing power and more military skill than had been attributed to the Volunteers'.
The original plans had been carefully worked out, but had to be modified when the German arms failed to be delivered and when MacNeill's influence caused most of the intending participants to withdraw, so that only about 1,800 in all came out in Dublin. By the time that Pearse, Connolly and the other leaders occupied their carefully chosen garrisons in Dublin, the most they could hope for was to hold out for a week or so and forcibly bring the notion of a sovereign Irish republic before the eyes of the world. Their strategy was original, unlike that normally practised by revolutionaries. Wimborne, the lord lieutenant, commented afterwards: 'There was no conflict in the streets. The ordinary tactics of revolutionaries, which I imagine to be barricades and so on, were not resorted to ... at the very start they took to the houses and house-tops'.
Even had larger numbers of Volunteers joined in, the lack of arms would have been a disaster. On St Patrick's Day, when a grand Volunteer parade was held, the police carefully counted all those on parade, which came to 4,555; but only 1,817 of these were armed, half with old rifles and the rest with shot¬guns. Outside Dublin the rising took place only in a few scattered places in counties Galway, Wexford and Dublin, and there, too, the lack of arms was a disaster. In Galway, for example, where Liam Mellows had been promised 3,000 German rifles from the Aud, the 1,400 Volunteers who joined the rising (more than fought in Dublin) had, according to a police report, only seven rifles, 86 shotguns and seven revolvers. No wonder Liam Mellows said later: 'I had to send many of them home. I never knew the blackness of despair until then'.
Under those circumstances, then, what was achieved was beyond what poets and academics might be expected to achieve. There is no doubt that Patrick Pearse was consumed with the notion of being a new Cu Chulainn, prepared to sacrifice himself for Ireland. But he was also the author of The Murder Machine, an important work on education, and the founder of St Enda's, a school under lay management, where his theories were put into practice. He was not just a visionary, but a capable editor, teacher and organizer who gave the British government a fright and nearly caused a crisis in the middle of the war."
Some "shambles", some "contemptible joke"

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 08:36 AM

"Where is your proof they are facts"

You mean apart from the fact that those things actually happened Jim - or are you going to deny that those things happened?

After all you did say that the Home Rule Bill was never passed by the Westminster Parliament didn't you? That it was defeated and thrown out by the Lords and the Tories - those were your facts and they have been conclusively proved wrong.

You also stated categorically as a fact that those responsible for the 1916 Easter Rising never colluded with the Germans - that too has been proven wrong. I could go on but won't apart from this one:

enforced conscription was first introduced in Britain in January 1916 - three months before the Rising - it was inevitable that, should it be deemed necessary, it would be introduced into Ireland

1: The Military Service BILL 1916 was introduced to Parliament on the 27th January 1916 it became the Military Service Act 1916 on 2nd March, 1916 and became Law THEN - Not in January _ you see Jim those are the facts of the matter - not your ill-informed ramblings - see here - Military Service Act 1916

2: From the above Act - who it applied to:

Every British male subject who

- on 15 August 1915 was ordinarily resident in Great Britain*** and who had attained the age of 19 but was not yet 41 and
- on 2 November 1915 was unmarried or a widower without dependent children

unless he met certain exceptions or had met the age of 41 before the appointed date, was deemed to have enlisted for general service with the colours or in the reserve and was forthwith transferred to the reserve. He now came under the controls specified in the Army Act. This was as of Thursday 2 March 1916.

Provision was made under Section 20 of the Reserve Forces Act 1882, for information being obtained from the man with regard to his preference for service in the Navy. The Admiralty had the first right of call on men who expressed this preference.

Men were encouraged to voluntarily enlist under the Group System (Derby Scheme) before the Act came into place.

Schedule of Exceptions (i.e. categories of men who were not deemed to have enlisted)

1. Men ordinarily resident in the Dominions abroad, or resident in Britain only for the purpose of their education or some other special purpose.

2. Existing members of the regular or reserve forces or of the Territorial Force who are liable for foreign service or who are, in the opinion of the Army Council, not suitable for foreign service.

3. Men serving in the Navy or Royal Marines or who are recommended for exception by the Admiralty.

4. Men in Holy Orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination.

5. Men who had served with the military or Navy and been discharged on grounds of ill-health or termination of service.

6. Men who hold a certificate of exemption or who have offered themselves for enlistment since 4 August 1914 but been rejected."

*** - ordinarily resident in Great Britain, i.e. Mainland Britain - NOT Great Britain & Ireland.

3: The decision to mount an armed rising was taken when by the IRB? Here I'll give you a hint:

The Supreme Council of the IRB met on 5 September 1914, just over a month after the British government had declared war on Germany. At this meeting, they decided to stage an uprising before the war ended and to secure help from Germany. - Source: "The Easter Rebellion" by Max Caulfield, page 18

So if they had already decided to rebel on the 5th September 1914 just WTF had the introduction of a Military Service Act that only applied to mainland Britain in 1916 have to do with it? Reasonable question based on Facts.

Jim Carroll - 22 May 16 - 06:47 AM

Now who was it that laughed when I pointed out that the Irish Volunteers who fought that Easter were well trained and drilled, and that the soldiers sent against them had only just finished their basic training - that was you wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 08:52 AM

"or are you going to deny that those things happened?"
Are you goiing to prove they actually happened - not up to me to make your argument for you.
"2nd March, 1916 a"
It was arrived at in January - doesn't matter when it came into law but it was still in force before the Rising so you are splitting hairs again
The threat of conscription was a factor involving every country under the influence of Britain from August 1914.
Did not Military Service Bill cease to exist in 1918, when Britain tried to enforce conscription - odd that!!
You have had copies of the debate attempting to involve Ireland in the war
Had the Easter Rising not happened and the brutish behaviour of Britain sickened the Irish people as a whole compulsory conscription would have been introduced.
We really are done with this it's done and dusted.
You are still attempting to isolate these arguments to ones that have been long settled - if you have any proof to the contrary, put it up.
Thank you for silently confirming your opposition to Ireland gaining Independence - "that'll do nicely", as the credit-card ad puts it.
Onwards and upwards
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 09:02 AM

"Now who was it that laughed when I pointed out that the Irish Volunteers who fought that Easter were well trained and drilled,"
They were neither trained nor disciplined beyond the level I have described.
The Dublin Police Chief says "gives evidence of better training and discipline than they have been credited with'" but nobody suggests they were any more than I have described - it was his opinion (which you have written off as irrelevant in a previous post regarding Bonar Law's biographer) based on nothing more than a personal impression
The rebels were not trained - they had no arms to have been - there really is no dispute anywhere about this fact.
They certainly were disciplined and they were dedicated and that's about the level of their training.
As I said, onwards and upward.
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 May 16 - 10:38 AM

"1: The Military Service BILL 1916 was introduced to Parliament on the 27th January 1916 it became the Military Service Act 1916 on 2nd March, 1916 and became Law THEN - Not in January _ you see Jim those are the facts of the matter - not your ill-informed ramblings - see here - Military Service Act 1916"

Please account for the recruitment figures below:

                   Volunteers Conscripts Total
January 1916       49,411    16,554    65,965
February 1916       18,738    79,891    98,629
March 1916          15,876    113,617   129,493
April 1916          15,119    91,789    106,908

Can you suggest why, before the act was passed, some 210,000 men had been conscripted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:07 AM

Now let me get this right. Anyone who writes a biography writes indisputable fact - your take on the Blake chap who wrote about Bonar Law.

So does that mean that what Ruth Dudley Edwards wrote about Patrick Pearse is indisputable fact? Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish. Are these all indisputable facts Jim? Or are they just her opinions.

Ruth Dudley Edwards - Ireland grows up

The threat of conscription was a factor involving every country under the influence of Britain from August 1914."

Please find and provide a link to the Military Service Act 1914, one must have existed if conscription was a factor. I can direct you to one for Australia which they themselves cobbled together in 1911. But those conscripts could only be called upon to defend Australia itself.

No conscription anywhere in Britain or in the British Empire in 1914
No conscription anywhere in Britain or in the British Empire in 1915
Conscription on the mainland of Great Britain from March 1916, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1916
Conscription in Great Britain in 1917, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1917
Conscription in Great Britain in 1918, no conscription anywhere in the British Empire in 1918

Give me the name of anyone conscripted in Ireland between August 1914 and November 1918.

Had the Easter Rising not happened and the brutish behaviour of Britain sickened the Irish people as a whole compulsory conscription would have been introduced. - Pure speculation on your part - merely your opinion - NOT FACT.

By the way Jim you do not need guns to drill, you do not need guns to train.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:29 AM

Raggytash - 22 May 16 - 10:38 AM

Trust you enjoyed your break.

Ever heard of the Derby Scheme launched in the Autumn of 1915? It was an exercise carried out to see if conscription was necessary.

A National Register was compiled from July 1915

The Military Service Bill introduced in 27th January 1916 became the Military Service Act 2nd March 1916.

Those listed as being conscripts in your table prior to March came from the Derby Scheme those after were conscripts under the Act.

215,000 men enlisted while the scheme was on and another 2,185,000 attested for deferred enlistment. - so numbers seem to match

Call up under the Derby Scheme began: Groups 2 to 5 were called up in the last two weeks of January 1916, and Groups 6 to 13 in February. The last single groups other than the 18 year-olds were called up in March. This last batch were called up in parallel to the first men to be summoned under conscription under the Military Service Act. Attestation under the scheme ceased on 1 March 1916. - Source: Derby Scheme The Long, Long Trail

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:42 AM

"By the way Jim you do not need guns to drill, you do not need guns to train."
If you are going to oppose the army of the greatest power in the world you do.
You should know that with all your (claimed) military experience
" I'd have thought that "latent" is the key word there
"Ruth Dudley Edwards (born 24 May 1944, in Dublin, Ireland) is an Irish, self professed revisionist historian,[1][2][3] crime novelist, journalist and broadcaster, in both Ireland and the United Kingdom. She is, amongst other positions, a columnist with the Irish Sunday Independent."
In contrast a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Blake,_Baron_Blake">Robert Blake
Tell me again about what you told Joe about taking his information from novels?
I ask again - was The Military service act not operable in 1918 when Britain attempted to enforce conscription on Ireland
A reminder
"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,"
or "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"
or
"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."

Try (19 May 16 - 12:49 PM)
Tell me why, if conscription was out of the question for Ireland, Britain attempted tyo push it through in 1918?
This is bloody insane.
You've has all this - it's done and dusted - Ireland lived under the threat of enforced conscription throughout the war and if that had happened it would have made the country unviable.
Haven't you learned how stupid it is to quote rulebooks that were persistently ignored whenever the authorities found them inconvenient.
I really don't know what you expect by persisting with this farce - you're already up to your arse in wreckage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 11:45 AM

I fecked up the
ROBERT BLAKE
link
yer 'tis
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 16 - 02:03 PM

"If you are going to oppose the army of the greatest power in the world you do."

Ehmmm Jim the year is 1916 - what else was going on that year?

Another fact for you, but I know that you will say that its wrong, in 1914 of all the major combatant powers involved Great Britain had the smallest army in the conflict - one-tenth the size of those of either France or Germany, by 1916 it had been fighting the largest and most powerful army in the world for two years. Maybe that would explain why the troops sent to Dublin were raw untested recruits straight out of training.

Yes this Ruth Dudley Edwards:

Dudley Edwards was born and brought up in Dublin and educated at University College Dublin (UCD), Girton College, Cambridge, and Wolfson College, Cambridge. Her father was the Irish historian Professor Robert Dudley Edwards. Her brother Owen Dudley Edwards is a historian at Edinburgh University. In 1965, she married a fellow UCD graduate, the journalist Patrick Cosgrave.

Her Non-Fiction Works:

Her non-fiction books include An Atlas of Irish History, Patrick Pearse (National University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research), James Connolly, Victor Gollancz: A Biography (winner of the James Tait Black Memorial Prize), The Pursuit of Reason: The Economist 1843–1993, The Faithful Tribe: An Intimate Portrait of the Loyal Institutions (shortlisted for Channel 4/The House Politico's Book of the Year) and Newspapermen: Hugh Cudlipp, Cecil King and the glory days of Fleet Street. Her Patrick Pearse: The Triumph of Failure (winner of the National University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research), first published in 1977, was reissued in 2006 by Irish Academic Press. In 2009 she published Aftermath: The Omagh Bombings and the Families' Pursuit of Justice a book about the civil case that was won on 8 June 2009 against the Omagh bombers. The Faithful Tribe was criticised by Ulster Protestant journalist Susan McKay as "sentimental and blinkered",[5] but the New Statesman contributor Stephen Howe described it as "engrossing and illuminating"[6] and Irish Independent journalist John A. Murphy described it as "enormously readable, entertaining and informative".[7] In 2016 she published The Seven: The Lives and Legacies of the Founding Fathers of the Irish Republic (Oneworld), a re-examination of the Easter Rising, addressing the fundamental questions and myths surrounding Ireland's founding fathers."

Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:10 PM

"Seems to me that she is fairly highly regarded within her profession."
Now you really are joking.
Having dismissed statements by Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes.... as "opinions" you are now defending your use of a self-confessed "revisionist historian" a tabloid journalist cum-thriller writer as some sort of expert - do you know what "revisionist" means?.
This lady described the leader of the Rising as a "Latent homosexual, latent paedophile, unhinged, a man with a death wish".
Look as I might, I can't see a mention of her being qualified in any way as a psychoanalyst, which would be necessary for anybody to make such a statement (apart from a tabloid journalist of course!).
I feel a touch of the Victor Meldrews coming on - "I don't ****** beleeeeeeve it".
At a time when the Easter Week Heroes are being lauded to the skies by the Irish press, media, historians, educationalists... and the Irish people in general, this tabloid journalist has decided (with no corroborating evidence), that the leader was a latent homosexual/pedophile - you may describe her as "respected" - I suggest she if looking for a story - it's called "headline hunting" in the trade.
You are doing exactly what Keith has become noted for - you are making rules as to which piece of information is permissible and which is not, and using whoever you wish to try and make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It really is not your day, is it?

Back to the real world.

The logic of the Rising
From Ireland's Civil War Carlton Younger (1968)
To call Pearse and his comrades a minority is not quite the truth. They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow. The people wanted change, release from the ubiquitous Dublin Castle and the right to govern themselves, but majorities invariably want change to be gradual, want to keep grasping familiar props with one hand while they reach for the unfamiliar with the other. Tradesmen and shopkeepers like to see new customers on their thresholds before they relinquish their old ones. So the majority of the Irish still believed in Redmond's national¬ism, not seeing that this was outmoded, that Home Rule was obsolescent before it was even implemented, that new young leaders were breaking new ground and seeing ahead of them, far away as yet, and beyond innumerable barriers, a promised land.
The Easter Rising of 1916 was not a matter of impatience, of reluctance to wait until the end of the war for Home Rule. In 1912 even Pearse had thought the Bill acceptable, but the desire for independence had mounted, outstripping the lab¬orious passage of the Bill. Its provisions of a bi-cameral Par¬liament in Dublin with little more power than a County Council no longer went far enough, but it might have been tolerated as a stepping stone to complete independence had the threatened amendment on partition not cracked the stone in two. Even as it stood, Pearse and his friends were sure that England would leave the legislation to moulder rather than engage in fresh struggles with the intransigent Orangemen.
The Rising was a travesty of what it might have been but, perhaps because it was a travesty, triumph flowed from it. Skilled professional revolutionaries would never have won the hearts of the people, and, without their faith, their conviction, there could have been no effective fight for freedom in the subsequent years. It was the ardour, the dedication, the heroism of the young rebels in the face of inevitable disaster, and finally the cold, professional savagery with which they were met, that won them their day. For the people saw at last that all the complexities of past years were meaningless, that the issue was as clear and as substantial as Waterford glass. That was the real consequence of the Rising."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 May 16 - 03:42 PM

I'm not really contributing to this thread, but I wonder if someone can tell me how you'd know that someone was a "latent paedophile." Think about it. Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 11:47 AM

Especially after a century.
Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?
I believe the same was suggested of Lewis Carroll.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 01:09 PM

Before this becomes too much of an issue, perhaps it's best to deal with it now.
Pearse's "latent homosexuality" is based on a poem he wrote in 1909, which describing the writer kissing boy.
It's an old controversy which has never been resolved, the arguments being that he was writing in the third person or that it was a misinterpretation from the translated Irish:

"I think someone was fairly on the money when they pointed out that the English language has dealt with so many matters, that it has developed a fair body of innuendo, double-speak and implication over its existence. That's not that same for Irish however, with terms like teaghmháil, which is what Pearse uses and is translated to touch, being a fairly straight forward, non-controversial word, which means physical contact and never intends anything sensual or sexual. Likewise, with the word 'mischief', which has many other connotations than the míghníomh (negative or bad deed) used in original. No one will do this poem justice, unless he can give it due consideration in Irish.
It boils down to how one interprets the poem.The mistranslation of one word can change the entire meaning of the poem.
The word 'i dteagmháil' is often used in irish as something entirely different to 'touching',for example,and can not be put down to 'physical contact',

Quote Originally Posted by Riadach View Post
I think someone was fairly on the money when they pointed out that the English language has dealt with so many matters, that it has developed a fair body of innuendo, double-speak and implication over its existence. That's not that same for Irish however, with terms like teaghmháil, which is what Pearse uses and is translated to touch, being a fairly straight forward, non-controversial word, which means physical contact and never intends anything sensual or sexual. Likewise, with the word 'mischief', which has many other connotations than the míghníomh (negative or bad deed) used in original. No one will do this poem justice, unless he can give it due consideration in Irish.
It boils down to how one interprets the poem.The mistranslation of one word can change the entire meaning of the poem.
The word 'i dteagmháil' is often used in irish as something entirely different to 'touching',for example,and can not be put down to 'physical contact',

Béidh mé ag dul i dteagmháil leat-I'll be having a word with you.

Whatever the case, there has never been any suggestion that Pearse acted on the 'inclination' if it existed at all.
Not surprisingly, it has re-surfaced during the centenary year and has been grasped by the few dissident voices as proof positive that Pearse fancied boys.
Had there been any truth in the suggestion, the Brits would, no doubt, have used it to denigrate Pearse as they did Casement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 May 16 - 02:18 PM

A few years back, I heard this song about the Rising by Mudcatter Brendan Devereux, and recorded it with his permission. It pays tribute to ancestors of his who fought in the Rising, and recently Brendan had the honor of playing it at the commemoration ceremonies at Liberty Hall.

Liberty Hall

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 16 - 03:41 PM

"Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?"

Ah you mean like Sir Max Hastings and Tim Pat Coogan - must remember that.

Ruth Dudley Edwards on the other hand:

Education:
University College,Dublin; Girton and Wolfson Colleges Cambridge University.
                
Professional qualifications:        
B.A., M.A., D.Litt(National University of Ireland.
Honorary D.Litt        from Queen's University        Belfast        (2011)

Awards:
National University of Ireland Travelling Studenship Prize 1968
Prize for Irish Historical Research (1978 - For Patrick Pearse)
Tait Black Memorial Prize 1988 - for Victor Gollancz)                                                                                
Employment:
Tutor in History (University College, Dublin)        1964-5;
Lecturer in History and        English        (Further Education institutions        in Cambridge) 1965-67.

She certainly has the tickets punched of the cabal of seven who led 1,800 people to war ensuring that none of them had a clue as to what they were doing, and who were even more clueless as to what they were going to after the event.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 16 - 04:36 PM

Of course what they did achieve was partition which id further away now than it was in 1914

1000 up.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 16 - 08:16 PM

""Didn't you know, tabloid journalists know everything?""
They are what they are - occasionally they get their come-uppance, like Andy Coulson.
Ruth Dudley Ellis"
So ******* what?
You rather stupidly wrote off all those I cited (just in cae, a reminder "Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes"....) as merely "opinions", yet you find a bone you think might be chewable when, all of a sudden a tabloid journalist becomes flavour of the month - just like Keith has done in the past.
I have no problem with accepting information from journalists, eye witnesses or amateur researchers, as long as it makes sense and it is presented with some qualification - Ms Edwards hasn't done that - she states an enigma as if it was a fact and has done so at a time when it was calculated to do some damage.
This issue was current back in 2002, shortly after we moved to Ireland - it wasn't resolved then and it hasn't been since, though it was predicted at the time that it would show its ugly head on the 100th anniversary.   
What the **** does the alleged latent sexual proclivities of anybody have to do with what they say - as long as they don't act on them - the world would be a far worse place if it wasn't for some of its heroes who didn't measure up - Michael Angelo, Alan Turin and T E Lawrence...... spring immediately to mind.
Their only significance is their use to people like you when you run out of ideas.
You have tried every stunt to denigrate the Irish, to contradict their history, to deny them not just the right of independence, but to question their validity as a United State.
Keith, in his proclaimed ignorance and disinterest, has dismissed the celebrating of Irish Independence as a glorification of murder and have accused the Irish People of having being gullible in falling for propaganda, and comparing this anniversary to "St Patick's Day" - wonder how the American members of this forum would have reacted to having their Bi-centennial celebrations compared to 'Groundhog day?'
You can take comfort in the fact that you are part of a long tradition and the same dirty-tricks you are using now were used by your fellow-squalids in the past to denigrate Parnell ("The Uncrowned King of Ireland) and the man who blew the whistle on the Belgian atrocities in the Congo, Roger Caasement - well done, both of you.
You really seem to have found your niche.
Jim Carroll

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

"Asquith, Bonar Law Churchill, Redmond, Carson, and others involved at the time, and from The Proclamation and cabinet notes" - What the **** does what their opinions are (i.e. what they said) have to do with anything - as long as they don't act on them. Only trouble is that out of that lot - the only one that WAS acted on was the Proclamation:

It destroyed the centre of Dublin
Caused the deaths of 485 people
Caused the eclipse of "constitutional" nationalism - which had been successful in improving the lot of the people of Ireland for decades - and set the precedent that violence was acceptable for future generations.
It heightened sectarian tensions and guaranteed the partition of Ireland.

Seven men for THEIR OWN and vastly differing reasons plotted in secret within their own organisation to instigated the events of the 24th - 29th April 1916.

In 1919, nine men acting entirely on their own and working on the principle that violence was acceptable lit the fuse that resulted in the Irish War of Independence - They deliberately set out to kill that day in order to provoke a military response, their only regret was that the explosives were only guarded by two policemen in stead of the six they'd hoped for.

In 1922, one man, Eamon de Valera, who had supposedly fought for the establishment of a Democratic Republic for Ireland proved his commitment to democracy by conveniently ignoring any vote that went against him by urging others to take up the gun to put things to rights according to the way that he saw things and started the Irish Civil War.

Eamon de Valera made controversial speeches at Carrick on Suir, Lismore, Dungarvan and Waterford, saying at one point,

"If the Treaty were accepted, the fight for freedom would still go on, and the Irish people, instead of fighting foreign soldiers, will have to fight the Irish soldiers of an Irish government set up by Irishmen."

At Thurles, several days later, he repeated this imagery and added that the IRA

"would have to wade through the blood of the soldiers of the Irish Government, and perhaps through that of some members of the Irish Government to get their freedom."

To attempt to suggest that they were taking their lead from the Ulster volunteers is ridiculous for the following reasons:

The Ulster Volunteers and their supporters had only ONE red line and that was being forced into a united Ireland against their will, their threat was made against the British Government NOT against the Irish Home Rule Movement. That threat was never acted on.

In 1914 when war was declared they almost to a man volunteered and went to serve in the British Army and fought against the Germans

When the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was enacted and Northern Ireland got its own Home Rule Parliament their one and only red line issue that would have triggered action on their part all but disappeared.

With the signing and subsequent ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921 the conditions that had created that red line were removed entirely on the 7th December when Northern Ireland ceded from the Irish Free State and returned to become part of the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:23 AM

Jim,
Every time you have written that Ireland would have become independent if it hadn't been for the uprising, you have repeated a lie.

Really?
Is it not a fact that the 1914 Bill guaranteed it, that the government and all sides in Ireland agreed it and passed it with a large majority?

Is it not a fact that there was finally unity and consensus?

Then came the rising, which destroyed all that unity and consensus, ensured the Act was never enacted, and set in train generations of bloody violence.

All facts Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 May 16 - 03:37 AM

but keith you are making an assumption that politicians keep their word, in my experience they do not, and there was no guarantee even though the politicians of the time said it they would guarantee independence.
your argument and jims argument reminds me of so called horse racing experts who say that a horse is a sure thing and then it turns out to be a non runner.
neither you or jim know what would have happened in the event of the easter rising not having occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 16 - 04:05 AM

I make no such assumption Dick, but they can only overturn an Act of Parliament by passing another one, and that did not happen until after the rising, and because of the rising.
The 1914 Act was passed and only the rising prevented its enactment.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 16 - 04:09 AM

Having just spent 8 days in Ireland even I was surprised by the amount of coverage that has been given to the commemoration of the 1916 Rising.

For example on multi-storey buildings in Dublin the whole side of some had been covered in drapes with the Proclamation displayed. In Athenry the lampposts displayed portraits of the men executed. There were too many to recount them all here.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 04:22 AM

I really can't be arsed with any of this, which has been covered over and over again in full - you have responded to nothing and put up nothing.
Teribus puts up long tracts on drivel - unqualified opinions - which he has already condemned as irrelevant from others
You have not attempted to answer the overall situation I have given - everything linked to researched and identified information and, having attempted a foray into character smearing of one of the rebel leaders (sort of like discussing El Almein by concentration on Montgomery's taste for young boys) you now want to nit pick over well-covered ground again.
Easter Week set the Independence ball rolling and eventually led to a full-scale War for independence - it also helped to bring the Empire edifice down - fair play to it.
The Rebellion took place at a time when Britain was faced with a Civil War promoted by Unionist fanatics - a justification for the uprising even if independence had not been an issue.
If you want your opinions to be discussed - link them to real evidence - your opinions no longer interest me - I could scribble them down on a beer mat in five minutes starting with "the British Empire was wonderful and never did anybody any harm" (thinking about it, that's the sum total of it really)
Keith is back to his Norwegian Blue imitations -not particularly impressive the first time, now a somewhat pathetic repeated joke.
As soon as I'm able (when this ****** good weather breaks) I'll continue with my fully researched and linked efforts to run through the first half of the 20th century's Irish history as I understand it - I've started, so I'll finish.
If you want to add to or subtract from it - fine, if not, fine too - fed up with swimming in stagnant water
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 04:42 AM

GSS, what Keith A states is correct. By July 8th 1914 all parties had reached agreement, later that month as Europe was going into meltdown the IVF landed their weapons at Howth. That action in response to the UVF landing of arms earlier prompted no response at all from the UVF or from the pro-unionists.

The Amending Bill that would have been included in the statute version of the 1914 Government of Ireland Act was abandoned when Great Britain went to war. Home Rule for Ireland was to be the first order of business on conclusion of hostilities - IT WAS, but because the "men of the gun" decided to kill policemen on duty and because of the 1916 Rising Unionist attitudes had hardened - a new Act was required.

Had neither of these things happened and had either the 1914 or even a new 1920 Act been followed then both parties as a Dominion within the Empire they would have had between 6 to 11 years to reach a mutually agreeable compromise and in 1931 under the terms of the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become an independent sovereign united country.

As it stands today the "men of the gun" only succeeded in making that independent united Ireland impossible, they are further away today than they were on the morning of the 24th April 1916 just before those seven men put their idiotic, ludicrously confused and selfish plan into action and destroyed the lot.

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

"Westminster Ireland would have become an independent sovereign united country."
Utter palpable nonsense.
The Treaty Ireland was forced to sign at gunpoint gave The Unionists exactly what they had been demanding under the threat of Civil War - a permanently partitioned six county Protestant state - nothing to do with Easter Week.
That State repressed and persecuted Catholics for over half a century until yet another bloody conflict finally brought the dominant Protestant hierarchy to the Conference Table - leaving behind 3,568 dead, 1,876 of those being civilians.
Casualty figures
That's how prepared the Unionists supported by the British were to negotiate.
It's little wonder you never link your claims to reality
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 06:43 AM

"The Treaty Ireland was forced to sign at gunpoint gave The Unionists exactly what they had been demanding under the threat of Civil War - a permanently partitioned six county Protestant state - nothing to do with Easter Week."

Now the things I find rather odd about that are:

1: When were the Irish Plenipotentiaries forced to sign the treaty at gunpoint?
2: If that were so why did the Irish Government then ratify the Treaty or were they forced to sign at gunpoint as well? If so how?
3: Very odd that those same Unionists had agreed to a temporary six year grace period in July 1914 yet by 1919 they were demanding permanent partition - Please tell us what had happened in Ireland that could have forced them to change their minds? (HINT: 1916 Easter Rising & 1919 The Irish War of Independence that they wanted no part of)

That State repressed and persecuted Catholics for over half a century until yet another bloody conflict finally brought the dominant Protestant hierarchy to the Conference Table - leaving behind 3,568 dead, 1,876 of those being civilians.

Since 1921 the Catholic population in Northern Ireland has expanded
Since 1921 the Protestant population in the Republic of Ireland has shrunk from ~13% to ~3% most that is not repression Jim that is ethnic cleansing.

As to the bloody conflict IIRC there were two sides to that and the bulk of those casualties were the responsibility of the Nationalist/?Republican paramilitaries - once again it was they who decided to fight after the "Official" IRA said that they would stay out of it and leave it to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement. Two sides were brought to the Conference Table and as a result we got the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 and the All Ireland Referendum which finally got the ridiculous and confrontational territorial claim withdrawn from the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland - and that robs the "men of the gun" from ever making any claim to them having any mandate from the Irish people.

Only thing now of course is that for Ireland to become a united country first the people of Northern Ireland, and only the people of Northern Ireland, have to decide that they want that, and then secondly the people of the Republic of Ireland have to vote to accept the decision of the people of Northern Ireland should they vote for union. So further away today than they were in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 07:00 AM

"just before those seven men put their idiotic, ludicrously confused and selfish plan into action and destroyed the lot."
My maths was never my strong point but it was 1,600 rebels (facing up to 20,000 British troops) who took part in the rebellion.
Unless you are suggesting that that number were brainwashed (by the French or the Spanish maybe) into taking part, your "seven selfish men" shows a disting weakness in numeracy.
The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.
The French and Spanish certain;y have been busy little bees!!
"sign the treaty at gunpoint?"
"Sign within 3 days or else it's war" - doesn't come any plainer than that.
You seemto find most facts "rather odd".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 07:01 AM

"just before those seven men put their idiotic, ludicrously confused and selfish plan into action and destroyed the lot."
My maths was never my strong point but it was 1,600 rebels (facing up to 20,000 British troops) who took part in the rebellion.
Unless you are suggesting that that number were brainwashed (by the French or the Spanish maybe) into taking part, your "seven selfish men" shows a distinct weakness in numeracy.
The Rebellion was recognised as an act of sheer patriotic heroism within weeks of the event and have been ever since.
The French and Spanish certain;y have been busy little bees!!
"sign the treaty at gunpoint?"
"Sign within 3 days or else it's war" - doesn't come any plainer than that.
You seemto find most facts "rather odd".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 May 16 - 08:01 AM

"Had neither of these things happened and had either the 1914 or even a new 1920 Act been followed then both parties as a Dominion within the Empire they would have had between 6 to 11 years to reach a mutually agreeable compromise and in 1931 under the terms of the Statute of Westminster Ireland would have become an independent sovereign united country."
you are assuming politicians keep their word, in my experience that is rather like believing in fairy stories.

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

WE are in total agreement at last Dick.
Teribus once believed this himself higher up the thread: "Oh dear Jom have you just found out that politicians are dishonest? That they will do anything to get a deal? What planet have you been living on?", but now he seems to be back squarely to "we have to put our trust in the men in the suits".
Funny somersaults that have taken place throughout the long life of this thread.
A mildly amused Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 09:47 AM

Jim Carroll - 24 May 16 - 07:00 AM

Maths has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Irish Volunteers/IRB Supreme Committee consisted of 11 men who had insisted that any rising was only to take place IF it stood some chance of success. Having colluded with the Germans the Supreme Committee were expecting a shipment of arms aboard a German ship called the Aud. The "magnificent seven" formed in secret a group called the Military Council and they planned their "Rising" in such a way as the other four members knew nothing about it - the second they did find out about it the sent out orders to stop it, they reconfirmed that order when they found out that the Aud had failed to land the promised German weapons.

it was 1,600 rebels (facing up to 20,000 British troops) who took part in the rebellion.

Of those who turned up, most thought they were just drilling, the majority of them like those with de Valera in Boland's Mill played little or no part in the fighting at all.

Of the leaders you had vastly differing views, Connelly with his Workers Republic and Pearse expecting the next King of Ireland to be one of the German Crown Princes who of course would have to become fluent in Gaelic (Sort of on the job training)

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

Only by those as daft as you Jim. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture that was guaranteed to fail from the outset by a man who sought death and believed in blood sacrifice.

Now let us get onto the last bit of your latest travesty of "fact"

"Sign within 3 days or else it's war" - doesn't come any plainer than that.

Obvious to all - the Irish, well at least nine of them had decided to start a war, and having succeeded in fighting it to a stalemate peace negotiations were arranged and a truce was established in June 1921. Peace negotiations continue until both parties sign them - if that doesn't happen then quite naturally hostilities resume - so the "3 days or else it's war" was not the threat of a declaration of a new war but the resumption of the one the Irish had started.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 May 16 - 10:00 AM

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

Only by those as daft as you Jim. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture that was guaranteed to fail from the outset by a man who sought death and believed in blood sacrifice"

Then you too are calling almost the entire nation of Ireland idiotic. The commemorations where nationwide and lasted for several weeks.

Not that I'm too surprised by your attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 10:49 AM

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

Ah but GSS you are referring to modern day "professional" politicians, who will do almost anything to cling onto power (Party FIRST, Country or anything else second), not the same thing at all as those back then. And going back even further you had those in power who actually crashed their own governments just to let the electorate decide through the ballot box what was best for the country.

Raggytash at these commemorations for Easter Week were all participants who died part of the commemoration - or only those from the Nationalist/Republican side remembered? If memory serves correctly you have a thing about jingoistic commemorations don't you.

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

So they brainwashed all the others into joining them rather thna catching the mood that had i=existed in Ireland for centuries and acted when the time was right.
It really didn't take too long to turn the country around once the rising had happened
A bit difficult to understand if you are against Irish independence, I should imagine.
Those Frenchies and Spaniards do have a lot to answer for, don't they
One more tome - one of the summaries I habve already ypput up whch you have studiously avoided:

"To call Pearse and his comrades a minority is not quite the truth. They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow. The people wanted change, release from the ubiquitous Dublin Castle and the right to govern themselves, but majorities invariably want change to be gradual, want to keep grasping familiar props with one hand while they reach for the unfamiliar with the other. Tradesmen and shopkeepers like to see new customers on their thresholds before they relinquish their old ones. So the majority of the Irish still believed in Redmond's national¬ism, not seeing that this was outmoded, that Home Rule was obsolescent before it was even implemented, that new young leaders were breaking new ground and seeing ahead of them, far away as yet, and beyond innumerable barriers, a promised land.
The Easter Rising of 1916 was not a matter of impatience, of reluctance to wait until the end of the war for Home Rule. In 1912 even Pearse had thought the Bill acceptable, but the desire for independence had mounted, outstripping the lab¬orious passage of the Bill. Its provisions of a bi-cameral Parliament in Dublin with little more power than a County Council no longer went far enough, but it might have been tolerated as a stepping stone to complete independence had the threatened amendment on partition not cracked the stone in two. Even as it stood, Pearse and his friends were sure that England would leave the legislation to moulder rather than engage in fresh struggles with the intransigent Orangemen."
"Only by those as daft as you Jim. To any sentient human being it was at best an idiotic and pointless gesture"
As I said to Keith, it is arrogance in the extreme to dismiss what amounts to the entire Irish nation, with few exceptions, in this way - but arrogance seems to be what you are best at.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 11:05 AM

Raggy's post seems to sum up perfectly what those "as daft as me are doing at the present time
Jim Carroll

"Having just spent 8 days in Ireland even I was surprised by the amount of coverage that has been given to the commemoration of the 1916 Rising.
For example on multi-storey buildings in Dublin the whole side of some had been covered in drapes with the Proclamation displayed. In Athenry the lampposts displayed portraits of the men executed. There were too many to recount them all here."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 12:58 PM

"They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow." - What??? You mean not even out of a sense of the mildest curiosity?? Were they really that poor?

Against independence for anyone never, but not at the cot of forcing your views on others without consultation or consent.

Law for the Goose same law for the Gander. If you call for the right of self-determination then that right is extended to all without exception.

By the bye which would it have been? Connelly's Workers Republic or Pearse's Gaelic speaking Nirvana with a German Crown Prince as a King? And irrespective of which side got the vote would it have then been considered perfectly acceptable for the other side to take up arms and through violence force their own agenda?

Another question Jim do you consider Ding Dong Denny's "The Craic we had the day we died for Ireland" a folksong that will pass into "The Tradition"?

Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly and the Hairie Bowsies

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

"at??? You mean not even out of a sense of the mildest curiosity"
I didn'ty mean anything - I quoted it - you obviously don't read what is put in front of you.
I know what the man means and the skid marks of changing opinion following the slaughter of the Rebels as the Irish united for independence backs up the point perfectly.
Don't take my opinions from folk (sic) songs - bit to near taking them from novels - something else you have condemned but are now putting forward as an argument.
Weirder and weirder, but at least you have now found the link mecahnism - next step - why not use it to put up some proof?
"By the bye which would it have been? "
Would have been whatever the Irish chose it to be once the grip of teh British Empire had been broken - that was the whole point of the exercise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 16 - 02:10 PM

Clown - "They were leaders whose potential followers had not yet realised that they wanted to follow." - Is about as damning a statement as could ever be made and implies absolutely no support at all for their enterprise - now tell us who it is that you are quoting as I think I heard it before on one of the Prime Time Debates on RTE.

The British made one hell of a mistake in doing as they did once they had put down the rebellion. As I have stated previously I would have paraded the "magnificent seven" through every city, town, village, parish and school hall in Ireland and exposed them for the lying, treacherous (To their own men and to their own organisation), murderous fools that they were. It could have been done but isn't 20x20 hindsight a marvellous thing and also as previously stated other factors at the time had to be taken into consideration. They'd have killed off violent Republicanism at a stroke, 1,800 men rose for Pearse's pointless blood sacrifice and collusion with the enemy while 210,000 Irishmen fought that very same enemy over in France. I say pointless because what Pearse's rising won was less than what was already on offer in July 1914.

You think they won you an independent state? Twice now Ireland has said NO to the EU and what happened - they rephrased the question and then got the answer that they originally wanted - isn't independence a wonderful thing.

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

You may disagree with much that I post here Teribus but I have never felt the need, or wish, to denigrated an entire nation for commemorating something that is obviously central to their national consciousness.

You seem to consider them fools and idiots.

Perhaps if you took the trouble to at least read a little about Irish history from sources other than Billy Bunters guide to English history you may start to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 16 - 02:51 PM

Your rant is a sign that you have run out of excuses - you should have ended it with "so there!!!" and stuck your tongue out - that's about the level of it.
"You seem to consider them fools and idiots."
He has described them as such throughout, "up until then it had primarily been Spain who had conned and duped the Irish into revolt, in 1798" being a classic example.
Keith at least had the bottle to call the entire Irish nation "gullible" and "tricked by propaganda" as he had previously described Irish children as being "brainwashed to hate Britain".
This feller just says one thing "How dare you write a post based upon attributing me with holding the view that Ireland was not entitled to independence" then goes on to prove he means the opposite.
Jim Carroll
.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 May 16 - 06:41 PM

we shall never know the answer to the question what would have happened in ireland if the easter rising had not taken place. so prhaps it is time to go to bed

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:40 AM

Keith at least had the bottle to call the entire Irish nation "gullible"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.

and "tricked by propaganda"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.


as he had previously described Irish children as being "brainwashed to hate Britain".

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 16 - 03:42 AM

Keith at least had the bottle to call the entire Irish nation "gullible"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.

and "tricked by propaganda"

A lie. Jim you are making up shit about me again.

as he had previously described Irish children as being "brainwashed to hate Britain".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Jim the following was just simply not the case:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you say so Raggytash - If you say so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any proof of that?

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

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

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

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

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

Alarmed by the changed and volatile situation in Ireland the Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, following prolonged discussions, announced on 25 May 1916 {i.e. One month AFTER the rising} to the House of Commons that he had agreed to undertake negotiations to bring about a permanent Home Rule settlement in Ireland. Lloyd George, then Minister for Munitions, was then sent to Dublin to offer this to the leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party, John Redmond and John Dillon. The scheme revolved around partition, officially a temporary arrangement, as understood by Redmond. Lloyd George however gave the Ulster leader Carson a written guarantee that Ulster would not be forced in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim,
IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID?

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

Do not call me a liar please

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

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

I made no comparisons. You lie again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is NOT what you said was it?

You stated that:

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

NOT the same thing at all.

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

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

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

"By the 9th July 1914 all parties were in agreement.
"
Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"Home Rule was not discussed again until after the Rising."
It was never "discussede" after the Rising - Lloyd George had gone ahead with making partition permanent - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement
Redmond had made it cleared from the beginning that permanent partition was not on the table as far as his party was concerned - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
"So no guarantee of permanent partition then"
Are you suggesting that Lloyd did not tell both sides that partition had been decided in their favour - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?   
"NOT the same thing at all."
Certainly not the same he had told the Unionists if that's what you mean, though I'm sure you don't - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?
""Parliamentary Republicans""
They are referred to as both - including in the documents you have been given - stop trying to be clever - that's the last thing you are.
Tell us Jim who but seven selfish men instigated the Easter Rising?
A rising of sorts was on the cards throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century
Tell me who but the sectarian thugs in the north armed themselves in order to end any chance of Ireland becoming independent?
Now - unless you are prepared to debate honestly - this is finished
You are the most reactionary arrogant and ignorant individual I have ever come across.
You won't provide evidence or respond to points yet you demand that I do.
You make up claims based on thin air and expect to be believed
You make statements that nobody has and are taking a stance that nobody else is.
You denigrate the Irish as a nation because of something you claim did or didn't happen back in Norman times, using it to show Ireland has no claim to unity then lie about it.
You accuse the Irish of being duped by foreign powers into demanding freedom from The Empire, then lie about it.
What are you on - I'd have a word with my dealer if I were you.
Now, unless there's anything else..... shut the door as you go out.
Thank you for confirming my "pecking order" joke - I wasn't serious, but I am now.
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

Whatever Keith.

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

"Agreement to wait till after the war to decide on the position on partition - For the sake of not having to repeat this again what problem do you have with that statement?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delivered on the promise that all parties would be consulted.

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

Jim,

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

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


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

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

Whatever Keith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever Keith


Now go and repeat your mantra.











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raggytash wonders:

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

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

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

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

As for this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More time now
This is where it should have been at the beginning - out in the open.
The outpouringsof these two are little more than a display of spiteful cultural hatred directed at a tiny handful of poorly armed and trained men who held the British Empire at bay for a week and ended up tweaking its nose so hard that it set the building blocks of the entire Imperial system tumbling.
If you have any evidence of a "faction" among the rebels - please provide it.
If you have any evidence of the actions of Easter Week offending the finer feelings of a bunch of armed traitorous thugs to the extent that they forgot their manners - please provide it.
If you have any evidence of Ireland being egged on by Spain and France to demand Independence - please provide it.
If you have evidence of any of your crass claims - no artillery, a fair trial for Tom Kent, an army refusing to act if a bunch of Unionist thugs invaded part of Britain not being tantamount to a mutiny, rioters setting fire to the whole of Sackville Street, Ireland not being entitled to independence because of what happened in Norman times...... any of this shit - please provide it.
Otherwise it remains what it appears to be - the hate-filled ramblings of a pair of Neanderthal Empire Loyalists making up stories in defence of a long-gone-but not missed predatory Empire and a highly dangerous group of religion-inspired fanatics.
You don't provide evidence, either of you because there is none - not even Keith with his assiduous searching for "real historians" has turned up zilch, though I have little doubt that he has worn out eyes and fingers looking for some.
Jim Carroll

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

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

The professor wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, now there's you problem, mate.

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

Raggytash - 26 May 16 - 03:44 PM

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

Time line

Third Irish Home Rule BILL introduced in April 1912

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

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

Jim Carroll - 26 May 16 - 12:11 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF.

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Irish Volunteers

Extract:
The Irish Volunteers (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann), sometimes called the Irish Volunteer Force[1][2][3] or Irish Volunteer Army,[4][5][6] was a military organisation established in 1913 by Irish nationalists. It was ostensibly formed in response to the formation of the Ulster Volunteers in 1912, and its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland".[7] The Volunteers included members of the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians and Sinn Féin,[8] and, secretly, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB). Increasing rapidly to a strength of nearly 200,000 by mid-1914, IT SPLIT in September of that year over John Redmond's commitment to the British War effort, with the smaller group retaining the name of "Irish Volunteers".

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

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


Governmment of Ireland Act 1914

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spain - The Nine Years War

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

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

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

France - 1798 Rebellion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7: rioters setting fire to the whole of Sackville Street

RTE/Booston College Chronology of the Easter Rising 1916

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do like one line in your latest diatribe Teribus






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




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

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

Raggytash - 27 May 16 - 09:49 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Rag,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 09:35 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever Keith.

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

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

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

"That should be RECONCILIATION, GregF."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever

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

Jim Carroll - 27 May 16 - 12:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINK
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah history according to professor Acheson.

Whatever Keith

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever Keith

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


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

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

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

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

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

Raggytash - 28 May 16 - 10:50 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the peacemakers in Paris also ratify the Irish Republic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the peacemakers in Paris also ratify the Irish Republic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim, I have quoted historians

Live ones or dead ones?

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not.
Just false accusations.

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

Read a book yet?

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

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

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

There speaks a man who exults in his own ignorance.

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

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

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

What 5 questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Home rule had already been agreed."
When?

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

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

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

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

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

"By the historians Greg? "
What historians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

"Home rule had already been agreed."
When?

1914

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

1914

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were overcome in 1914.

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 30 May 16 - 10:24 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 02:37 AM

Jim Carroll - 30 May 16 - 02:50 PM

1: "Having read that post of yours Jim I'll ask "What 5 questions?""
Mind your own business - I wandn't addressing you and why the **** should I anser your questions anyway - you never respond to my postings.

But James my favourite little Anglophobe you didn't ask 5 questions did you, you rather boringly asked the same single question four times and you supposed 5th question was not a question at all but a comment, ill-informed, incorrect and totally lacking perspective, but still a comment based on your opinion not on historical fact.

My posting history will reveal that I do respond to your postings, mostly to point out the glaring errors in fact, reasoning and logic that are contained in them

2: Pompous prat

Oooooh, that wasn't very nice was it. Not within the new spirit of things at all.

3: The rest of it - been there, done that - now your as repetitively boring as your mate.
Still not a link in sight - all personal Empire Loyalist opinion.

Unfortunately James you haven't, what you have done is to attempt to counter fact with opinion, opinion that is not even original, i.e. not your own. Not surprising really as you do not seem to be able to distinguish between the two, or pick up the difference between someone speaking figuratively or factually.

I've tried posting links in refutation of the ludicrous things you post, but that has proved a pointless exercise. Even with a link clearly evident in my post, and extract from it in the text and a source clearly given you deny that they are there (Number of examples of that in this thread alone)

4: You have been unable to find a single historian to back your case - not one.

Oh I think Keith A has found far more than one, and most of the long screeds you scan, copy and paste tend to back up what he says rather than support your idiotic contentions.

5: You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other with one threatening Civil War, could possibly have been implemented

Well yes Jim both of us have, repeatedly, it's just that you refuse point blank to accept what is simple recorded fact that in July 1914 as Europe went into meltdown the Liberal Government of Herbert Asquith, The Irish Parliamentary Party of John Redmond, the Lords, the Conservative Opposition under Bonar Law and both Unionist factions were agreed on how to proceed. Nothing that you post will alter that because the statement above is factually correct – was all the fine detail worked out? No it was not, but that was not the purpose of the Bill all that served to do was declare the intention as stipulated in the agreed text of the Act. A temporary exclusion from direct rule from Dublin for the first six years of Home Rule being granted was the accepted arrangement on partition, the number of counties involved remained to be determined.

As for threatening Civil War, the Ulster Unionists only had one red line issue and that had been very clearly stated right from the start – They would only take up arms against the BRITISH GOVERNMENT if they were ever coerced into joining an independent united Ireland against their will – it was their leaders who took part in the discussions related to the proposals put forward in Asquith's Amending Bill and they did so with the backing of their membership, the six year temporary exclusion was agreed to on the 8th July 1914 and guess what Mr Carroll?:

- There was no Civil war (No link required to support that fact)
- The Unionist Movement did not split (No link required to support that fact)
- The Ulster Volunteer Force did not split (No link required to support that fact)
- With the advent of war, the UVF volunteered almost to a man to fight the Germans

Wasn't the same on the Nationalist/Republican side though was it Jim?

- The movement split 92.5% for Redmond and 7.5% for Pearse
- The IRB decided to stage an armed insurrection and collude with the enemy

6: Nor have you givenen us evidence that The Easter Rising had any effect on this - just your permanently repeated nonsense.

The evidence has been presented Jim. You've even posted it repeatedly yourself.

1914 agreement in principle reached Home Rule Bill becomes Home Rule Act, Redmond and Carson are willing albeit reluctantly to a temporary exclusion for a six year period.

No change at all until at Easter in 1916 the rising takes place and by mid-May it has been supressed.

Now according to your Jonathan Bardon the United Unionist Council hold a crucial meeting (Your Mr Bardon lists the events in chronological order, he does not jump about like you Jim, possibly because he is a historian and knows how important it is to get things in the right order – he mentions the year 1916, he mentions the Rising and then he mentions the "crucial meeting") And then when Lloyd George is sent to Dublin by Asquith in an attempt to get the Home Rule Act implemented we find that the ground has shifted and on the 9th July 1916 the Unionists in the North are wanting Permanent Partition, the Unionists in the South are still OK with a temporary arrangement. Hate to point this out to you Jim but that change in attitude and the timing of it screams like a neon sign that the Easter Rising most definitely did have an effect on the attitude of the Unionists in Ulster. Deny it all you want but up until the Easter Rising what had been accepted in 1914 stood, after the Easter Rising it didn't.

7: Yo asked for examples of you being proved wrone - you've now got about half of them
You, like your mate rely on your statements being accepted withut question and you totally refuse to respond to evidence that has been put up.

You to-date have proved nothing of the sort, if you like I will detail the number of things that you have got wrong on this thread alone (The list is long and the errors demonstrable). IF our statements are wrong then check them and refute them (Most of the links you supply actually back our statements up rather than refute them). So far you have offered no evidence at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 02:55 AM

Here's your first one Jim:

1: Jim Carroll - 16 Apr 16 - 12:48 PM

Any violence that took place following Easter Week and independence can be laid at the door of the British forcing through partition

WRONG –

What is wrong with that statement is that the British Government of the day put through a Home Rule Act covering the whole of Ireland in 1914 with agreement reached on a temporary partitioning for six years. In 1920 they enacted a Home Rule Act for both Northern and Southern Ireland with a temporary partition for a six year period. The Sinn Fein Government in Dublin rejected this and fought a war of independence. This fight ended in a stalemate resulting in a Truce in June 1921 after which peace negotiations took place in which the WHOLE OF IRELAND, as the Irish Free State, was granted independence with the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty on the 6th December 1921. On the 7th December 1921 under the terms of that Treaty (Signed and ratified by the Irish Government) the Parliament of Northern Ireland exercised their right and seceded from the Irish Free State.

Pray tell where in that process did the British force through anything?

The Unionists in Ulster certainly did as was their right if you actually believe in the right to self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 03:48 AM

"But James "
Why "Jim Carroll" - try not to talk down, you're really not tall enough.
You really don't know how your ever-emerging name-calling rudeness is a sign of your insecurity, do you?
I don't hate Britain, only those who defend the appalling behaviour of its politicians - go to the top of that particulaar class.
As I said, it's none of your business how many questions I asked, they weren't addressed to you.
Pomposity - I prefer to tell what I see - enough of it in your present posting to confirm my impressions.
You have given no facts, only your own unqualified opinions - I have backed everything I have claimed with researched information and have identified my sources - you have consistently refused or ignored requests to do so, as you are now doing..
"Oh I think Keith A has found far more than one,"
Let's see what he comes up with and what they had to say - admittedly, he did find a Jesuit lecturer in philosophy, and following last nights television programme on Yeats, he might have added Bob Geldof (a sadly mixed programme of beautiful poetry and crass political analysis).
If my offerings refute my claims, why not point out where they do - you haven't so far?
The British forced through (under threat of war) a bill which divided Ireland - one which left 26 independent, as per the wishes of the overall majority of the Irish people, the other six remaining under British rule, led by a fanatical leadership that mounted a reign of terror on a third of the population which lasted for half a century and was only brought to an end by years of bloody conflict in Ireland and on mainland Britain - that conflict rumbles on and in my opinion, will continue to do so until the dividing line is removed -
God knows, the consequences of partitioning countries have raised their ugly heads often enough for our 'Great and Good' to have learned their lesson - obviously not, in the case of Britian.
Now - if you have nothing more than 'all wind and pee, like the barber's cat' to offer, I'll see what more there is to put up.
Have a good day now, d'you hear!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 16 - 04:28 AM

Jim, the are 43 http in my posts (out of 56).

You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other

They were not diametrically opposed.
Agreement was reached.
Read about the passage of the Act Jim.

Nor have you givenen us evidence that The Easter Rising had any effect on this -

Does it need explanation?
Do you think the Unionists welcomed it? Do you imagine that their position would remain unchanged after that?
Do not be so silly and ignorant Jim!

No they ****** weren't - one side wanted temporary partition -

Yes they did, and the Nationalists agreed to that compromise. They voted for the Bill and it was passed into law.

the other refused - how was that "settled"?

They did not refuse. Again, read about the passage of the Act Jim.

Yo asked for examples of you being proved wrone - you've now got about half of them

What I stated were facts. You have not read or understood the passage of the 1914 Act. It was you who have got it all wrong.

Wiki,
" In 1914 after the third reading, the Bill was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a majority of 77. Having been defeated a third time in the Lords, the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the Lords and send it for Royal Assent."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Been there - done that Keith, and you've been given the documented and attributed information - where's yours?
No historians, no links - thanks for the confirmation.
Teribus one last point
"The IRB decided to stage an armed insurrection and collude with the enemy"
This sums up your smeary campaign against the Irish people.
The Rebels did not "collude with the enemy" - if they did - how did they.
Did they spread German propaganda ?
No they did not.
Did they allow Germany to use Ireland as a backdoor to Britain?
No they did not.
Did they in any way attempt to further the ggerman cause in Ireland?
No they did not.
They thanked Germany for the guns - nothing more.
This smear was used against those who opposed British rule on several occasions, notbly in 1918.
In May 1918 the newly arrived viceroy, Lord French, announced the existence of a 'German Plot'. Police arrested seventy-three prominent Sinn Féiners. Knowing that it would only strengthen their cause, Sinn Fein activists still at large made no attempt to avoid arrest. In fact not a shred of solid evidence had been presented to show that Irish nationalists were conspiring with Imperial Germany."
The attempts at smear ended in disaster.
A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes, Jonathan Bardon
The Rebels made their position on the War quite clear "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland'
The fact that you continue to use this as you have done other smears is fairly evident of your total inability to produce facts to back your opinions, which is why you never link us to anything.
If the Rebels supported Germany then the wartime British government during WW2 were all Stalinists.
I used to have a family photograph of me as a child at a victory street party in Liverpool, taken next to a propaganda poster blessing "good old Uncle Joe" for helping defeat Fascism.
You pair really need to clean up your various acts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 05:00 AM

Been there - done that Keith, and you've been given the documented and attributed information - where's yours?
No historians, no links - thanks for the confirmation.
Teribus one last point
"The IRB decided to stage an armed insurrection and collude with the enemy"
This sums up your smeary campaign against the Irish people.
The Rebels did not "collude with the enemy" - if they did - how did they.
Did they spread German propaganda ?
No they did not.
Did they allow Germany to use Ireland as a backdoor to Britain?
No they did not.
Did they in any way attempt to further the ggerman cause in Ireland?
No they did not.
They thanked Germany for the guns - nothing more.
This smear was used against those who opposed British rule on several occasions, notbly in 1918.
In May 1918 the newly arrived viceroy, Lord French, announced the existence of a 'German Plot'. Police arrested seventy-three prominent Sinn Féiners. Knowing that it would only strengthen their cause, Sinn Fein activists still at large made no attempt to avoid arrest. In fact not a shred of solid evidence had been presented to show that Irish nationalists were conspiring with Imperial Germany."
The attempts at smear ended in disaster.
A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes, Jonathan Bardon
The Rebels made their position on the War quite clear "We serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland'
The fact that you continue to use this as you have done other smears is fairly evident of your total inability to produce facts to back your opinions, which is why you never link us to anything.
If the Rebels supported Germany then the wartime British government during WW2 were all Stalinists.
I used to have a family photograph of me as a child at a victory street party in Liverpool, taken next to a propaganda poster blessing "good old Uncle Joe" for helping defeat Fascism.
You pair really need to clean up your various acts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 05:48 AM

But James

What name is on your Birth Certificate?

You have given no facts, only your own unqualified opinions - I have backed everything I have claimed with researched information and have identified my sources - you have consistently refused or ignored requests to do so, as you are now doing."

You see Jim that is your trouble you do not know what a fact is and what opinion is.

The First World War is a fact, I do not need to substantiate that, I do not require any link to prove that it happened. Likewise the Third Irish Home Rule Bill of 1912 became the Government of Ireland Act 1914 on the 18th September 1914 that too is a fact, it is a simple matter of record, anyone wishing to dispute that can look it up, I see no reason why I should provide the link to do so. As you yourself said I am not prepared to do your homework for you.

What you have posted are passages from books that tend to support what both Keith A and I have said (By the way Jim on name calling. You notice that Keith A of Hertford does not object whenever anyone refers to him as Keith, or Keith A. I notice that Raggytash only ever objects to either Keith A or myself calling him Raggy but it would appear to be OK for you to do so)

People generally do not qualify their opinions, making them unqualified opinions I suppose. Or are you back at your "pecking order thing" and saying that I am unqualified to have or express an opinion? It would appear that I have a far better grasp of both the time and the events than you do - here for example is a classic:

"The British forced through (under threat of war) a bill which divided Ireland"

Let us just stick to facts Jim:

Who was it started the Irish War of Independence on the 21st January 1919?

Was there a truce called on 11th July 1921?

What is a Truce?

Who was it attended Peace Talks that resulted from the Truce of July 1921?

What would have happened had the Peace Talks failed. Would hostilities have resumed? Or would there have been peace? If hostilities had resumed would that have been a resumption of the War of Independence declared by the Irish Republicans in 1919?

Here by the way Jim is your second one:

2: Jim Carroll - 17 Apr 16 - 05:06 AM

If you read your history, you will find the the Home Rule Bill was defeated yet again and in Jully, 1914, King George took it on himself to call a meeting of all the Irish Parliamentarians at Buckingham Palace to see if an alternative should be reached - There was no guarantee that the conclusions would be adhered to.

WRONG –

The Home Rule Bill introduced in 1912 went through its third reading in the summer of 1914 and because of the Parliament Act of 1911 could not be vetoed by the Lords and so became Law on the 18th September 1914 when the Government of Ireland Act 1914 received Royal Assent.

No attempts were made to push through the Home Rule Bill following the end of the War

WRONG –

As promised in 1914 it was Parliaments first order of business after hostilities with Germany had been concluded – the 1914 Act was repealed and a new Act the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:19 AM

Jim Carroll - 23 Apr 16 - 06:25 AM

"The Irish did not "collude" with the Germans - they took the weapons that the Germans offered - no collusion - no offer of support for Germany."

WRONG:
-        4th September 1914 meeting of the IRB where they decided to stage an insurrection in Ireland while Great Britain was at war with Germany and seek German assistance to mount that insurrection. (Source: Max Caulfield, "The Easter Rebellion", page 18)

-        German declaration of November 1914

In November 1914[23] Casement negotiated a declaration by Germany which stated:


"The Imperial Government formally declares that under no circumstances would Germany invade Ireland with a view to its conquest or the overthrow of any native institutions in that country. Should the fortune of this Great War, that was not of Germany's seeking, ever bring in its course German troops to the shores of Ireland, they would land there not as an army of invaders to pillage and destroy but as the forces of a Government that is inspired by goodwill towards a country and people for whom Germany desires only national prosperity and national freedom".[24]

Sources referred to:
23 = Jeff Dudgeon. "Casement's War". Drb.ie. Retrieved 30 January 2016.
24 = The Continental Times, 20 November 1914

-        Casement sent to Germany to request help in terms of advisors, troops and weapons

-        Plunkett sent to Germany to assist Casement in 1915

Plunkett joined Casement in Germany the following year. Together, Plunkett and Casement presented a plan (the 'Ireland Report') in which a German expeditionary force would land on the west coast of Ireland, while a rising in Dublin diverted the British forces so that the Germans, with the help of local Volunteers, could secure the line of the River Shannon, before advancing on the capital.

Source:
McNally and Dennis, Easter Rising 1916: Birth of the Irish Republic, p. 30


-        Aud arms shipment and the return of Casement by German Submarine in April 1916


-        Proclamation of 1916 referring to Germany as "Our Gallant Allies in Europe".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:27 AM

For crying out loud - if you have no intention of substantiating your facts it would help your not prolonging your embarrassment by just saying so
You still offer no substantiation to what you claim - I do not dispute any known facts - only your own 'makie-ups', and until you attempt to substantiate them they remain what they are - made up.
Your ongoing arrogance in expecting we should believe from you what nobody else, anywhere, is claiming makes miy case for me - why should anybody believe a pair of serial Empire apologists who refuse to offer evidence for their claims - who on earth do you think you are?
As I've said many times. I've shown you mine, now you show us yours - unless you have nothing to show, of course.

This is a summary of the ideals the New Nationalist leadership espoused when it first took offive in 1918

(i)        that the people of Ireland comprised one nation;
(ii)         that Britain had partitioned Ireland solely from self- interest;
(iii)         that an independent, politically 're-united' Ireland was inevitable;
(iv)         that even if Britain had to coerce the Ulster unionists into unity — as she was, in honour, if necessary, bound to do — the resulting united Ireland would be economically prosperous and politically stable;
(v)         that if Britain unilaterally broke the link with Northern Ireland, the Ulster unionists would be obliged to accept an accommodation with the south;
(vi)         that Britain had the necessary resources — military and/or economic and/or political — to coerce the unionists into accepting a united Ireland.
From DeValera and The Ulster Question John Bowman (1989)
"What name is on your Birth Certificate?"
What's yours?
Whoops, sorry - I forgot, you prefer to hide your identity.
Your prerogative, of course!
Mind your own business (again)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:41 AM

No historians, no links - thanks for the confirmation

If Wiki not good enough, here is the BBC History site.

"While Arthur Griffith, the leader of Sinn Féin, initially denounced the 1912 Bill as a 'grotesque abortion' of the national demand, he quickly rallied and called on separatists to make preparations for becoming the principal party of opposition in the Irish parliament.

John Redmond envisioned a rural and traditional society in which peasant virtues were safeguarded against urban and modern worldliness.

But many proved less optimistic. One advanced nationalist, who later fought during the 1916 Easter Rising, recalled: 'It did really look as though some Bill would actually become law. Those of us who thought Home Rule utterly inadequate were a very small minority.'"

"According to recent research, the ultimate failure of Home Rule involved the 'loss' to Ireland of a generation of Catholic university graduates who eagerly looked forward to self-government and the role they would play as statesmen, civil servants, and intellectuals.

In fact, such optimism (leavened by self-interest) was evident in a wide range of spheres.

In August 1914, for example, the annual meeting of the Irish Association of Gas Managers was told that devolution was 'bound to come' and that the 'prospects of the gas industry under Home Rule' were extremely promising.

Others anticipated a cultural and architectural renaissance in Dublin, with Home Rule informing, for example, debates on the housing of Hugh Lane's art collection through to the suitability of the old parliament in College Green as a modern European legislature."

"In the same week as the Government of Ireland Bill was introduced at Westminster in April 1912, the trade journal for Irish bakers, Master Baker, led with the editorial 'Decline in Hot Cross Buns'.

Only Unionists would find out if the reality of Home Rule measured up to their predictions.

Clearly not everyone was preoccupied with Home Rule. Nonetheless, many groups, organisations, and individuals were. Not only because of party and religious affiliations, but also because they interpreted it through their own experiences and expectations.

Of course, the Irish War of Independence (1916-1921) forced the great majority of Irish people to imagine their future in the light of very different circumstances."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:45 AM

"4th September 1914 meeting of the IRB where they decided to stage an insurrection in Ireland while Great Britain was at war with Germany and seek German assistance to mount that insurrection. (Source: Max Caulfield, "The Easter Rebellion", page 18)"

How does that translate as offering support for Germany, seeking assistance for your own ends is not offering support in the way I understand the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 06:55 AM

"If Wiki not good enough, here is the BBC History site."
Thanks again for confirming that you lied whan you said you had produced them.
None of you 'afterthoughts alter the fact that the Home Ruule Bill cound not be enacted without antagonising one side or the other - it's forced enactment containing the unagreed inclusion of permanent partition, by the British at the beheest of the Unionists brought about the end of the Rhizome Rule Movement, leaving six counties in the hands of Unionist sectarian thugs..
If you have any problems with that, please state them and stop repeating the untrue clams that the Bill was agreed and would have been enacted - it wasn't and it couldn't.
Put up or go away.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:34 AM

the Bill was agreed

It was [passed with a majority of 77.

and would have been enacted

Royal Ascent is the final rubber stamp. It would have had to be enacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:46 AM

Raggytash - 31 May 16 - 06:45 AM

"4th September 1914 meeting of the IRB where they decided to stage an insurrection in Ireland while Great Britain was at war with Germany and seek German assistance to mount that insurrection. (Source: Max Caulfield, "The Easter Rebellion", page 18)"

How does that translate as offering support for Germany, seeking assistance for your own ends is not offering support in the way I understand the English language.

Good heavens Raggy are you really that dense?

Try this and see if it makes any sense to you:

In August 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, Casement and John Devoy arranged a meeting in New York with the western hemisphere's top-ranking German diplomat, Count Bernstorff, to propose a mutually beneficial plan: if Germany would sell guns to the Irish revolutionary and provide military leaders, the Irish would revolt against England, diverting troops and attention from the war on Germany. Bernstorff appeared sympathetic.

Of course Great Britain could have sent the WRI or the Boy Scouts, but do you know what I find amazingly strange are people such as yourself and Carroll who bang on about the wicked Imperialistic Brits the howls of outrage

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 16 - 07:58 AM

But that didn't happen did it. Purely a figment of your jingoistic mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 08:47 AM

"Royal Ascent is the final rubber stamp. It would have had to be enacted."
From A History of Ireland Edmund Curtis 1950
An amendment by Carson to the Bill proposed the exclusion from its scope of the province of Ulster. The Irish leader could only reject such an amendment, as he was bound to do, because 'for us Ireland is one entity'.
In January 1913 the Bill passed the Commons but it was rejected by the House of Lords, so that under the Parlia¬ment Bill it could not pass automatically till 1914. The Ulster Covenanters were already arming and drilling openly under a provisional government, and a British soldier, General Richardson, was found to command their army of 100,000 men. On the other side in October 1913 a National Volunteer force was organized in Dublin under Eoin MacNeill, Pearse and others. So was a 'Citizen army' of the Irish Labour party, led by James Connolly. The condition of the poor, and the low wages paid in the Irish capital, shocked all fair-minded men, but a General strike organized in 1912 by James Larkin had been defeated by the employers, a disastrous victory it was to prove. Though at first dummy rifles, in North and South, made the marchings of the respective Volunteers a little ridiculous, there was no doubt of their determination. The Unionists got real arms from abroad, and it looked as if Home Rule would bring about a civil war which would involve Great Britain, the first since 1642. In March 1914, the refusal of General Gough and other officers in command of the British forces at the Curragh to obey government orders to move against Ulster showed how high up the resistance to an Act of Parliament might go. Reluctantly Redmond advised his supporters to join the National Volunteers, but it was clear that between his moderate wing and the extreme one led by Pearse and others of the Irish Republican Army co-operation would not last long.

IRELAND AND THE GREAT WAR
The outbreak of the Great War in August 1914 altered the whole face of things. The unexpected event in world politics did happen. The Home Rule Bill received the royal assent but it was not to be put into force till the war was over; and Ireland remained under the Union till the world conflict ended. Some 100,000 Irishmen altogether served in the British ranks, though Conscription was not, and indeed could not be, enforced due to opposition. To outward seeming Ireland was for the Allies, but as often before in her history, the apparent stream of things hardly represented the secret stream beneath
A European war in which Great Britain is engaged has always made Ireland a danger-spot, for its people, whatever they feel for the Monarchy, have little enthusiasm for Imperial expansion, and there were always those wishful to seize the opportunity to 'fight the old fight again'. The menace of conscription created great excitement, and Redmond's efforts to enlist Ireland's manhood as a separate unit under the Irish flag by their failure showed how little he could do with the Coalition government. .A rising was planned by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and on Easter Monday 1916 the Post Office and other buildings in Dublin were seized by about 1,000 men, and Pearse for the Volunteers and Connolly for the Citizen army proclaimed the Irish Republic. A large British force was landed and after a bombardment of four days the main body of the rebels surrendered. General Maxwell under martial law executed Pearse and fourteen others of the leaders; among the commanders who escaped the death penalty Eamon De Valera was to be the most prominent. The Rebellion, though a small affair and soon over, served its purpose as a blood sacrifice in a country which had become apathetic about Nationalism, and Pearse and the others took their place on the accepted roll of 'the dead who died for Ireland'.
While thousands of suspects were interned and popular opinion rapidly became Sinn Féin, the Coalition government could not give Redmond that firm offer of Home Rule for the whole country which he needed to maintain his hold on Ireland, and Sinn Féin came out as a political force by winning an election in Roscommon in February 1917.

THE TRIUMPH OF SINN FÉIN
When the Great War ended in October 1918 it was certain that Sinn Féin would claim the rights of a nation for Ireland at a time when the Allies were setting so many free. The initial step was to act as one. In January 1919 the deputies elected to Dáil Éireann ('the Assembly of Ireland') met as a parliament and proclaimed Saorstát Éireann (the 'Republic' or, more correctly, the 'Free State' of Ireland). Neither Nationalists nor Unionists attended, and it was left for Sinn Féin to win and to command the victory.
A General Election in England following the close of the War returned again a Coalition government of which Mr. Lloyd George became Premier, and in so far as Home Rule for the majority was achievable all British parties were now in agreement. The English Conservatives abandoned their resistance of before the War, for too many promises had been made to go back upon, and the shock of the world-conflict had brought old-fashioned Conservatism to an end. But, while to deny Home Rule as it was on the Statute book was impossible, to force it on Ulster was no longer to be thought of.
There - let that be an end to this dishonest nonsense.
"Good heavens Raggy are you really that dense?"
Still talking down to people from the hole youi have dug for yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 16 - 08:49 AM

This is a summary of the ideals the New Nationalist leadership espoused when it first took offive in 1918

(i)       that the people of Ireland comprised one nation;
(ii)       that Britain had partitioned Ireland solely from self- interest;
(iii)         that an independent, politically 're-united' Ireland was inevitable;
(iv)         that even if Britain had to coerce the Ulster unionists into unity — as she was, in honour, if necessary, bound to do — the resulting united Ireland would be economically prosperous and politically stable;
(v)         that if Britain unilaterally broke the link with Northern Ireland, the Ulster unionists would be obliged to accept an accommodation with the south;

From DeValera and The Ulster Question John Bowman (1989)

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

To quote Mandy Rice-Davis - Well he would say that wouldn't he.

(i)       that the people of Ireland comprised one nation;

Tell me Jim did Dev ask the Unionists in Ulster about that? Or was he just making a rather rash and ill-informed assumption?

(ii)       that Britain had partitioned Ireland solely from self- interest;

Is this the 1920 Act that created Northern and Southern Ireland? I rather think that that was done to prevent a Civil War so not solely for Great Britain's self interest. Even then the 1920 Act only stated temporary Partition - but Dev realised and knew that. Sinn Fein down in Dublin just ignored the whole thing and in any case they'd started their war of independence by then Dev didn't do any fighting though - having stoked the flames he sat it out and let others do his fighting and dying for him - same as he did in Bolands Mills during Easter Week.

(iii)         that an independent, politically 're-united' Ireland was inevitable;

WELL that one didn't pan out did it? 100 years on it is further away now than it ever was. And the Republic has abandoned Dev's cherished constitutional territorial claims on the North and its population.

In July 1916 Lloyd George gave Carson the assurance that the people of Ulster could not be forced into an independent united Ireland without their consent - Or in other words Jim the Good Friday Agreement 1998.

(iv)         that even if Britain had to coerce the Ulster unionists into unity — as she was, in honour, if necessary, bound to do — the resulting united Ireland would be economically prosperous and politically stable;

Good heavens what a complete and utter gobshite this man was. If he didn't think it right and proper that Britain should coerce Ireland into a union what on earth makes him think that it is right for Britain to coerce anybody else into doing anything against their will? Not a great believer in self-determination was he this de Valera character. The economical stability under Dev's guiding hand was a bit of a disaster (Not to mention £7 Billion bail-outs from Britain) and as for the politically stable bit, that only applied as everybody saw with the civil war thing provided that everything went the way Dev wanted it to - otherwise the "MEN WITH THE GUNS" were sent out to "influence" things.

(v)         that if Britain unilaterally broke the link with Northern Ireland, the Ulster unionists would be obliged to accept an accommodation with the south;

Oh no they wouldn't, why should they be obliged to accept anything. They could have declared themselves a tax haven and had their own Las Vegas in the hills of whatever - very hypocritical of Dev to suggest that - he wouldn't have accepted it so why you should the Unionists in the North.

(vi)         that Britain had the necessary resources — military and/or economic and/or political — to coerce the unionists into accepting a united Ireland.

Why should Britain do that? Why should Britain coerce people who want to be part of the United Kingdom into leaving it? If Britain had done what Dev wanted in (v) above the Unionists might have resisted union with the south by waging a Civil War - A civil war that Dev's Irish Republic could not in a month of Sundays hope to win - A Civil War that would have destroyed Ireland. Mind you true to form Dev always liked others to fight his battles for him.

Not exactly a very deep political thinker was Dev - and besides Jim just because he said it doesn't make what he said fact - they are at best only his opinions and I couldn't care less who wrote them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 16 - 09:14 AM

"he sat it out and let others do his fighting and dying for him - same as he did in Bolands Mills during Easter Week"

If this is meant as a criticism of de Valera can the same not be said of Haig but on a much greater scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 16 - 09:56 AM

"Ah the above was what Eamon de Valera thought was it?"
Who said it was?
I said they were the ideals of the new leadership - why pin it on personalities?
In fact, much of it was based on Parnell's dream of 'Home Rule'
"Tell me Jim did Dev ask the Unionists in Ulster about that"
Why should he ask an armed minority bunch of right-wing English extremists who have threatened Civil War if their demands were not met anything?
"the "MEN WITH THE GUNS" were sent out to "influence" things."
Do you mean the "men with the guns in the North or the men with guns in the South?
As the ones in the North were the first to arm and the only ones to threaten civil war if their demands were not met, it must be accepted that the "men with guns" in the South aremed themselves to protect Ireland from sectarian thugs.
" I rather think that that was done to prevent a Civil War"
No it wasn't - the British Government did nothing to contain the behaviour of the Unionist thugs, and did not even act when British officers threatened not to protect Britain against those thugs.
"In July 1916 Lloyd George gave Carson the assurance that the people of Ulster could not be forced into an independent united Ireland without their consent"
That's what I said they appeased the thugs at the expense of the wishes of the majority of Irish people
"Oh no they wouldn't, why should they be obliged to accept anything"
Because they were a minority bunch of extremists who were out to prevent independence at all costs and, when forced into a corner, reluctantly agreed on 9 counties, got their calculators out and gerrymandered it so six to give themselves a majority vote.
The proof of the Unionist pudding was in the eating when it launched a half-century reign of terror on one third of the six counties
Would you support giving independence to The Home Counties, especially if it was under teh control of armed thugs?
Are you saying you actually support these people - we really need to know?
"Why should Britain do that?"
Why - because they were responsible for how they left Ireland, Unionism was an right-wing British creation (today's Conservatives still officially calling themselves "The \Conservative and Unionist Party" despite threats of Civil War, and open persecution of large numbers of British citizens.
What Raggy just said several million times over.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 02:17 AM

Two further points.
"John Devoy"
Devoy was an Irish exile living in New York, a newspaper editor and fund-raiser.
He conspired with Casement to raise money to obtain weapons for the Rising, nothing more – he wasn't a policy-maker and neither he nor Casement had a voice in the Rebellion.
At no time were either of them part of the planning of the Rising, so whatever opinions they had of Germany were theirs, not the Rebel leaders - neither were spokesmen for the Rising.
At no time has it been shown that the Rebels ever colluded with "the enemy" or showed any sign of active support, apart from accepting weapons, despite efforts to show otherwise and such claims have long been rejected as contemporary attempts to smear the Rising.
"The enemy"
Germany was not Ireland's "enemy" as far as the rebels were concerned they had made it clear that they did not take sides in the war, as far as they were concerned it was a struggle for power between Empires, one of which Ireland had fought for centuries to free herself from.
The Rebels fought under Connolly's slogan, "we serve neither King nor Kaiser, but Ireland".
The British authorities worked hard at trying to prove the Rebels sided with Germany, they found nothing, it was an attempt so smear then as it is now.
You want to prove it – do so with something more than archaic accusations   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 03:59 AM

Onwards and upwards
Jim Carroll

This is a summing up of the Unionist's historical attitude to a United Ireland from interviews and articles on a United Ireland.
It puts their stance in a nutshell, and compares the situation at the time of the interviews with that existing around World War One.
As it was then, so it is now and ever shall be – from the horse's mouths.
Jim Carroll

From Padraig O'Malley's 'The Uncivil Wars' (1983)
The failure of the British Army and the RUC to protect the Protestant community gives Loyalists a right to take matters into their own hands.

Ian Paisley:
"The Chief Constable had better know and Mrs. Thatcher had better know and James Prior had better know that the Protestants of Ulster have no intention no matter what Mr. Girvan says — or eleven Presbyterians or umpteen ex-moderators or umpteen ex-Methodist presidents, and the whole galaxy of gartered bishops and archbishops of the Church of Ireland — he better know this, that the ordinary Ulster man is not going to surrender to the IRA or be betrayed into a united Ireland or put his neck under the jackboot of popery. He better learn that, and this is war, and so be it.
"If the Crown in Parliament decreed to put Ulster into a united Ireland, we would be disloyal to Her Majesty if we did not resist such a surrender to our enemies."

Loyalty to Britain is seen as the only way to preclude incorpora¬tion into the Catholic-dominated Republic. But it is a conditional loyalty and does not necessarily indicate support for maintaining the U.K. link."
The attitude is almost prenationalistic — a contractarian conception of obligation going back to feudal times. Subjects owe a conditional allegiance to their ruler. But when the ruler fails to live up to his obligations, the subjects are entitled to look after their own interests, even to the extent of taking up arms against the ruler to bring him back to his senses. It is the message of 1912.

Jim Allister, Press Officer for the DUP:
""If Britain decided tomorrow to expel us, she should remember what happened in 1912 when Britain sought to expel the whole of Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland not only said, "We don't wish to go, they said, "We won't go." And it paid off. So there's a message there: that the people of Northern Ireland have it within their power to say "We won't go." And they took action in 1912-that reversed the British government's attitude."

In 1912, nothing, it appeared, could stop the Third Home Rule Bill from becoming law. But Ulster Protestants would not have it; the Ulster Covenant was the signal of their resolve to resist. Nearly half a million men and women signed a declaration to use "all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. The Ulster Volunteer Force was formed to give efficacy to the oath. Almost a hundred thousand volunteers enrolled. The army was disciplined, professional, and well-armed. The unwillingness of the British Army to move against the Volunteers precipitated the "Curragh mutiny" in 1914. The Home Rule crisis, it seemed was veering out of control. Ulster could not, would not, be coerced into a united Ireland. Only the outbreak of World War forestalled what appeared to be inevitable — either a constitutional crisis or a clash between the British Army and the Ulster militia. Home Rule was put on the shelf for the duration of hostilities. And there it stayed."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 07:14 AM

Jim,
There - let that be an end to this dishonest nonsense.

There was nothing in you vast paste job that contradicted anything I have said!
Not even the red bits.

You said this,
"You still have not even attempted to explain how a Home Rule Bill where both of the parties wre diametrically opposed to each other with one threatening Civil War, could possibly have been implemented"

I can not explain "how" but I can show that it was agreed and passed, and that means it would have been implemented.

History Ireland,
"An uneasy consensus was reached in order to concentrate on the war effort, and eventually the Home Rule bill was placed on the statute book in September, but with the proviso that its legal effect, as well as an Ulster provision, would follow the war's conclusion."
http://www.historyireland.com/revolutionary-period-1912-23/the-search-for-statutory-ulster/


You do know what consensus means?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 16 - 07:54 AM

"There was nothing in you vast paste job that contradicted anything I have said!"
Yes there is Keith - and the fact that you have refused to show how the two contradicting views on partition could possibly have been resolved shows that you are well aware of that.
You have produced no information yourself and now you appear to be complaining about the amount that has been put up to counteract your unqualified claims - you really do have no case - only denial.
"You do know what consensus means?"
Yes - it is what has been arrived at by everybody other than you pair.
What exactly are you claiming was "consensus" on partition? Read your own ****** cut-'n-paste
"and eventually the Home Rule bill was placed on the statute book in September"
And???????
What was placed on the statute book brought the Home Rule crashing down bin flames
Why?????
Because the parliamentarians would not accept permanent partition and the Unionists would accept nothing else.
What is so difficult to understand about that - the two sides wanted opposite things
How on earth could agreement have been reached in those circumstances?
Do you know what "stalemate" means?
The enforced partition led to the Irish War of Independence amd when it was enforced again when the treaty was bullied through a few years later, the 26 counties embarked on a year-long Civil War.
If you take the trouble to read tour own link you will find that it shows clearly that, given prevailing opposite views on partition, no settlement would have been possible - it was a stalemate From day one - Redmond said no permanent partition, the Unionists said no united Ireland.
What on earth is difficult to understand about that, unless yo think it is not true.
Square the ***** circle - it is simple dishonesty to to go on making your claims
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

Who said it was?

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

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

"Tell me Jim did Dev ask the Unionists in Ulster about that"

Why should he ask an armed minority bunch of right-wing English extremists who have threatened Civil War if their demands were not met anything?

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

"The proof of the Unionist pudding was in the eating when it launched a half-century reign of terror on one third of the six counties"

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

"In July 1916 Lloyd George gave Carson the assurance that the people of Ulster could not be forced into an independent united Ireland without their consent"

That's what I said

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

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

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

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

No Raggy it couldn't.

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

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

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

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

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


YIPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

Which part?
Jim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try thgis for size

""If Britain decided tomorrow to expel us, she should remember what happened in 1912 when Britain sought to expel the whole of Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland not only said, "We don't wish to go, they said, "We won't go." And it paid off. So there's a message there: that the people of Northern Ireland have it within their power to say "We won't go." And they took action in 1912-that reversed the British government's attitude."

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

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

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

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

""If Britain decided tomorrow to expel us, she should remember what happened in 1912 when Britain sought to expel the whole of Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland not only said, "We don't wish to go, they said, "We won't go." And it paid off. So there's a message there: that the people of Northern Ireland have it within their power to say "We won't go." And they took action in 1912-that reversed the British government's attitude."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who said that? Asks Jim furiously then declaring:

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


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


Jim Carroll - 18 May 16 - 04:01 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read some of your own links.

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

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

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

Meanwhile up North

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

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

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

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

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

You reveal yourself as a sectarian bigot Jim.

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 03:20 AM

"Now where is that post of mine in which I make the statement that I do not believe that Ireland is not entitled to independence?"

You've had it at least three times now - your are getting as stupidly, boringly repetitive as Keith.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that this is where I said that Ireland was not entitled to independence?

One more time -

NO NATION PARITIONED AGAINST THEIR WILL WITH PART STILL UNDER FOREIGN CONTROL CAN BE DESCRIBED AS "INDEPENDENT" - {John Redmond 1912}

Who is the THEIR in "against their will" Jim?

YOU SUPPORT THAT SITUATION AND DESCRIBE OPPOSITION TO PARTITION AS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN NORMAN TIMES - ERGO - YOU AR OPPOSED TO IRELAND BEING INDEPENDENT - YOU HAVE TOLD UD DO OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I have told you very clearly what I support - the right of self-determination for all - you on the other hand espouse views of a leadership that demands that people be coerced into doing things against THEIR will.

Before the Normans came to Ireland there was no such country as Ireland, no concept at all of nationhood, the island consisted of a number of small kingdoms and tribal groups who all looked to their own best interests. Where the realisation of this reality becomes important is when you have to counter claims that the partition of Ireland was wrong because Ireland had always been one country, one nation it hadn't, and for one group or another to push their case and their best interests ahead of everyone else's seems to me more a reversion to what existed before.

Look at the different groups that existed in Ireland in 1912:

The Constitutional Nationalists - by far the largest faction, predominantly Catholic, they were quite content with Home Rule, within the Empire, and saw it as a step towards independence later. This approach held out reasonable hopes of reaching an accommodation and finding common ground with the other groups.

The Republican Nationalists - the smallest of the four groups by a country mile who wanted complete independence and a total break from Britain and the Monarchy as soon as possible, preferably by armed struggle.

The Southern Unionists - the smaller of the Unionist groups, who wanted Ireland to remain as part of the Union, but who were prepared to consider Home Rule provided certain safeguards were in place to protect what they saw as their interests.

The Northern Unionists - the larger of the Unionist groups, who wanted no change at all. Who saw any threat to the current Union with Britain as being directly against their best interests and a threat to their way of life.

Oddly enough by July 1914 three of these groups had reached agreement in principle, the only group that hadn't was the smallest and least representative of the four groups - the Republican Nationalists - who when the war came decided that they would mount an armed insurrection with the help of the Germans. In all probability, left to run its course Home Rule would have come in 1919, by 1925 the temporary exclusion for Ulster would have ended and by 1931 Ireland would have been an independent sovereign state. Home Rule by this route therefore spelled the end for the Republican Nationalists - hence THEIR secret meeting at which the need for a rising was decided took place on the 4th September 1914, BEFORE the Third Irish Home Rule Bill got Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914.

The Constitutional Nationalists - who represented the vast bulk of the Catholic South were urged by their leaders to support the war effort against Germany as that would help their cause and hasten Home Rule

The Republican Nationalists - who represented a tiny fraction of the population planned in secret even from their own membership an armed rising and colluded with the Germans in order to make that possible. A committee of eleven men were responsible for this and in secret a smaller group actually steered it through to final execution.

Both Unionist groups supported the British war effort.

In 1916 seven men from the Republican Nationalist group staged the Easter Rising and set it up to fail - Pearse's Blood Sacrifice. The rising and its aftermath over the following two years led to a radical change in what now was possible:

It basically killed off the Constitutional Nationalists hopes for the future along with those of the Southern Unionists. It hardened opposition among the Northern Unionists to any part of any independent Ireland.

When the war ended in Europe another began in Ireland, started on the 19th January 1919 by Sinn Fein who declared Ireland independent. The Unionists in the North took no part in this war and with the enactment of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act they got their own Parliament. Having started a war that they were unable to finish a truce was called and peace negotiations resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. This treaty finally ratified in December 1922 created the 32 county Irish Free State but the Treaty allowed six Northern counties of Ulster to opt out of the Irish Free State if they wished and gave them one month to do so - THEY exercised THEIR right to self-determination within 24 hours and they opted out of the Irish Free State and stated that they wished to remain as a self-governing part of the United Kingdom, which then became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So those in the South had exercised their right of self-determination without consulting anyone in January 1919 and those in the North did the same plainly informing everyone of their intentions in December 1922.

The following I cannot state any clearer - I have no problem with any of that at all, I have got no problem at all if at some future date the people of Northern Ireland exercise their right of self-determination and seek a union with the Republic of Ireland - but that is THEIR decision and THEIR decision alone - no-one has the right to coerce them into anything against THEIR will.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 04:49 AM

"I have told you very clearly what I support - the right of self-determination for all -"
And you have argued against it from day one - contradictory lip-service.
Did you not suggest that Ireland's history suggested that they had no grounds for claiming to be one nation?
Did you not suggest that the only reason they did claim independence in the first place was because they were conned into doing so by the French and Spanish?
Have you not argued for a partitioned Ireland from the beginning of this debate?
Have you not argued that it is OK that six counties of (IRELAND - THAT IS WHAT IT IS - ONE IDENTIFIABLE COUNTRY) should remain under British rule under a regime that even divided those six counties into two warring groups, giving one group rights and privileges by law and depriving the other group of those rights and privileges, leading to permanent division, conflict and bloodshed?
Methinks, the laddie doth protest too much!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 05:50 AM

More evidence of the recent indoctrination of children in the Irish school system.
Professor Louise Ricrdson on BBC R4 Desert Island Discs.
Fifteen minutes and 40 seconds in,

"I would say at school we assembled every day and said our prayers beneath a crucifix and then a photograph of the seven men who had been executed for signing the Proclamation of Independence in 1916.

So we got a very biased view of Irish history which we took as gospel. A very Republican view of Irish history, and that was the view I held."

She said she would have joined IRA in a heartbeat.

"I tried to think in the context of other kids, and who didn't have the advantage I had in getting a (university) education and questioning everything I'd been taught. How they hold on to these ideas and end up joining terrorist groups."

She was born in Ireland, is one of seven children and has gone on to have an international career as an academic with a particular expertise in terrorism. She has been consulted by many politicians for her knowledge and insight. After many years as a Harvard Professor, she came to Britain to be the first female Vice-Chancellor of St. Andrews University.
Since January 2016, she has been the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University and is the first woman to hold the post.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07cmmk8#play

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 06:11 AM

"More evidence of the recent indoctrination of children in the Irish school system."
Go away with your racist suggestion that Irish children were brainwashed Keith - it only confirms your hatred of the Irish people and it certainly has no place on a thread on The Easter Rising
We really do get your message "I Hate Ireland", we've got it from the beginning.
I suppose you agree with Prof Richardson's views on teaching extremism too - or not?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12102509/Extremist-groups-must-be-allowed-to-preach-on-British-campuses-new-Oxford-head-says.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 06:25 AM

It is not my suggestion Jim.
It is the view of Irish historians Kineally, O'Callaghan and Richardson, all of whom I have quoted stating just that.

I suppose you agree with Prof Richardson's views on teaching extremism too - or not?

She has never advocated "teaching extremism" Jim.
You just made that up.

"Asked if that meant groups like Cage should be welcomed on campus, she said: "Provided that they can be countered, I think that we should let them be heard. In that way we model to our students how you counter ideas you find objectionable."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 06:25 AM

It is not my suggestion Jim.
It is the view of Irish historians Kineally, O'Callaghan and Richardson, all of whom I have quoted stating just that.

I suppose you agree with Prof Richardson's views on teaching extremism too - or not?

She has never advocated "teaching extremism" Jim.
You just made that up.

"Asked if that meant groups like Cage should be welcomed on campus, she said: "Provided that they can be countered, I think that we should let them be heard. In that way we model to our students how you counter ideas you find objectionable."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 06:50 AM

Did you not suggest that Ireland's history suggested that they had no grounds for claiming to be one nation?

Nope I clearly stated what Ireland's history was - they were never a nation and had no concept of what nationhood meant until after the Normans arrived. In 1914 to 1922 one political faction in Ireland (the smallest and least representative of them all in 1914) had no more right to coerce any other group than the British had. In 1921 Ireland as a united country was given its independence, one rather significant minority entirely off their own volition decided to remain within the UK - Self-determination, where and when have I argued against it? Or is this just more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit"?

Did you not suggest that the only reason they did claim independence in the first place was because they were conned into doing so by the French and Spanish?

Nope. What I stated was that in the past dissident elements in Ireland were prompted into action, normally in the form of armed rebellion by promises of support from nations at war with either England or Great Britain. Those dissident elements were conned into believing those promises which never seemed to amount to much. Examples given were:

The Spanish during the Anglo-Spanish War during the reign of Elizabeth the First and James the First.

The French during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic War

The Germans during the First World War, who to give them their due although asked to supply troops they declined (Primarily as they could not break the British Naval Blockade in sufficient force).

Have you not argued for a partitioned Ireland from the beginning of this debate?

Nope. I have attempted to point out to you that best efforts were made to stave off permanent partition, you have steadfastly insisted that permanent partition was offered to the Unionists by the British Government, yet you cannot come up with one single government document that supports that contention. You cannot produce one such document as none exists - in any discussion or document only temporary partition for a time limited period is mentioned. The only reason permanent partition came into being was because of the 1916 Rising and the 1919-1921 War of Independence.

Have you not argued that it is OK that six counties of (IRELAND - THAT IS WHAT IT IS - ONE IDENTIFIABLE COUNTRY) should remain under British rule under a regime that even divided those six counties into two warring groups, giving one group rights and privileges by law and depriving the other group of those rights and privileges, leading to permanent division, conflict and bloodshed?

I believe that it was OK for the duly constituted Parliament of Northern Ireland to exercise its right of self-determination under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and secede from The Irish Free State in 1922. For your information the Parliament of Northern Ireland did not vote to remain UNDER British rule - They opted to remain as an autonomous self-governing part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As to the division, conflict and bloodshed - If you look back down through the decades and remove the instances where the source of the trouble came from half-arsed assaults from South of the border how much division, conflict and bloodshed would there have been?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:16 AM

"It is not my suggestion Jim."
Yest it is - entirely
There is no suggestion in Prof Richardson's article that she was taught to "hate the British" - if so, where is it?
If Kineally ever claimed Irish children were brought up to "hate the British" - where did she say so?
Simple question
If the Irish "hate the British" because of their education, how did that hatred manifest itself.
Was there a lifelong propaganda campaign in the Irish press against Britain - if there was, can you give us examples of it?
Were the Irish communities in Britain no-go areas for British people - if not, why not?
Was the Irish press in Britain constantly attacking British people - if it was, can you produce examples of it.
The only unrest, violence, protest regarding Ireland over the last century has been that of FROM BRITISH CITIZENS LIVING IN THE BRITISH RULED SIX COUNTIES WHO HAVE BEEN EDUCATED UNDER A BRITISH EDUCATION SYSTEM - how do you work that one out?
If the Irish hate Britain, how does that hatred manifest itself - letter bombs, suicide bombers, hate mail, stones through British windows, anti-British demonstrations, Irish children terrorising British kids, British holidaymakers being treated with hostility - what form does that hatred take?
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS OR APOLOGISE FOR YOUR ACCUSATIONS
I can give you hundreds of examples of the British being brainwashed to hate the Irish, from Punch Magazine, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Charles Kingsley and their like, through to Jim Davidson, Bernard Manning - and not least of all - you pair.
Having failed miserably to denigrate Easter Week and Ireland's fight for independence, you have no
w directed your spray of vitriol on the Irish people as a whole.
I think you've made all my points in the last half hour far better than I could have ever done in years.
You have my eternal gratitude.
And thanks to your friend for confirming that with his latest offering (unlinked as usual)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:43 AM

Your " half-arsed assaults from South of the border" are simple made-up lies with no documented evidence - unless, of course, like the rest of your simple made-up lies, you would like to provide evidence for them - no - thought not?
I'll just add them to the pile for future reference
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 07:46 AM

"hate the British" is not a phrase I have used in this discussion.

There is no suggestion in Prof Richardson's article that she was taught to "hate the British" - if so, where is it?

She said, "So we got a very biased view of Irish history which we took as gospel. A very Republican view of Irish history, and that was the view I held."

She said she would have joined IRA in a heartbeat.

"I tried to think in the context of other kids, and who didn't have the advantage I had in getting a (university) education and questioning everything I'd been taught. How they hold on to these ideas and end up joining terrorist groups."

If Kineally ever claimed Irish children were brought up to "hate the British" - where did she say so?

Kinealy states that children were fed "nationalist myths" as history.


O'Callaghan states that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British" propaganda. "Indoctrinated" is another word for "brainwashing" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 08:37 AM

""hate the British" is not a phrase I have used in this discussion.
"Your opening statement from the Irish famine threads was that "Irish kids wre brainwashed to hate us British"
How has that hate manifested itself?
Richardson is entitled to her opinion, just as she is about allowing extremists to strut their stuff in British education.
If you are going to agree with what you said about Irish education, you need to exlain what you mean not what how interpret what she said.
Now once again How has the Irish hatred of the British, which is exactly what you said, manifested itself.
Qualify it or withdraw it and apologise.
My family were educated under the Irish education system - how dare people like you smear them with your racism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 08:46 AM

Your exact words.
"Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
One more time - how has that hatred manifested itself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 09:34 AM

Seems as though you, Jim Carroll are the only person slinging allegations about regarding hatred.

Ooooh substantiate and provide back-up or else apologise for your accusations - well I never, that would be a first on this forum and if I get the "pecking order" thing right plus what you lot on the left automatically get a free pass on due to the fact that you never substantiate any baseless accusation you throw out. Then chance would be a fine thing.

When it comes to making baseless accusations you Carroll are the worst offender on this forum.

As for myth and propaganda keeping hatred alive - it has worked with you hasn't it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 16 - 03:46 PM

Another faked quote then Jim.
I never said anything like that.

You do it because you have no answer to what we really say.

Richardson is entitled to her opinion,

She was not expressing an opinion.
She was relating her own experience.
Her school fed her a corrupted, false version of Irish history that made her want to join the IRA.
Joining the IRA is an expression of hatred towards Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 02:36 AM

"Another faked quote then Jim. I never said anything like that.
Will you please stop telling lies - this is exactly wat you said.
Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
I don't excpect you to acknowledge your dishonesty, let alone apologies for accusing me of faking it - you don't do that sort of thing.
Your whole argument here has been based on dishonesty such as this and on total ignorance and hatred - that goes for both of you.

"Seems as though you, Jim Carroll are the only person slinging allegations about regarding hatred."
Now you're just reduced to stupid name-calling.
You obviously aren't going to substantiate your "cross-border raids" or your "oppression of Catholics in the Republic, or your "the rebels were all German spies" or "no artillery" - it wos the looters wot started all the fires" or "the poor, offended little flowers of Loyalists" or "the Home Rule Bill was a done deal", or "Tom Kent was guilty of murder, or was it treason".... or anything else you have claimed during this epic.
I don't think I have ever seen an argument end so conclusively - your case is a shambles and your denials turned out to be a pack of lies.
If you had any self-respect you would apologise - to the people on this forum who have taken a genuine interest in this subject and to the Irish people who you have smeared and attacked with your dishonest and innuendo.
The only people I have ever hated are the politicians who have caused situations such as those guilty of what has happened to Ireland.
I'll happily apologise when you qualify your accusations with a modicum of proof - as you so aptly put it, "chance would be a fine thing".
Jusr waiting to come up with his examples of the Irish hating the British - but I won't hold my breath.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 04:38 AM

I made no statement about hating the British.

"Irish kids wre brainwashed to hate us British"

You put it in quotes, but I never said it.
A faked quote.

"hate the British" is not a phrase I have ever used.
You put it in quotes, but I never said it.
A faked quote.

The only people I have ever hated are the politicians

What about "the bowler-ghatted, besashed thugs fwose main role has been to incite hatred."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 04:57 AM

"I made no statement about hating the British."
What the **** is this then - a "fake"
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
"You put it in quotes, but I never said it."
I've just pasted it directly and exactly from the the "Potato Bligh thread and given you a ling to it - stop lying.
This whole thread has been filled with lies from you and from Teribus and now you are lying about yor own words put in front of you.
"What about "the bowler-hatted, besashed thugs"
What else are the Unionists who have been running Ireland for nearly a century - traffic wardens?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:12 AM

You obviously aren't going to substantiate your "cross-border raids" or your "oppression of Catholics in the Republic, or your "the rebels were all German spies" or "no artillery" - it wos the looters wot started all the fires" or "the poor, offended little flowers of Loyalists" or "the Home Rule Bill was a done deal", or "Tom Kent was guilty of murder, or was it treason".... or anything else you have claimed during this epic.

1: So no cross border raids took place? Try googling 1956 to 1962 IRA Border Campaign and see what you get. Try YouTube "1956 to 1962 IRA Border Campaign Documentary" and see what you get. A great deal of coverage, a 47 minute long Documentary, with many interviews almost all but one from IRA men who participated. Compare their first interviews with what those same men say at the end, particularly their opinions of what the PIRA did during the "Troubles" - very revealing.

If you count the War of Independence there have been five IRA campaigns against the North - not one single one has succeeded or moved the Republicans any nearer their goal.

From that documentary the IRA's stated position there is no alternative to armed struggle and that Ireland must be united by force. If that is what you believe Carroll then come straight out and say that. I on the other hand believe in the right of self-determination for all.

2: Oppression of Catholics in the Republic?? I think I claimed "Oppression of Protestants" Jim.

Try this -
Protestant Decline in the Republic of Ireland

3: "your "the rebels were all German spies"

Care to cut-n-paste the post of mine where I state that? I can confidently predict for anyone else reading this post that he won't, basically because he can't - no such post exists - more Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit".

4: The researchers from RTE and Boston College in the Chronology of the Easter Rising found evidence of looting starting in Sackville Street around 15:00hrs on the afternoon of the 24th April 1916, with looting ongoing fires started around 20:30hrs on the evening of the 24th April 1916. Present in Sackville Street during this time were the Irish Volunteers and civilian looters, during the day the Irish Volunteers had fired on and driven away the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and scouting patrols of British Cavalry. So out of the four groups identified above - Irish Volunteers; Civilian Looters; DMP; British Army - which two groups had the opportunity to start those fires on the evening of the 24th April 1916 - you don't actually have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.

British troops and Artillery did not start arriving in any significant numbers until the next day. There was no artillery in Dublin on the 24th April 1916 so it could hardly have been responsible for starting the fires. It arrived from Athlone sometime during the morning of the 25th April and opened fire on barricades in direct line of sight at 15:00hrs on the afternoon of the 25th April 1916.

Their first recording of any artillery fire being directed at Sackville Street occurs almost 40 hours after the fires were started. 40 hours in which no-one made any attempt to put those fires out.

Now I can see no reason why RTE of Boston College researchers should lie about any of this and their accounts check out with those of others.

5: ""the poor, offended little flowers of Loyalists"

You've lost me where exactly have I ever used such a phrase? - More Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - if not please cut-n-paste the post of mine where I state that.

6: Home Rule was a done deal in 1914. Pity your Republicans, or more correctly your magnificent seven in secret managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (If an independent united Ireland was the objective)

7: Under Martial Law at the time Thomas Kent was charged with firing upon Police Officers and Soldiers and killing one of them William Rowe. Therefore guilty under the provisions of the Treason Act 1351. Under Martial Law and under Military Law you are automatically charged with what is seen to be the more serious offence, as in military law you can reduce charges once made but you cannot increase them.

Now then Jim do you want to make up and fabricate any other comments that you want to take me to task over?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 05:23 AM

You stated as quotes things I never said and never would say.
That is lying, and you should expect to be called out for it.
I stand by what I actually said, and have substantiated it with statements from three Irish historians.

What else are the Unionists

Again you reveal yourself as a sectarian bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 06:07 AM

"You stated as quotes things I never said and never would say."
I've just put it up with a link twice - are you really claiming it is a fake?
I ask again, where is there any evidence that the Irish have ever hated the Britsih - as per the "faked" quote I put up
Full posting (plus my typo):
"Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
"YOU HAVE HAD NOT ONE IOTO OF SUPPORT"
Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
Irish schools at least since 1922 and NY State schools since 1996 by decree.

Massachusetts?"
"Again you reveal yourself as a sectarian bigot."
You have had masses of information as to exactly sectarian and violent and unpatriotic and armed the Unionists are and of their behaviour when they took power in the six counties - you have challenged none of that
What is "bigoted" about hating that sort of behaviour?
"You've lost me where exactly have I ever used such a phrase? - "More Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - if not please cut-n-paste the post of mine where I state that."
"Amazing how I forgot that classic example of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit","
"his cock-eyed Made-Up-Shit version of history "
"Want a couple of examples of this Jim Carroll "made-up-shit"?"
"yet another baseless accusation - more Jim Carroll "made-up-shit")"
" written and attributed to me by Jim Carroll - invented comment - Made-up-shit"
More where that came from.
"Try this -
Protestant Decline in the Republic of Ireland"
I did – it shows population decline, not terrorist persecution.
The rest continues to be unlinked and long dealt-with claims you have made and failed to substantiate.
Think we're finished here - don't you - you've humiliated yourself enough as far as I'm concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 06:15 AM

"You stated as quotes things I never said and never would say."
I've just put it up with a link twice - are you really claiming it is a fake?
I ask again, where is there any evidence that the Irish have ever hated the Britsih - as per the "faked" quote I put up
Full posting (plus my typo):
"Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
"YOU HAVE HAD NOT ONE IOTO OF SUPPORT"
Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.
Irish schools at least since 1922 and NY State schools since 1996 by decree.

Massachusetts?"
"Again you reveal yourself as a sectarian bigot."
You have had masses of information as to exactly sectarian and violent and unpatriotic and armed the Unionists are and of their behaviour when they took power in the six counties - you have challenged none of that
What is "bigoted" about hating that sort of behaviour?
"You've lost me where exactly have I ever used such a phrase? -
It wasn't in quotes - you both have claimed that the (armed and potentially invasive) Unionists were intimidated by the Eater Rising - as I said 'delicate little flowers'
"Therefore guilty under the provisions of the Treason Act "
He was charged and hanged for murder - that was altered to "treason by Asquith in parliament - not by a court.
"Try this -
Protestant Decline in the Republic of Ireland"
I did – it shows volunrtary population decline, not terrorist persecution.
The rest continues to be unlinked and long dealt-with claims you have made and failed to substantiate.
Think we're finished here - don't you - you've humiliated yourself enough as far as I'm concerned.
"In case you feel you need it - too late, too late"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 06:35 AM

This whole thread has been filled with lies from you and from Teribus

Now the only problem with that statement Carroll is that so far you have been unable to provide one single example of any such lies have you?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 07:47 AM

"Just struggling to get Keith to admit his.
Waiting for you to substantiate your Anti- Protestantism terrorism, or "German Spies" claim " or you persistent denials of documented facts, or your accusations of "bigotry" or your saying something one minute and denying you said it the next..... or...... should I go on?
I love the way both of you deny holding opinions then go on to prove that you still do "Irish Independence" being a case in point.
You have proved nothing, you have substantiated nothing, you have arrogantly only ever provided your own opinions dressed up as fackts totally without backup
"Carroll"
Whoops your 'insecurity slip is showing again miss' Jim's the name and bigoted troll-slaying is the game
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 08:27 AM

A pretty fair summing-up of the history of Protestant Ulster in text and photographs - for those interested in such things!
Jim Carroll

From 'Ireland, a Terrible Beauty, Jill and Leon Uris, 1976
The Celtic word "Belfast" means "approach to the sand spit." Until 1600 there wasn't much there but a wide spot in the river. An early member of the Chichester family staked claim to it after the "Flight of the Earls" and received a charter for a family borough. Belfast and surrounding Counties Down and Antrim are the true heartland of the Presbyterian settlement.
For the first hundred years the community toddled along, establishing a middling trading and commercial town. In addition to the Presbyterian qualities of piety and hard work, the originals from Scotland were liberal and enlightened. They, too, had come under persecution from many of the Penal Laws, and a great number emigrated to America in the eighteenth-century Scotch-Irish exodus.
Theobald Wolfe Tone found the atmosphere so rich that the United Irishmen was born in Belfast. When the first Catholic church was established at the end of the eighteenth century, an openhearted Presbyterian community greeted it with brotherly love.
Her situation at the geographical center of Presbyterian Down and Antrim, on a natural body of navigable water, caused Belfast to extend her boundaries continually in monotonous red brick clusters.
Nearly all of the early population came in from surrounding farm lands, where communal living and work sharing were traditional. The togetherness of the agrarian society was continued in Belfast. People banded together in sub-communities, giving the town more an appearance of little linked-up villages than that of an urban center.
The open-minded character of the people faded during the Wolfe Tone Uprising of 1798. Belfast itself was reasonably placid, but out on the land the division between Catholic and Protestant had opened and then split into a permanent scar with the formation of the Orange Order.
By 1800, Belfast had entered the Industrial Revolution, a half century late. An enormous textile complex brought with it the vilest slums in the British Isles. Agricultural landlordism found its urban counterpart in the creation of a raw, ugly monstrosity. The Marquess of Donegal became one of the largest rent collectors in the realm, squandering his fortune into bankruptcy through gambling, and letting the ill-conceived housing fall further into squalor.
The stink of Belfast's poor districts flowed in open sewers and erupted from piles of uncollected dunghills; it was inter-mixed with the odors of home breweries, tanneries, and ammoniated urine on walls and gutters. The defilement was locked inside tight little courtyarded dwellings, and air and light were locked out. Families numbering a dozen or more huddled in single-room hovels without water or sanitation. The few public bathhouses could not cope with the crush of filth. Open sores, matted hair, warped growth, and sunken-eyed madness were the dress of the people.
The looms boomed on relentlessly, first cotton, then linen. The more delicate linen work required women and children. The latter were supplied by overcrowded orphanages. Belfast, like Derry, became a city of female labor toiling in unspeakably dingy, unsafe factories.
For Belfast's first two hundred years, there was no significant Catholic population. They drifted in, in the wake of evictions and perennial unemployment, and the trickle became a flood during and after the famine. Like the Presbyterians, they set¬tled in their own small communities around the heartbeat of a church. Neither welcome nor wanted, they came into an established order in which they shared no involvement. Job competition was already fierce, and the massive Catholic influx terrified the Protestant workers like nothing else. Catholic villages linked up in the western part of the city. In other areas Catholics lived in surrounded enclaves such as Ardoyne, New Lodge, and Short Strand. What were once communal settlements became tribal areas of two hostile clans.
Industry exploded for fair with the arrival of the power loom. About the girth of Lough Belfast and in towns to the south, hundreds of looms sprang up along avenues of running water. With the collapse of cotton during the American Civil War, Bel¬fast became the linen capital of the world.
In 1859 the Harland and Wolff shipyard opened to become the very power base of Belfast's industrial might. For the first time thousands of males were put to work . . . but nearly to a man they were Protestant. The Belfast complex multiplied into heavy machinery, armaments, ropemaking, distilling, tobacco, flour, graving docks, and a major port.
Nothing would ever again keep the pall of smoke from inundating Belfast. By 1870, commissions of inquiry expressed deep concern over air and water pollution. This was causing debilitation of workers, particularly in jobs like hackling linen, and a fair part of the work force kept going on alcohol and dope.
Protestant slums and the waterfront were desperate with crime and inhumanity. Catholic slums were the worst cesspools in the British Isles, and neither law nor even clergy cared to visit. They were frequent hosts to onslaughts of cholera and typhoid, with an incidence of TB double that of the rest of Britain. Beggars, fever carts, workhouses, prostitution, killings, all in a haze of alcohol, were workaday. When there was no dog- or cockfight to wager on, mothers threw their sons into the pit to battle themselves bloody for a penny or two.
Outside the ghettos, great blocklike, uninspired Victorian edifices created a contrast of elegance with putridity, grandeur of empire with swill. As buildings for commerce, industry, and government rose in the center, a necklace of manor houses hugged the sea in the world's newest Gold Coast.
The "Golden Age of Riots" entered to the sound of the damnations of fire-breathing evangelists who kept the Protestant poor on knife's edge. Mammoth open-air meetings by the Rev. Messrs. Drew, Cooke, Hanna, and their ilk burst into savage sectarian rioting in 1813, 1832, 1835, 1852, 1864, 1872, 1880, 1884, 1886, and 1898. Commissions of inquiry just couldn't figure out what was the matter. Post-World War I riots against Catholics raged in the early 1920s and into the depression years. This "Lord's work" has been valiantly carried on by the Ian Paisleys with unrelenting fury, directly up to the recent holocaust.
It has always been the poor harangued to fight the poor, the tribal units of Protestants in Sandy Row, Shankill, and East Belfast pitted against Catholic tribes in the Falls and Andersontown.
When Belfast was granted city status in 1888 the structure of rule was firmly implanted. The gentry had gained control of the Unionist Party with the interlocked power of the Orange Order and a segment of rabble-rousing clergy. Police and government apparatus were solidly in their hands. Belfast was divided into fifteen wards, two of them going to the Catholics with twenty- five per cent of the population.
By the twentieth century Belfast was a major spoke in the British scheme of things, a manufacturing giant with a windfall for the elite and prosperity for many. For the poor, Protestant loyalty was rewarded by jobs. It was Ulsterism at its grossest level, a society existing by committing economic homicide on the native. The good life here and all things from it were tied to the benefits of being a British city, and any talk of Irish rule or a split from the Motherland brought a reaction of frenzy.
This skillful separation of the working classes has always been the principal canon of Ulsterism. The deplorable housing continues on. Outdoor privies abound. Progress for the workingman is replaced by threats of unemployment. Liberal thought is ** drenched under Orange nonsense and holy-rolling muckraking.
In the end the Protestant worker has been bilked. He, too, has been kept on the edge of squalor, and his diet of medieval meanderings is all he has to hang on to. He continues to live a breath away from a riot.
Belfast was put into business for a certain purpose, and she operated in a certain manner. She is the mongoloid child born out of British imperialism, the water and oil that would never mix, and a blight on the human spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 08:41 AM

Waiting for you to substantiate

Good heavens Jim, it would appear that both Keith A and I seem to have been waiting for you to substantiate a hell of a lot more.

Having trouble with that crap of yours about German spies? Not that surprising really is it Jim - you made it up, so you had best substantiate it.

On the persecution of Protestants in Eire just look at the links you have posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 09:57 AM

"Good heavens Jim, it would appear that both Keith A and I seem to have been waiting for you to substantiate a hell of a lot more."
Where - you've had plenty of information with links - you have provided none - only unsubstantiated declarations.
See how you get on with that last lot of "irrelevant" information.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:02 AM

Jim, I said,
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."

I have quoted three Irish historians who substantiate my statement that Irish schoolchildren have been brainwashed to wrongly blame Britain.

I stand by that quote.

The previous quotes that you attributed to me, and put in quotes, were made up by you, and I reject them.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 10:43 AM

As far as the subject of the thread goes your "information" does rather fall into the category of "irrelevant twaddle". Long, rambling, boring and poorly presented script containing very little of importance. History is made up of events that actually happened, not events that you think happened.

By the bye Jim had Jill and Leon Uris turned their gaze on the establishment and growth of any industrialised city during the same period in Britain, France, Germany or the USA it would all have revealed a similar picture.

Now how is the work related to all"those German spies" coming along. Mind you having made up so much shit it must be rather difficult for you to keep track of all the stuff you've invented and who is supposed to have said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 11:07 AM

"I have quoted three Irish historians who substantiate my statement"
You said you didn't say it - you lied.
You have cited none who said any such thing - whoever said it would ab a racist.
If you7 believe it, yo must be able to produce examples of manifestations of that hatred - you refuse to do so - you make my point perfectly.
""irrelevant twaddle"."
Yeh - sure it is - sorry you find it "boring" - Keith isn't interested in Irish history either, so there you go.
"industrialised city during the same period in Britain, France, Germany or the USA"
Their researches cover from the 1600s to the mid-1970s - can't get any more comprehensive than that.
Now you really are blowing for tugs - but at least its entertaining.
Don't forget that evidence of hatred Keith - missing it already!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 11:22 AM

Jim, the brainwashing of Irish schoolkids to keep hate alive is attested to by these Irish historians.

Richardson said, "So we got a very biased view of Irish history which we took as gospel. A very Republican view of Irish history, and that was the view I held."

She said she would have joined IRA in a heartbeat.
That is an expression of hatred.

"I tried to think in the context of other kids, and who didn't have the advantage I had in getting a (university) education and questioning everything I'd been taught. How they hold on to these ideas and end up joining terrorist groups."

Kinealy states that children were fed "nationalist myths" as history.

O'Callaghan states that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British" propaganda. "Indoctrinated" is another word for "brainwashing" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 12:47 PM

"Jim, the brainwashing of Irish schoolkids to keep hate alive is attested to by these Irish historians."
You denied saying it - you lied, now your back defending it.
"Kinealy states that children were fed "nationalist myths" as history."
During the "Fee State" period - I've read her book - you haven't.
I will ask you this every time you make up this nonsense
If the Irish hate the British, how did that manifest itself.
The IRA urrent IRA activity was by Northern Irish under British rule and were the result of Partition and ending British rule, not a hatred of Britain
It is appallingly stupid and dishonest to claim the Irish hated the British if you are unable to describe how that "hatred" shows itself, in fact it is hate-mongering
So go on - describe how the Irish hate Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 01:45 PM

You denied saying it - you lied, now your back defending it.

No I did not.
I stand by it.
I denied the previous, faked quotes you posted.

"Kinealy states that children were fed "nationalist myths" as history."
During the "Fee State" period - I've read her book - you haven't.

It came from this essay, and she makes clear it continued to recent if not present times.
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/
Richardson wrote of her experience as a child in the seventies, and O'Callaghan also says it contued to recent if not present times.

If the Irish hate the British, how did that manifest itself.

Some Irish must inevitably hate Britain if they believe all the lies fed to them as children.
Professor Richardson did. In her case it was manifested as a desire to join IRA.
There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it.

I said, " generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."

That is substantiated by the historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 02:11 PM

"No I did not.
I stand by it."
Now you're lying about lying
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
"You put it in quotes, but I never said it."
How stupid an you get?
The solution is simple.
Do you believe the Irish hate Britons?
If they do, how does that manifest itself?
A failure to answer either of these is proof that you are lying again - you are telling nasty lies about an entire nation and about schoolchildren - that is despicable - even for you (perhaps that last bit wads overstated)
Now answer please
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 02:38 PM

Their researches cover from the 1600s to the mid-1970s - can't get any more comprehensive than that.

Utter bullshit "their" researches particularly his as a novelist and writer of fiction is superficial and barely scratches the surface compared to any historian who specialises in a particular period who will devote his entire life to the study of that period. "Their researches" covers what they saw as being necessary to cover what work of fiction was going to be written for commercial gain - as the primary market for this epic on Oirland would be the good ol' US of A - you would not even have to read it to predict what slant would be put on the story in order for it to sell - one thing for certain objectivity would not enter into either the research or writing of the story.

"Kinealy states that children were fed "nationalist myths" as history." - (Factual quote of what Kinealy said)

During the "Fee State" period - I've read her book

And as per usual with you, you obviously haven't understood a single bloody word of it.

Now tell us all about the "Obscene" profit made on all those Poppies. (Relevance: Something else that you read and completely misunderstood). Made for £9 a piece and sold for £25 each with all the proceeds going to Charity - £15 million in fact so what "obscene" profit? Who made it? where did it go?

Tell us the date Kitchener was forced to resign - another thing you completely misunderstood.

Tell us how with no British troops present and no British artillery in Dublin at the time the British were responsible for starting the fires in Sackville Street.

Tell us how driving at least 150,000 people from their homes in the Irish Free State causing them to flee, often with only what they wore and what they could carry, between 1922 and 1926 could not be considered "ethnic cleansing".

"we got a very biased view of Irish history which we took as gospel. A very Republican view of Irish history, and that was the view I held" - Richardson. She said that she would have joined the IRA in a heartbeat - that the same IRA who believed that the only way to unite Ireland was by force? By coercing fellow Irishmen into their union? Keith A is perfectly correct that is an expression of hatred and it is patently obvious that you have swallowed every anti-British "myth" going hook-line-and-sinker.

Another Irish historian, Ruth Dudley Edwards (Whose long-time crusade has been against the IRA, which has destroyed tens of thousands of lives and made everything worse - I couldn't agree more), draws her students and readers attention to the fact that while in school in Ireland Irish history as taught seemed to stop in 1921 and then mysteriously start up again in 1937. Any explanation for that Jim - the Civil War just didn't happen, the economic policies pushed by de Valera ruined the country and caused thousands to flee abroad and emigrate just to make a living not examined. But there again Dev hated dissenting voices didn't he. So do you to the extent that you have to make stuff up and put words in people's mouths in order for you introduce crap to support your highly biased, bigoted and Anglophobic views.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 03:41 PM

More denials - no evidence - your meglomania appears to know no bounds.
And nothing from Keith - now you are both lying - offcial
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 16 - 04:04 PM

Do you believe the Irish hate Britons?
If they do, how does that manifest itself?

As I said, some Irish must inevitably hate Britain if they believe all the lies fed to them as children.
Professor Richardson did. In her case it was manifested as a desire to join IRA.
There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it.

I said, " generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."

That is substantiated by the historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 01:55 AM

I take it then Jim that you didn't watch that documentary on the IRA's border campaign of 1956 to 1962. But of course you wouldn't because in the nice cosy world of Jim Carroll it never happened - and you've got the brass neck to accuse people of denying fact.

Unfortunately the documentary does exist, as do the interviews:

"Was it worth it? No in the final analysis I'd have to say it wasn't" - Tony Meade

In relation to the activities of the PIRA later in "The Troubles" - "What was done was unconscionable"

The inspiring example that led to all this according to the volunteers interviewed? The seven men who signed the 1916 Proclamation.

History is the study of what actually happened, not the study of things that you personally think happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 03:47 AM

"As I said, some Irish must inevitably hate Britain if they believe all the lies fed to them as children."
Only some Keith, after, how did you put it "generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive." ?
That's not much of a result for generations of brainwashing, is it.
Do you know any of these people or can you describe what form this hatred takes?
No you *******can't, because it doesn't exist; it is a figment of your twisted imagination - an invention on your part.
Yes - there is inter-religious on the island of Ireland - we'll be getting a display of it in couple of weeks time - in Derry and Belfast and Drumcree...... in British Ireland.
The Irish as a group, are the most friendly, hospitable and welcoming people I have ever met - to Britons and to all visitors - the are noted for it - 'cead mile failte' means exactly what it says - one hundred thousand welcomes.
You have been unable to give one general example of Irish hatred towards the British - one speck of evidence of your claims - so once again you lied, you made it all up for some reason, I suggest because of your hatred of the Irish rather than the other way around - sure - we know 'some of your best friends are Irish' - of course they are.
The Irish I know are gregarious, friendly and outward looking - welcoming to strangers from anywhere in the world - a far cry from my experiences in London (you have been given the figures of admitted racism in Britain)
Doesn't mean racism doesn't exist here, of course it does, but it does not impinge on our daily lives as it did in Britain, where, to my shame, I often avoided expressing my views on racism for fear of causing an argument.
Irish kids are bilingual from schooldays and many will take on other languages when they leave school - off the top of my head I can think of youngsters who are conversant in German, Greek, Japanese, Arabic, French, Russian, Czech..... mainly working kids from a farming background - beats the little Englander attitude that appears to ooze from every pore of you pair of bigots.
They will use those skills to travel the globe to seek work and fresh experiences while back home, you are erecting walls to keep foreigners out and voting on whether Britain wishes to be part of Europe.
Your schizophrenic invention of generations of brainwashed kids was bizarre in every sense.
First you made your hate-filled statement, then you denied making it and accused me of inventing it, now you are back in full-swing, hating away.
You claim a hate-filled Irish people, yet you refuse to give examples - so, as I said, you made it all up.
I don't think I have ever come across two more arrogant, detesting, national-self-important, anachronistic bigots in my life, still fighting the battles of the Empire and waving the flag for a Britain that no longer has any industry to speak of and is totally dependent on buying abroad, and politically has become the tail of the U.S. dog, to be wagged to order.
British people are, in general wonderful to live among, talented, humane (if somewhat reserved in places) and generous and by and large, tolerant of most things (you pair seem to be misfits), but boy, are they being given the shitty end of the stick by our politicians!
This has been one of the most distastefully racist-generated arguments I have ever experienced (slightly in front of those on The Famine) - you have openly lied and distorted, you have dismissed documented facts and have refused to give any of your own, you personally have admitted having neither knowledge of or interest in Irish history, yet you have kept up your spray of vitriol against the Irish - you are both microcosms of Imperial Britain at its very worst.
I would ask you again to provide examples of the hate-filled Irish towards the British people, but I know I would be wasting my time.
I'll have a quick shufti to see if I can find any worthwhile information for you to ignore, then I'm gone - another nice day here and some nice people to meet to get rid the foul taste you pair have left in my mouth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 04:24 AM

Jim, I have no experience of Irish schools.
I learned from the work of historians that it has "indoctrinated" generations of children with "anti-British propaganda."
How can you claim that has had no effect?
Of course it has.
We have Professor Richardson own testimony of how it made her want to join IRA.

It is easy to find other examples of hatred.
The random machine-gunning of diners in a London restaurant by an IRA unit.
The recent murder of an Irish prison officer because he was employed by UK state.

I have substantiated the "indoctrination" by quoting three historians.
How many have you found Jim?
Is it none?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 05:16 AM

"Jim, I have no experience of Irish schools."
Then how dare you claim they are all brainwashed on the basis of a few out of context comments by people who have failed to perovide a qualification for what you claim they said?
You haven't read Kineally's book yet you continue to claim something that she does not believe - I have read her book - you call me a liar.
"How can you claim that has had no effect?"
How can you claim it has or if that it happened if you can give no example of it.
That ought to be enough to convince you you are wrong.
You are more interested in your hate-driven agenda - yours is the hate - not the Irish
Prove me wrong and tell my how that "hate" manifests itself.
The IRA wasw a product of the British partitioning of Ireland - not the Irish education system - todays IRA are mainly made up of British citizens living and having been educated in The North.
You can only substantiate historians if you have read them and have understood fully what they are saying - Kineally and Diarmuid Ferriter's baptism of fire proved that.
To say the Irish have been "branwashed" is aa squalid a racist attack as they come, aimed at adults and children, to deny you said what you said and accuse me of making it up is blatantly dishonest and now to come back and say the same thing is stupid beyond words.
You are beyond a joke.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 05:24 AM

Incidentally Keith - I don't rely on historians for my knowledge of Irish education or whether the Irish hate Britain - especially ones I haven't read, like you.
Many of my family are Irish and have undergone an Irish education; I've lived among Irish people all of my life, relatives, friends close associates at work and with my music.
I have now lived in Ireland for nearly twenty years
I have had a lifelong interest in Irish history (you have confessed you have none) - I've quoted chunks from our books (which you have chosen to ignore - that's how much respect you have for historians)
How dare you attempt to counteract that with your handful of cut-'n-pastes?
Produce your evidence of hate or stop this distasteful nonsense
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 07:15 AM

The IRA wasw a product of the British partitioning of Ireland

Nope the IRA was the product of Sinn Fein's declaration of war in January 1919 and the product of Eamon de Valera's Civil War - Irishmen fighting Irishmen, one group attempting to coerce the other to "their" way.

The track record of the IRA so far has been:

Easter Rising - Failed

Irish War of Independence - Stalemate that resulted in a Peace Treaty that brought about the creation of a 26 county Republic of Ireland and a six county Northern Ireland that wanted to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Irish Civil War - Failed

1939-1940 Bombing Campaign - Failed

1956-1962 Border Campaign - Failed

1969-1998 "Troubles" - Failed

Because of the path taken by the Republican Nationalists since 1914 a united Ireland is further away today than it was 102 years ago.

The teaching of myths lays the ground work, proof that it works? Just read your own posts Jim Carroll, neither Keith A or myself have referred to any section of the population as "Blow-In Newcomers" who have no rights - you on the other hand have.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 07:52 AM

Get some facts to back your claims - done with your uncorroborated, hate-driven theories.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 07:55 AM

British Empire - failed.
British attempt to subdue Ireland - failed
Attempts of a pair of hate driven clown to make a case - failed miserably
Attepts to denigrate the Irish people with their racist attacks - failed
Get some facts to back your claims - done with your uncorroborated, hate-driven theories.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 10:52 AM

Now having a day off from decorating and took a walk on a local island which can be reached at low tide across a causeway. Didn,t leave the pub till 2.30 this morning when the music was still going strong.

As usual I have nothing but kindness and hospitality from a wonderful nation of people.

More music tonight and then back up a ladder tomorrow with a brush and roller !!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 11:16 AM

Very pleased to hear that you are enjoying yourself Raggy - long may you continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 11:43 AM

Now let us see what history according to Jim Carroll tells us:

1: That the Irish Volunteers who largely supported the Home Rule Bill that they were formed to defend did not split with the advent of the First World War to become the National Volunteers (Redmond Faction which comprised 92.5% of the movement) and the Irish Volunteers ( the IRB Faction which comprised only 7.5% of the movement)

2: That some 210,000 Irishmen volunteered to serve in the British Army during the First World War did not represent any significant political faction while the 1,500 people who Pearse and Connolly lied to and completely hoodwinked into joining their "Blood Sacrifice" somehow do represent the political views of the people of Ireland at that time. Jim absolutely deplores the blood sacrifice made to preserve freedom, justice, and liberty in France, but totally supports the betrayal of the men who foolishly followed Connelly and Pearse in Easter 1916.

3: That the Irish Volunteers of 1916 did not become the IRA of 19th January 1919

4: That the IRA who fought the war of independence were also the IRA that fought the Civil War - Nationalist against Nationalist - might is right, fortunately for all they lost.

Jim wants us all to believe that the IRA only became the IRA to fight the Unionists and unite Ireland - utter bloody hogwash and I do not need a single quote, a single link or any vast log boring and pointless screed to back that up - all you have to do is look at where we are today.

History consists of events that actually happened, it does not consist of events that you only think happened. Of all the people who took up the gun in Ireland in 1913 the Republican Nationalists were the only ones to actually through their own choice use them and to what result? A united independent Ireland is further away today than it was 102 years ago - FACT - haven't they done well.

Hope that you have had fun "celebrating" all that bloodshed Jim - it after all got them nowhere as far as a united independent Ireland goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 11:45 AM

Not sure where you are Raggy and how long you're around, but there's a nice singing session in Kinvarra - 'tother side of Galway City, on Tuesday Night - Greene's Bar - at least one Mudcatter is a regular.
Starts late (10ish) and goes on til' the landlady gets fed up.
Worth the effort if you're in the mood.
Not much hatred down there either.
Did you know the late maker of folk films, Philip Donnellan, used to own Mason's Island, off the coast from Carna?
Not a lot of people know that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 01:50 PM

how dare you claim they are all brainwashed on the basis of a few out of context comments by people

They were not out of context.
I provided links to the sources of the comments so that they could be seen in their original, intended context.
Your accusation is shown to be false.

You haven't read Kineally's book yet you continue to claim something that she does not believe - I have read her book - you call me a liar.

You make a liar of yourself Jim.
Here is the History Ireland article where she plainly states exactly what I said she did.
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

How can you claim it has or if that it happened if you can give no example of it.

I did give examples.

Prove me wrong and tell my how that "hate" manifests itself.

I did.

To say the Irish have been "branwashed" is aa squalid a racist attack as they come,

Then all those historians are guilty of it.
I just quoted them.

Produce your evidence of hate or stop this distasteful nonsense

I have quoted three historians who state that Irish schoolchildren have been "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."

One of them stated that her own indoctrination made her want to join IRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 03:22 PM

This has begone beyond an irritating joke to something far more sinister.
IF THE IRISH HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED TO HATE THE ENGLISH, WHERE IS THAT HATRED? Are you seriously suggesting that we are living in an 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' world where everybody is not really what they seem and they have really all been conditioned to hate us?
Do the people I grew up with really hate me because I am English?
You are now totally insane - your obsessive hatred has probably made you so
Has it ever occurred to you that it's not the English the Irish hate, just people like you to who drench them in racist abuse - I've often wondered why the Irish don't hate the English considering the centuries of abuse they have been put through - and you are displaying a form of that abuse now.
There are Irish people who contribute to this thread, I know several of them personally and I am aware that they share my interest in Irish history.
Have we all been brainwashed to think alike and hate the English like ***** zombies?
One of the things we had to get used to when we became regular visitors to Ireland was the fact that we were surrounded by practicing Christians - while I didn't share their beliefs, I always admired those who reflected the "love thy fellow man" teachings of their religion - especially the older ones - you appear to be totally devoid of such an attitude.
You claim to be a Christian - have you been brainwashed to behave in the way that no other Christian I have ever met does?
You want to understand what those writers really say, then I suggest you overcome your "disinterest" and read their books.
You want to prove that the Irish have been bnrainwashed to hate, then tell us how that hatred manifests itself.
I watched with a degree of grim amusement when you told Fergie; "
Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
-21 Apr 16 - 12-12 PM Sorry Fergie, but the fact is that none of your points stand up.
I "dismissed" them only by showing them to be false.
You have been taken in by propaganda in place of hard history"
He had not long completed his CD at the time and I know he had put a fair time researching the songs on it, yet you, who have stated quite clearly that you have never read a book on Ireland and have no interest in doing so, could make such a crassly arrogant statement.
You are now abusing me in exactly the same way, and my family, friends and neighbours.
I suggest you stop this NOW - this abusive racism has gone far enough.
If you don't, I will be tempted to ask Joe to have you removed - this forum doesn't need people who dish up this sort of hateful garbage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jun 16 - 04:03 PM

It never stops.

Neither one of you ever shuts up, and I'd be happy if Max could kick the both of you the fuck off Mudcat. It ain't gonna happen though.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 02:08 AM

That is grossly unfair Jeri
As far as I'm concerned this subject is important, it cetainly interests me.
At the present time, the whole of Ireland is celebrating what it regards to be one of the most important events in its history; the equivalent of, say, the 200th anniversary of U.S. Independence, which I can remember being celebrated in London way back, with traditional musicians and singers I was then involved with.
Whether you are interested or not, others find that subject interesting, I certainly do as those who have participated in this thread and who are also celebrating it in Ireland.
Two people have decided to use this thread to attack the Irish as a race and have gone to great lengths to do this.
There is still much to be said on the subject.
Exactly the same has happened with the same two people not too long ago when the subject was The Irish Famine.
Sure - we could walk away and leave them to it - we could do that whenever any two bully boys decide to take over any subject and drive it into the ground.
That's not the way free speech works.
I have treated this subject as responsibly as I am able - I have sought out masses of information which I believe to be relevant and put it up because I believe it to be interesting.
I have not been unreasonably rude, I don't think; I am fully aware I have been in the past, but I agreed with Joe's requests and have done my best to clean up my act.
I have no idea what your interest is in this topic or if you have any at all.
You, or anybody, is perfectly free to join in this discussion - I desperately wish somebody else would - or you are entitled to ignore it.
You are not entitled to tell me how I should or should not make my contributions unless I have overstepped the mark - I don't believe I have here.
You are certainly not entitled to suggest that I be thrown off this forum unless you believe I have broken its rules, and certainly not in the ill-mannered and hostile way you have.
You may choose to judge the merits of these arguments for yourself - other comments I have read of yours elsewhere suggest you are perfectly capable of doing so - but I will not be lumped in with a pair of trolls without comment.
This argument, as far as I am concerned, has now taken the form of crude and obvious racism against an entire people
It may not worry you, it certainly does me.
I apologies if I have expressed myself too bluntly - I now find myself far angrier than I can ever remember being on this forum, or anywhere for that matter.
I sincerely hope that the administrators of this thread do not close this thread and allow the culprits to get away with their behavour - that would be, in my opinion, the death of free speech on Mudcat.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 02:42 AM

"To a large extent, the popular understanding of the Famine in Ireland still follows a traditional, nationalist paradigm. Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994). In Protestant schools in Northern Ireland, Irish history was rarely part of the curriculum (see Peter Collins, 'History teaching in Northern Ireland' in HI Spring 1995). Accordingly, in many Irish schools, a heroic but simplistic view of Irish history emerged, a morality story replete with heroes and villains. This approach, however, was subsequently challenged by the Irish academic establishment. In the 1930s, a number of leading Irish academics—following the lead of British historians earlier in the century—set an agenda for the study of Irish history, which placed it on a more professional and scientific basis in terms of research methods and source materials. At the same time this approach also demanded the systematic revision and challenging of received wisdoms or unquestioned assumptions. What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border." - Christine Kinealy

Two obvious comments here, the first is that Nationalists at the time certainly used the "Famine" for propaganda purposes and second, who here thinks it acceptable under any circumstances for a government to instruct teachers to teach a subject that should be taught factually and objectively with a deliberate political slant to it?

This did not just happen in the Irish School system, in Scotland history was taught in exactly the same simplistic way from Primary School up until the first two years of High School. Myself and my classmates were very fortunate as right from the start of High School we had an excellent History Teacher - but it is amazing how many in Scotland view any conflict in Scotland as a straightforward England v Scotland affair with England always cast in the role of villain - once you actually start studying the history of the country you find that nothing could be further from the truth. A couple of examples:

1: The Jacobite Rebellions - More Scots fought on the side of the Government than fought for the rebels (At Culloden there were more Scots fighting on the Government side than there were Scots in the Army of Charles Stuart).

2: The Clearances were introduced and driven by British Government policy in the aftermath of the '45 rebellion. In actual fact the Clearances had started much earlier and were driven by the greed of Scottish Landlords.

The 2014 Independence Referendum demonstrated how thin the veneer was, of people who pretended that anti-English comments were all just banter, hell as like it was, most of it was fuelled by ill-informed and atrociously presented history learned at an early age.

Back to Irish history - I do not believe that what was said equated to anything like - the Irish have been taught to hate the British - I think what was said was the way Irish history is taught keeps hate alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 03:06 AM

At the present time, the whole of Ireland is celebrating what it regards to be one of the most important events in its history

I thought it was commemorating the events of 1916. I would dearly like to know what there is to celebrate about the deaths of 485 people whose deaths were a pointless and unnecessary waste of human life.

Two people have decided to use this thread to attack the Irish as a race and have gone to great lengths to do this.

Really? Who are they? I would love to see quoted examples of these attacks. All I have noted have been posts attacking the mythology of the events that led up to the Easter Rising and what happened as a result of it. I have seen no attack on the Irish as a race at all - quite the opposite in fact.

we could walk away and leave them to it - we could do that whenever any two bully boys decide to take over any subject and drive it into the ground.
That's not the way free speech works.

Reading through this thread Jim, who was it that was going on about there being a "pecking order" and reminding people of where they stood in that order? Who was it that was calling for people to be thrown off and banned from posting? That was you wasn't it? Well Mr.Carroll "That's not the way free speech works." either.

Points made by you relevant to the subject of this thread have been disproven and you have responded by making up baseless allegations and firing them like buckshot from a scatter gun, when that didn't work you attempted to divert the subject matter of the thread, as I have said before if you wish to discuss the Famine then open a thread on it - you will find it rather a lonely place.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 04:02 AM

IF THE IRISH HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED TO HATE THE ENGLISH, WHERE IS THAT HATRED?

I have never made such a claim.
Why not stick to the actual quote that I stand by?

I suggest you stop this NOW - this abusive racism has gone far enough.

Then all those historians are guilty of it.
I just quoted them.

The reason I have quoted them on the long term indoctrination of school children is that it explains why so many Irish people are so uncritical of the rising that destroyed the process of independence already in effect, and led to years of conflict and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 04:11 AM

Not going here any more - not with you - not with Keith anyway.
We've been here before - I'd never heard of Kinealy before her name came up on the Famine thread; since then, I have read three of her books and become an ardent fan, so I haven't had to rely on hastily gathered, cut-'n-pastes to understand what she thinks.
You want to go and read what she has to say in full, fine, happy to debate it, but I have no intention of taking seriously scooped up, out of context quotes gathered to 'prove' pre-conceived opinions.
I have said what I believe in my response to Jeri - the final straw was Keith's attempts to justify the unjustifiable.
The level of your comments here is indicated to your somewhat overstated use of (as I explained) my "pecking order" joke.
You want to discuss The Easter Rising, fine, as long as you provide backup to your statements I'm happy to respond, I've already worked out your personal opinions and they don't interest me particularly.
If anybody else wishes to continue - and I hope they do - I'll carry on providing what I believe is relative information.
If not, I'm disappointed, but I see no reason to go round in circles with you pair any more.
Yoy see no reson to celebrate the deaths of 485 people (a pretty good indication of your understanding of the subject if you think that's what's being celebrated) but you were happy to celebrate the deaths of many millions of young men who were slaughtered during WW1 on several other threads - hmmmmm!!
If you have nothing new to add, "Goodbye, and thanks for the fish' as Douglas Adams once remarked.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM

Perhaps it's worth explaining exactly what Kineally's position was on education, and then perhaps we can put an end to this misinterpretation.
Her basic criticism was of the 'revisionist' approach taken by many historians and taken up by the schools, particularly on The Famine.
She argues that what was taught was the effects of the Famine, not the reason for it – all those poor dead people – without explaining exactly why they were dead – the question of actual blame was never questioned, it was never under any doubt.
The British were responsible for the administration of Ireland (- no question), there was enough food being produced to feed the entire population (- no question), the warehouses were full and were locked and guarded by armed soldiers (- no question), the landlords evicted tenants who failed to pay rents and destroyed their former homes, - no question, the workhouses and relief schemes put into motion by the Peel Government, were all closed and financial support for relief was withdrawn (- no question.
In addition to this, The Russell Government, on the advice of the man in charge, Sir Charles Trevelyan, adopted a laissez faire policy of selling food at current market prices so as not to upset the economy - no question.
The famine victims were given the choice – emigrate or die – no question.
Kinealy argues that the effects were explained graphically without attempting to understand the causes or apportion blame; if hatred was generated then it was the causes that generated that hatred, not an attempt to implant it into children.
History was, as is all revisionist history, in England as well as Ireland, all about heroes and events rather than causes and consequences.
The reason this approach was adopted, as Kineally and other progressive historians have pointed out is that after the Famine Britain became the most attractive destination for Irish emigrants – no long journey and the opportunity to return home in relative ease if the opportunity arose.
Up to the 150th anniversary of the Famine in 1995, there was only one major work on the famine, 'The Great Hunger', written by Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith, that was in general, revisionist, touching only briefly on the laissez faire, policy but never attempting to explain it in depth .
The Irish establishment did not wish to strangle the Golden Goose by drawing attention to Britain's culpability over the outcome of the Famine so the subject was avoided – for two centuries.
Kineally says that, prior to her own studies of the Famine she didn't realise the depth of blame due to Britain for the outcome of the famine – pretty well the case all round – now, she says, she is convinced that not only was Britain to blame, but that it was possibley used as a cynical attempt to solve 'The Irish Question' .
1995, Coogan's reproduction of Trevelyan's letter and all the other information that has been unearthed since has turned things around.
Exactly the same thing is now happening to the information we now have on Easter Week.
It is the facts of history that have generated any hatred that might have been, not the misinterpretation of that history or the avoidance of pointing fingers (revisionism)
If I have misunderstood Kineally's objective then I will be happy to be corrected by somebody who hs read her books – not by somebody who opportunistically uses soundbites to win arguments.
If anybody wishes to claim that Irish kids have been brainwashed to hate Britain, then they have to explain how that hatred manifests itself otherwise they are obviously telling lies – whoever they misquote.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 06:05 AM

"for two centuries."
Correction - a century and a half
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 06:27 AM

"You want to discuss The Easter Rising, fine, as long as you provide backup to your statements I'm happy to respond"

What statements of fact that I have made do you require back up to?

1: You said that the Home Rule Bill of 1914 was defeated by the Tories and the House of Lords. Keith A and myself pointed out to you that not only was the Bill not defeated it was passed into law on the 18th September 1914 when it received Royal Assent. At no time at all have you conceded that your original contention was wrong.

It is not required to put up substantiation for any of that as it is a simple matter of Parliamentary and historical record - just Google Irish Home Rule Bill 1914. If you cannot do that or are not prepared to do that in order to keep a dearly held "myth" alive then please have the honesty and integrity to admit it.

2: You said that in the time between the 1914 Home Rule Bill becoming an Act and the Easter Rising the Bill was amended, altered and changed by the British Government. It was pointed out to you that under Parliamentary procedure that what you stated was impossible. To amend an Act of Parliament then a Bill has to be introduced and be debated in Parliament - Again a simple matter of record - no such Amending Bills were ever introduced or passed in the period. If you think alterations were made then it is up to you to provide the proof that amendments were made and added as clauses to the Act.

3: You rather emotively made the statement that the Curragh Incident in March 1914 constituted an act of military aggression. Keith A and myself pointed out to you that there was no act of military aggression committed, and the record shows that there was no "Mutiny" by any stretch of the imagination, not one single order given was disobeyed and that the preventative measures to ensure that arms depots in the North of Ireland were secure.

4: You stated that the Republican Nationalists had the support and backing of the people of Ireland. Keith A, myself and others have pointed out the fallacy of that statement. The rising was the idea of a tiny clique, within an clique, within a clique. Most of the men who turned out on that Easter Week-end in 1916 hadn't the foggiest notion of what they had assembled to do. Those responsible for planning the rising did not even inform their own organisation as to what they were about to do.

5: You have stated that the IRB and those looking to mount the insurrection did not collude with the Germans in order to bring their plans to fruition. Simple matter of record indicates that all the evidence points to the fact that from 4th September 1914 they undoubtedly did collude with the Germans.

6: You have stated that the British used Heavy Artillery in Dublin to suppress the Rising. Keith A and myself pointed out to you and provided links whereby you could check for yourself that at no time at all was there any Heavy Artillery present in Ireland at that time. No concession on your part that your original statement was wrong.

7: You stated quite clearly that it was British artillery fire that started the fires that gutted Sackville Street. Keith A and myself pointed out to you that the fires on Sackville Street were started before British troops or artillery arrived in Dublin. Links were given of work undertaken for this years commemorative programmes by RTE and Boston College that substantiate that fires were started before the arrival of British troops and artillery, those links also indicate that the fires started on the 24th April 1916 burned unchecked for 40 hours before any artillery fire fell on rebel positions on Sackville Street.

8: You stated that permanent partition was guaranteed to the Northern Irish Unionists by the British Government. Keith A and myself have pointed out to you that no such guarantee was ever given and you have not been able to provide any evidence that such a guarantee was ever given. Substantiation that no such guarantee was ever given comes in the form of only temporary time limited partition being included in any Government of Ireland Act.

The list of your ill-informed and incorrect suppositions is massive, the above are only eight examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 07:11 AM

Respond to what I have said with verified facts if you want further discussion - simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 07:41 AM

jim,
scooped up, out of context quotes

Simply not true and utterly dishonest.
The quotes were given along with a link to the whole article to show that thhey were given in their original, intended context.


Perhaps it's worth explaining exactly what Kineally's position was on education,

Reading what she actually says in her article published in the most pre-eminent Irish History journal, trumps your "explanation" of what you wish she had said Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:04 AM

Ah Jim, so you cannot detail a single thing that Keith A or I have said that you can dispute.

See that you are still trying to steer the thread away from the complete and utter balls up that the Easter Rising was. Why is that Jim?

Still say that everyone in Ireland is "celebrating" the events of 1916?

From the Department of the Taoiseach website

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:10 AM

"
Simply not true and utterly dishonest."
I've given you my assessment of Kineally - respond to it - as far as I'm concerned it proves you hopelessly wrong.
Do not accuse me of being dishonest again - a reminder of your own list of dishonesties
What you denied saying:
"generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive." ?"
What you actually said:
"generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive." ?
You have repeated this some dozen times and you still claim I am not responding to what you actually say - another dishonesty.
I have asked you to describe how "brainwashed" Irish hatred manifests itself and have given you a list of alternatives
"If the Irish hate Britain, how does that hatred manifest itself - letter bombs, suicide bombers, hate mail, stones through British windows, anti-British demonstrations, Irish children terrorising British kids, British holidaymakers being treated with hostility - what form does that hatred take?"
You claim to have responded to it.
You claim you have responded to it - you patently have not - another dishonesty.
Do not accuse me of dishonesty again.
You want to debate Kineally - go read her book and do not say I'm wrong until you have.
This is the end of this pert of the discussion and until you respond with your examples of Irish hatred, the end of my responses to you here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 08:53 AM

For that to happen Jim he,d have to read a book, a whole book. It ain,t going to happen.

Still decorating, still very warm

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 09:19 AM

Never been contradicted on a book I have read by someone who has never read one
First time for everything, I suppose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:11 AM

I've given you my assessment of Kineally - respond to it

It is shite.
I've given you her actual words on the subject.
Not from a book, but from her writing in the journal, "History Ireland."

What is your assessment worth?
Shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:16 AM

Rag,
As usual I have nothing but kindness and hospitality from a wonderful nation of people.

That is my experience too.
North and South.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:39 AM

Of course Keith, if Jim Carroll really was such a great fan of Christine Kinealy and her work then you would think that, just out of respect, he would at least be able to get the spelling of her name correct. But then it took him years to get Philip Donnellan's name right as well.

As previously stated he's made getting things wrong almost an art form has our little Anglophobe.

Absolutely dying to see him launch his great work, his opus on the "Famine" creative it might be, but factual it certainly won't be.

Still hasn't told us yet how the British could have started those fires in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 by firing artillery while it was on the move from Athlone.

Wonder what he is going to get wrong next.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 11:54 AM

"It is shite."
#There's no answer to that as irt is not an intelligent response.
Come bacxk whan you have one.
You have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted your quote - both are probable
You have yet to describe the form in which the hatred of the Irish takes - and you won't.
" able to get the spelling of her name correct.!
Typos and insults again - why not, you've nothing else.
Go back an check my responses to your timeline regarding the fires - you have been fully answered.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:14 PM

It goes against all my instincts to respond to these eejits, but one last time
Kinealy's attitude to The Famine as treated by revisionist historians.

Death Dealing Famine review by a defender of Britain's role -
At one level she assumes the role of the Roy Foster of Famine history and at another the mantle of a modern Cecil Woodham-Smith. She will not like the first description, for Foster is the arch-revisionist, not a species that finds favour with Dr Kinealy, since revisionists seek to remove blame from considerations of Ireland's past and Kinealy is very strong on blame.

Dr Kinealy never explicitly aspires to emulate Mrs Cecil Woodham-Smith, but she shares with her a sense of outrage at what the government of the United Kingdom failed to do to alleviate the sufferings of the Great Famine. Woodham-Smith's villains are Kinealy's villains; and like Woodham-Smith, her interpretation of events is coloured by what ought to have happened rather than by what actually did take place.
The purpose of all this ancestor display is, I presume, to make the point that historians are prisoners of their environments and cannot write history objectively. Dr Kinealy's view is unambiguous. "Fundamentally the concept of value-free history, whilst noble in its intentions, is flawed in its execution. In striving for objectivity, that very purpose itself violates the concept, as the quest reflects the writer's own value-system and is set in the context within which the historian is writing (p.2)." In plain English, all history is subjective polemic.

Kinealy's response
Why was one of the most profound events in modern Irish history ignored for so long by academics in Ireland? The self-imposed censorship has now been replaced with an attempt to destroy the character of people who have broken that silence, yet who do not belong to an remote inner-circle of Irish historians.

ii. Regarding the weary revisionist arguments of whether historians should allocate 'blame', and the need to judge the official response to the Famine in the context of the time. I do not use the word blame myself, but I do seek to understand why certain events occurred, even if this means confronting unpleasant realities. In a less emotive context, Irish people (and even some historians) might be interested in understanding if - in the context of the time - it could have been possible to alleviate the effects of the loss of the potato crop. The answer, if we look at the evidence, is very clear. The debate at the time, the massive food exports at the time, the resignation and disillusionment of senior officials at the time due to the parsimony of official relief, the example at the time of how other countries were responding to the loss of their own crops, are compelling evidence of an inadequate government response. This can hardly be said of Dr Clarkson's effort to depict Charles Trevelyan in a more favourable light than his actions would permit, given Trevelyan's knowledge of conditions at the time.

Quote used by her from Colm Tobín
"In 1966 the state celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Rising with enormous gusto, with marches in which schools took part and rousing speeches and an emotional television series called Insurrection, broadcast nightly. But once the North broke and the IRA campaign recommenced, the state's attitude changed. 'In an act of astonishing political opportunism, O'Loughlin wrote, '1916 was revised. By 1976, and the 60th celebrations, a different tune was being played. For people of my generation, who were and are, in an important sense, neither Republican nor non-Republican, this was a lesson they would never forget. To see history so swiftly rewritten was to realise that what was called history was in fact a facade behind which politicians manoeuvred for power.'. ."

Or this from a Famine conference introduction
"Kinealy, for example, concludes her 1997 work with a chapter entitled „A Policy of Extermination‟ referring to the genocidal interpretation of the Irish Famine"

Lots more where that came from
As far as Teribus's claim that he is still waiting for a reply on the fires - try here
Date: 18 May 16 - 08:26 PM
19 May 16 - 08:01 AM
more examples above.

"Almost 500 people were killed in the Easter Rising. About 54% were civilians, 30% were British military and police, and 16% were Irish rebels. More than 2,600 were wounded. Many of the civilians were killed as a result of the British using artillery and heavy machine guns, or mistaking civilians for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire in a crowded city. The shelling and the fires it caused left parts of inner city Dublin in ruins."
Wiki
And again
Many of the civilians were killed as a result of the British using artillery and heavy machine guns, or mistaking civilians for rebels. Others were caught in the crossfire in a crowded city. The shelling and the fires it caused left parts of inner city Dublin in ruins."
(ibid)
Any sign of that prooof of hatred yet Keith - no - ah well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:44 PM

You have either misunderstood or deliberately distorted your quote - both are probable

I have done neither. Here is the proof of your dishonesty.
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

You have yet to describe the form in which the hatred of the Irish takes - and you won't.

Yes I have.
04 Jun 16 - 01:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 01:58 PM

Still struggling to make this into a Famine thread then Jim.

And it was you and Raggy who were so sensitive about getting names right if I remember correctly.

Care to explain the point in your repeated Wiki cut'n'paste Jim?

The fires started at around 20:30hrs on the evening of the 24th April 1916. There were no British troops in the area and there were no British guns in the area - there were only two groups of people present in the area of Sackville Street at that time on that day, the Irish Volunteers and the civilian looters. So come on Sherlock tell who could not have possibly started those fires - the people you claimed did.

The fires burned unchecked for 40 hours before any artillery fire was directed at Sackville Street. Now in a built up area during those 40 hours are the fires going to get worse and build or are they just going to fizzle out - James would appear to favour the latter, common sense screams that the opposite would be the case - but logic, reasoning and common sense are not tools in Jim Carroll's armoury.

I have no doubt whatsoever that artillery fire did cause fires, but it did not start the fires that burned on Sackville Street and that is what Jim Carroll originally claimed, not just artillery but Heavy Artillery at that, i.e. weapons that were not even present in Ireland at that time - Just how wrong can you get it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 10:40 PM

Could the fires have been caused by .303 tracer ammunition fired from Vickers Heavy Machine Guns? The UK started using .303 tracer in 1915, and those machine guns were in use in Dublin in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 02:57 AM

Don't think so Rapparee, here are the details related to the mention of first use of machine guns during the Easter Week Rising:

From RTE Chronology of the Rising.

Remembering and taking note of the fact that the fires in Sackville Street started around 20:30hrs in the evening of the 24th April, 1916

Tuesday, 25 April, 1916

• 02.15 – Capt. Elliotson and an army machine gun group of 100 men secure Shelbourne Hotel which offers them military control of St Stephen's Green.

• 03.20 – Troops take control of Royal Services Club on St Stephen's Green.

• 03.45 – Brigadier Lowe arrives at Kingsbridge with remainder of 25th Reserve Infantry Brigade and takes personal control of British forces.

• 05.30 – Intense gunfire around Stephen's Green under fire with high numbers of rebel casualties.

• 08.00 – British forces take control of City Hall having re-captured the roof. All rebels remaining in the building are taken prisoner.

• 08.30 – Under heavy fire the Citizen Army force at St Stephen's Green take the decision to abandon their exposed positions in the Green and take up new positions in the Royal College of Surgeons. They take to the roof and begin exchanging fire with British forces. Four rebels are confirmed killed in the Green.

Maximum range of that ammunition was only 350 yards by which time the "tracer" material would have burned itself out. As the crow flies the distance from the Shelbourne Hotel to Sackville Street is more than 1,250 metres.

The geography is also wrong for any fire from the British gunners positions firing into Stephens Green for any stray rounds to land in Sackville Street. From the Shelbourne Hotel which lies on the North side of Stephens Green the gunners would be shooting to the South (Stephens Green) and to the West (College of Surgeons) - Sackville Street was located on the North side of the Liffey.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 03:46 AM

You have had my description of how Kineally assess Irish history to which you responded "It is shite"
You have just been given her assessment of Britain's culpability in the outcome of the Famine, on which you based your arguments in supporting Britain - she not only blamesd Britain but she suggests that it might have been deliberate genocide.
Her assesment of how history has been manipulated to protect for political reasons rather than blame Britain for The famine is brilliant, yett you still claim her as a supporter of your suggestion that Irish children were brainwashed - utterly grotesque.   
"Some Irish must inevitably hate Britain if they believe all the lies fed to them as children.
Professor Richardson did. In her case it was manifested as a desire to join IRA.
There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it.
And that is your summing up of the result of generations of brainwashing - one out of context statement from someone who wants to give a platform to wants to give a platform to Islamists in Britain and a plea of 'I refuse to comment on the grounds that it may incriminate me'.
I asked for proof that Irish people hate Britain - you claim to have given it saying "There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it.
How utterly stupid can you get.
Terribus - one again you give technical descriptions that you refuse to link to documented facts - you are inventing these 'facts to make a case that has been totally disproved by eye-witness accounts

The Shelling of Dublin City Centre
Eye witness account from 'The Scrap' Gene Kerrigan.
"The shelling of Dublin city centre continued through Thursday. Unable to do their job, the Dublin Fire Brigade watched helplessly as the flames spread. Around 7.30pm, the outsize DBC building collapsed into Sackville Street - a terrible noise, a vast mass of falling bricks and debris, the impact shaking the whole street. Colossal clouds of dust and smoke rose into the sky. Watching from the Imperial Hotel.
Having consumed the Hibernian Bank, flames continued moving north along the block. Hoyte's, a chemist's premises equipped with barrels of turpentine and methylated spirits, caught fire and the whole building went up. Barrels of chemicals exploded, some of them landing on the roof of the Imperial Hotel.
The immense conflagration at Hoyte's took the fire to the end of that block, with just the narrow lane of Sackville Place separating it from the block dominated by Clerys department store and the Imperial Hotel.
The flames crept along the barricade at the top of Sackville Place - the barricade through which Frank Henderson and his F Company comrades had passed when they arrived in the city centre on Tuesday evening. The fire soon reached the building on the other side of the lane and began to crawl up the window frame. Clerys and the Imperial Hotel would be next.
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.
Besides drenching the Volunteers, the direct hit on the water tank had deprived the Imperial garrison of water to fight fires.
A shell hit the roof of the Metropole Hotel."
Your time line gives the looters starting fires at the beginning of the week - apparently those 'looters fires' were still blazing away at the end of the week despite being fought by firefighters until a British shell destroyed the water supply - what exactly were the looters using-flame throwers?
Your description describes dedicated arsonist supporters of the rebellion, not what history has described them to be, the poorest citizens of the poorest City in Europe taking the opportunity of a diverting rebellion to help themselves to a little schmutter.
They were looters - not arsonists.
Have you ever seen the length of Sackville/O'Connell Street and the height of its buildings?
Somewhat pathetic, even for you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 03:58 AM

"Still struggling to make this into a Famine thread then Jim."
Still avoiding Britain's culpability that brought about this rebellion Terribus - and still using tyops in sead of honest arguments - I never use typos being the poor typist I am.
s I said - the looters fires were never disputed - they were got under control fairly quickly - the entire street was virtually destroyed throughout the week by British artillery a few looters could not possibly have done.
As you can see from THIS , the looter's fires occurred during the first two days
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:01 AM

You have had my description of how Kineally assess Irish history to which you responded "It is shite"

It is shite because we have her own actual words.
What is your "decription" worth compared to the original?
Shite!

I asked for proof that Irish people hate Britain -

I have never claimed that significant numbers do.
You faked quotes to claim that I had.
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:19 AM

"It is shite because we have her own actual words."
Yes we do - and you are ignoring them as I have just quoted them
"Kineally"
"I have never claimed that significant numbers do."
I suggest that "generations" are significant enough.
You said you have produced evidence - you lied - you refused to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 04:52 AM

I suggest that "generations" are significant enough.

What did I say about generations?
I said that generations of Irish schoolchildren had been subjected to indoctrination in their schools, and substantiated that assertion by quoting three Irish historians who state that to be the case.

You assert that they are all wrong, but can not substantiate it with anything.

"It is shite because we have her own actual words."
Yes we do - and you are ignoring them as I have just quoted them

She says exactly what I quoted her as saying, and in exactly that context.
Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 05:06 AM

"Your time line gives the looters starting fires at the beginning of the week - apparently those 'looters fires' were still blazing away at the end of the week despite being fought by firefighters"

When were those fires fought Jim - Dublin Fire Brigade log book has them being called out at 23:39hrs on the 24th April 1916 for a fire in the Trueform Shoe Company premises in Sackville Street appliances sent but all returned by 00:30hrs on the morning of the 25th April 1916 - they never actually got to the fire.

Dublin Fire Brigade's first call out for a fire came at 3;58pm on the 24th April, 1916 to a fire at the Magazine Fort Phoenix Park. They never made it there and the Fire Appliance returned at 4:06pm because of a barricade at the Church Street Bridge where the Officer in charge of the Irish Volunteers refused to let the Fire Brigade past.

Still missing the point though Jim - you stated that the fires in Sackville Street were started by the British Army using heavy artillery - I have pointed it out to you that according to research carried out by RTE and Boston College and now confirmed by the logbook of the Dublin Fire Brigade that the first fires to be started and reported in Sackville Street could not possibly have been started by the British Army for two very good reasons:

1: No British troops present in Sackville Street at the time the fires were reported.

2: No Artillery at all in Dublin at the time the fires started.

3: No heavy artillery was ever deployed in Dublin in 1916.

Now just to get this cleared up once and for all are you going to retract your statement about the fires in Sackville Street being started by British Artillery? Or are you going to persist in your "myth" - to any sporting types here on Mudcat, my money is on the latter, Jim never lets fact get in the way of a good story.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 06:08 AM

Dublin Fire Brigade's first call out for a fire came at 3;58pm on the 24th April,
I introduced the looters to this discussion, I have never claimed that their fires were started by the artillery – that is a red herring
The looters fires were brought under control on the second day – those cased by artillery and devastated Dublin blazed throughout the week – which was the point of your accusing the fires to have been caused by the looters "not the artillery"
1: No British troops present in Sackville Street at the time the fires were reported.
Who said they were – red herring?

2: No Artillery at all in Dublin at the time the fires started.
Who said they were – red herring?

3: No heavy artillery was ever deployed in Dublin in 1916.
You claim there wasn't (without proof – I am not it the position to prove there was, but eye-witness reports (provided) say there was.
The fires that devastated Dublin were cause by artillery fire –n not by the rebels, as you claimed
As you never attempt to prove your claims, I know who I believe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 07:35 AM

Question for you Teribus. You state there was no artillery in Dublin when the fires started. What do you call the weapon on the ship, what do you call the weapon that was taken off the ship and given to the Sherwood Foresters.

Just asking like, , I,m still up ladder just having a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 09:48 AM

Ah Raggy you cannot be bothered to research stuff and look it up yourself.

From any internet article relating to HMY Helga you will get the following information:

HMY Helga was based out of Dún Laoghaire and on the night of the 25th of April, 1916, the Helga was ordered up the Liffey and to shell Liberty Hall with her 12 pounder gun.

From RTE Chronology of Events:
20.15 – British gun yacht, the HMY Helga has entered the Liffey and fired (2 shells) at Boland's Mills damaging the upper storeys.

The following morning on the 26th April 1916 the same source has HMY Helga shelling Liberty Hall between 08:30hrs and 12:00hrs when 24 shells were fired.

The 12 pounder gun on Helga was then assigned targets in Sackville street at which she fired 14 shells after which Helga played no further part in the proceedings apart from unshipping and landing a 1 pounder gun for use ashore by the Army.

If I remember correctly it was the discrepancy concerning the dates that blew your "Volunteers" artillery duel hogwash to bits.

So unless you can come up with some factual evidence to the contrary I will stand by my statement at the time the first fires were started in Sackville Street on the evening of the 24th April 1916 the British had no artillery in Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 09:50 AM

It was a slingshot, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 11:01 AM

Extracted from the online Irish Times chronology for April 26 (my emphasis):

09.36hrs - Both British troops in the Gresham Hotel in Sackville Street and Volunteers in the GPO have been engaged in a ferocious sniper battle for several hours. Shouts claiming kills have been heard from the windows of both buildings. The huge walls of the majestic buildings lining Dublin's main street resound continuously to rifle-cracks. Gun smoke hangs in the morning air. The crash of artillery is almost constant and echoes thunderously through the streets.

11.23hrs - Sackville Street a fully-fledged warzone! Stephen's Green may be peaceful right now, but Sackville Street is anything but tranquil. It is now a war-zone like any other. From the south side of the river machine guns are raking the street. Incendiary bullets are setting fire to the few remaining unburnt shop canopies while concrete is gouged from walls. Glass is shattering everywhere. Casualties are mounting on both sides from unrelenting sniper fire. The battle is escalating.

14.40hrs - Sackville Street now resembles Western Front! Sackville Street is under artillery fire from D'Olier Street. Kelly's Fishing Tackle Shop on Batchelor's walk is being pummelled with shrapnel shells and Vickers machine gun bullets. The British have set up a heavy machine gun position in Purcell's Shop at the tip of Westmoreland Street's junction with D'Olier Street. Sackville Street is being saturated with bullets. It appears that Sackville Street is being softened up for an assault.

15.20hrs - Lower Sackville Street is still under unrelenting fire from both artillery and machine gun. The sniper fire from the southern quays and Trinity College is lethal. Sparks are flying from the O'Connell monument. It appears that sharpshooters may be using the monument to range their guns. The Hibernian Bank at Lower Abbey Street's junction is under vicious fire from the Ballast Office on Aston Quay.

Also the gunboat HMY Helga mounted a 12 pounder gun which fired into Dublin. A one pounder was dismounted from the boat, mounted on a cart, and used as a mobile artillery piece. There is one online report that the Helga and the one pounder engaged in and artillery duel between themselves.

Briefly, the Cartridge S.A.Tracer SPK .303 inch Mark VII.T, which was formally approved in June, 1916, carried a tracer "light" for about 800 yards. Whether or not the cartridges were available on an emergency basis to the troops heading for Dublin I haven't been able to determine, but I suspect that they were given plenty of whatever was available.

Speaking from personal experience as a combat Infantryman, I can assure everyone that bullets and bits of hot, flying, metal of any sort can act in manners of which the manufacturer or the military would hardly approve. These things do not care where they go, whether or not they perform to specifications, or where, when, or in whom they land. Fires can also start by sparks caused by any number of sources, including escaping gas.

I don't think the causes of the fires that swept parts of Dublin can be definitely lain at the feet of any one group. There are now, a century later, still too many variables and there always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 16 - 02:20 PM

Thanks Rapparee, interesting article, none of which alters a single thing that I have said - the fires started in Sackville Street on the 24th April, 1916 {Emphasis my own} were not started as the result of British artillery fire.

"Also the gunboat HMY Helga mounted a 12 pounder gun which fired into Dublin. A one pounder was dismounted from the boat, mounted on a cart, and used as a mobile artillery piece. There is one online report that the Helga and the one pounder engaged in and artillery duel between themselves."

The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread. If that appears in the Irish Times Chronology then that alone would cast doubts on the rest of it.

the fact that the rebels took up positions in Sackville Street makes it a legitimate target and one that must accept the reality of urban warfare - which is the attacker will not put their troops needlessly in harms way and if that means massive support fire to reduce that risk then that is what will happen - you as an ex-combat infantryman should know that.

I don't think the causes of the fires that swept parts of Dublin can be definitely lain at the feet of any one group.

Those fires that started on the evening of the 24th April most certainly can be attributed to the activities on one group. And if you wish to strip away all the dressing and posturing there was only one group responsible for the destruction of the centre of Dublin and for all the deaths - that was a very small group of unelected men, who represented nobody, who decided to take up the gun on the 4th September 1914. What they were supposed to be fighting for was a united independent Ireland, because of their efforts and because of their example, they are further away from that goal today than they were the day before they took their decision 102 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:20 AM

Sorry folks - I was pleased when others began to join in this melee but now this feller has appeared to have painted it into a corner with his claims that the looters (armed with their flame-throwers, presumably) were the cause of mass destruction of Dublin city centre.
That seems a reasonable argument Sackville Street, Henry Street, Abbey Street and Moore Street were made up of small wooden huts and a box of matches can do a hell of a lot of damage, after all.
This ia a summary of the Weapons used during Easter week so it's fairly obvious that our boys in khaki were really up against it.
Perhaps it's time to move on - this really is treading stagnant water, the actual (not imagined and wishfully invented-on-the spot) facts are all up for grabs and, given the fact that this is the centenary of this event of this historic and world-changing event, lots more new facts are emerging every day, certainly here in Ireland, where every week brings yet another television documentary, another newspaper or radio documentary another newspaper or magazine supplement - and yet another well-researched researched book or lecture or exhibition.
I really don't expect a couple of long-live-the- Empirists to accept this event for what it was, as they've proved in past arguments, it's not their thing.   
I don't think I have ever come across a display of unremitting and persistent hatred against one national group ever before, on this Forum or anywhere, unless you count The Famine, where we saw a similar display by the same two people - says what needs to be said, as far as I'm concerned.
The Famine argument has been dredged up once again with totally false claims, to prove that the Irish hate Britain - surprisingly they don't, considering the history of the relationship.
The fact that the Irish don't hate Britain is beyond question; the only manifestation of hatred in these islands has been between two sections of the British nation - the republic in general standing aside and letting them at it - of course you had some supporting and sympathising - bound to happen seeing someone, somewhere had drawn a line across Ireland.
I find it utterly despicable that someone should invent a hatred that does not exist and they are not prepared to identify (and then, equally dishonestly, claim that they had) - first "I did give examples." then "There is a wide spectrum of ways in which hate can be manifested, and I am not getting in to it."
That dishonesty has played a prominent part in this argument - first we were given, Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.",
then
"hate the British" is not a phrase I have used in this discussion.
That dishonesty and invention is are forms of extreme hatred in themselves.
No serious historian has ever suggested that the people of Ireland have been "brainwashed" through their education system to hate Britain - nowhere - that is pure invention.
Keith's witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite, arguing that Irish educationalists bent over backwards to avoid the question of blame because it was politically expedient to do so - she based an entire work on that avoidance.
She argued that Irish history came in three distinct phases: the 'Free State Period which, when, in the fresh atmosphere of freedom, there were just "heroes and villains" and no substance (the Romantic Period).
1932 and the Republican Government brought a change, whereby history became totally uncritical and refused to apportion blame, largely due to the fact that Ireland was reliant on Britain accepting Irish emigrants, so they didn't wish to 'bite the had that fed them', so to speak (The Revisionist Period).
In this period there was little serious discussion on Ireland's long-running dispute over Independence (only one major work on Ireland's greatest disaster - by an Englishwoman).
From 1962 onwards, Irish education began to examine it's history in more depth, but still avoided blame (enlightened revisionism) - She might have added the (new enlightenment period) following the 150th anniversary of The Famine, when historians began to point fingers and apportion real blame - she was one of those who argued that Britain was not only responsible for fatally mishandling the Famine, but that there was a possibility that is was used as a deliberate ploy to solve 'the Irish Question'.
Keith (of course) used her in defence of his argument that Britain was in no way to blame for the depopulation of Ireland - "She says what I say about the dispute".
Now we're back to her supporting his case here, though he has admited that he has read nothing and is not interested in doing so.
No doubt he will continue to do so (quore her and refuse to read anything, that is)
The stark facts of this are - the Irish have not been "brainwashed to hate Britain, though they have every reason to do so - it is patently untrue that "generations of school children have ever been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive" - that is pure invention on Keith's part.
There was certainly reason to hate - firm evidence is now available that Britain did engineer the outcome of the Famine - I think I'd hate an Imperial administration that killed off, evicted and forcibly emigrated millions of my descendants, in fact I do, but I reserve that hatred for those at the top, not the people as a whole
It's about time that this display of race hatred is put a stop to - we really should be able to discuss serious matters without it.
Let's move on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:30 AM

"The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread."
Where and by whom - you have denied it and produced nothing to back up that delian - so it is an invention of your, certainly not "explosive" proof, and it is an ongoing sign of your arrogance that you should claim it to be.
That the looters set fire has never been denied - you have claim the looters and the rebels to have caused the destruction - not true and not possible
The fires that destroyed Dublin were the result of artillery fire - that is undeniable
Stop creating smokescreens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:31 AM

"The report of the artillery duel is a complete and utter myth - one that has been well and truly exploded earlier on this thread."
Where and by whom - you have denied it and produced nothing to back up that claim - so it is an invention of your, certainly not "explosive" proof, and it is an ongoing sign of your arrogance that you should claim it to be.
That the looters set fire has never been denied - you have claim the looters and the rebels to have caused the destruction - not true and not possible
The fires that destroyed Dublin were the result of artillery fire - that is undeniable
Stop creating smokescreens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:53 AM

Tracer rounds from a machine gun are a spectacular site, and in April 1916 no-one would ever have seen such a thing before.

They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used.

Jim, the "artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail.
Helga's log reported no incoming fire.
The one pound shells fired over the buildings would land far beyond the Liffey.
One pound shells could not raise fountains of spray that "drenched the crew."
And much else.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

""artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail. "
No it wasn't - if so, where was it?
It has been denied by Teribus certainly - he has denied every fact that doesn't fit his and your jingoist agenda.
He hasn't produced proof - made up military statistics aren't proof.
If you want to "debunk" it, produce evidence, not denials.
Dublin City was destroyed by the British troops using artillery among other things - they were the only ones who were equipped to carry out such destruction.
The Helga is a smokescreen - it lobbed shells indiscriminately over buildings in order to help subdue the uprising - that's what it was there for.
It helped destroy the area surrounding Sackville/O'Connell Street, no matter what it's claimed restrictions - it is not a feature here - you are attempting to set it up as yet another 'straw man' - it was the artillery that did the major damage - there is no dispute of that fact.
I see yo have adopted your mate's arrogant little habit of presenting personal opinions as undisputed facts
I take it we're now finished with you hate-filled "brainwashing" nonsense (for the time being anyway)
No doubt it will raise its ugly head again when the oportunity arises for you to do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 09:16 AM

and in April 1916 no-one would ever have seen such a thing before.

HUNH??

They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used.

HUNH ??

Would have, cound have, might have, should have & etc.- from the steel-trap mind of out professional Mudcat Historian, The Professor.

Gimmie shelter.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 10:11 AM

"They would have been mentioned in eye witness reports had they been used."
I noticed from Thursday there were many tracer bullets used by the British and a constant shower of such bullets hit the Nelson Pillar. The front or the G.P.O. received very little rifle fire. From the time that the buildings on the opposite side of O'Connell Street went on fire we ceased to fear any frontal attack.
STATEMENT BY WITNESS DOCUMENT NO. W.S. 242
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 12:22 PM

As an Infantryman I greatly appreciate my artillery support and will use it whenever needed. I do not appreciate yours, so just stop doing that!

Explosives used in any urban setting cause destruction, whether they are 12 pounder or 175mm shells, hand grenades, mortars, or anything else.

.303 tracer was in use by the British since 1914 and given the number of Irish who had already served in The War it's unlikely it would have been considered remarkable; I'm certain that troops at the front would have mentioned it in letters home. Besides (and trust me on this!) you really don't notice too much what sort of bullets are coming at you when YOU are the target and you're not under cover.

Frankly, I don't really give a hoot who set the fires. They existed, and this business of assigning blame a century later ranks with Daesh never forgetting how Richard massacred the Saracens at Acre in 1191.

Learn from the Past and get on with life!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 02:34 PM

.303 tracer was in use by the British since 1914

No it was not.
"The British invented tracer
bullets—bullets which gave off small amounts of flammable material that left a
phosphorescent trail. The first attempt, in 1915, wasn't actually that useful,
as the trail was not straight and limited to 100 meters, but the second tracer
model developed in 1916, emitted a regular bright"
https://infogr.am/harashvivek_1393537750

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Jim Carroll - 08 Jun 16 - 05:18 AM

"artillery duel" nonsense was debunked in minute detail."

No it wasn't - if so, where was it?

It most certainly was Jim Carroll, but I will go through the process again if you like:

This supposed "artillery duel" witnessed by some unnamed "volunteer" who somehow managed to see both guns and gun crews and the fall of shot stated that this took place on the 27th April 1916.

Now considering that the man was probably under fire and doing what he was supposed to be doing to free Ireland from 7/800 years of English/British oppression the above would be impossible to do in the centre of a city. Raggytash put this up previously from the joemulveney website.

The only other thing that tends to throw a spanner in the works for taking this at face value is the recorded fact that HMY Helga entered the Liffey on the evening of the 25th April 1916 and at 20:15 that evening put two shells into the upper floors of Boland's Mill. The following morning (26th April 1916) HMY Helga opened fire on direct line of sight and fired 24 Shells into Liberty Hall starting at 08:30hrs. The bombardment finished at around mid-day. HMY Helga was then assigned targets in Sackville Street and she fired 14 shells at those. Thereafter she did not fire another shot.

So if Helga did not fire after the 26th April 1916 - care to tell us all how she could have possibly taken part in an artillery duel on the 27th??? Just asking like.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 03:40 PM

"No it wasn't - if so, where was it?"
Was it what - Keith said it was debiunked - I said it was one of your ususal unqualified makkie ups - how do you prove a negative - you prove it wqsn't made up.
"but I will go through the process again if you like:
"
Not with unqualified statements you won't - you make up things all the time and expect us to take them at face value.
As far as I'm concerned, with yor track record you'd have to produce evidence if you told us it was Tuesday
You link nothing because you invent everything - was never impressed but you've really blown it with your behaviuour here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:12 PM

Must remember in future to just agree with everything Rapparee says.

Of course it is important to correct inaccurate and misleading information. According to some contributing to this thread the fires were started by British Artillery fire - plain fact of the matter was that they weren't - Why can I say that with absolute certainty? There was no British Artillery in Dublin at the time the fires were started and there were no British troops in Sackville Street at the time the fires started. But please do ignore evidence if you like, if you prefer to believe "myths" rather than the truth dig out.

One other thing from the Irish Times witness account - take a good look at pictures of Sackville Street pre-1916 - identify any buildings made of concrete.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 04:54 PM

"Must remember in future to just agree with everything Rapparee says"
Why not youi expect the rest of us to agree with everything you say?
You mut think we're all as big gobshites as you?
"Of course it is important to correct inaccurate and misleading information."
Or as pompous
"But please do ignore evidence if you like, "
You've dismissed every piece of verified and documented evidence as "Irrelevant" or "made up Carroll shite".
You really are up your own arse a long way, aren't you?
s I said, why the **** should we believe anything you say - you arse arrogant enough never to corroborate anything
Sheesh!!!
"! identify any buildings made of concrete."
Wha....!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:01 PM

Incidentally
The favourite form of Victorian architecture throughout Dublin for large buildings was concrete-rendered pseudo-Grecian; the Rotunda, the GPO, several theatres and hospitals - Dublin was, and still is, full of them
Are you completely mad to expect us to accept your denial and reject The Irish Times?
Did you have to widen the doors of your house when you moved in?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 05:28 PM

You really are astoundingly arrogant
Throughout this argument you have offered not a shred of proof of anything you say - nothing.
You reject documented and identified evidence fro historians, from journalists, from some of the massive amount of research that is being carried out at present, from contemporary eye-witness accounts.... if it disagrees with your claims it is automatically wrong.
Now you are claiming something that anybody who is the slightest familiar with Dublin knows to be wrong.
And you expect people who have been subjected to your barrage of arrogance to still accept your claims over published information
What are you on and who's your dealer - we could all do with some of that!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 16 - 06:32 PM

"Throughout this argument you have offered not a shred of proof of anything you say - nothing."

Shall I list the proof that I have submitted:

1: Curragh Incident - The text of the telegram sent by Sir Arthur Paget to the War Office on the 20th March 1914 - detailed the extent of resignations from the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade. That evidence to counter your claims that:
(a) The Army would refuse orders to move against the UVF
(b) That half the Army threatened to resign
(c) That the Army could not be relied upon

In actual fact all orders given were obey and carried out to the letter without so much as one seconds delay.

2: You stated that the Home Rule Bill 1914 was kicked out and defeated by the Tories and the House of Lords - I posted direct links to the actual Government of Ireland Act 1914 that detailed far from having been defeated it received Royal Assent and passed into Law on the 18th September 1914.

3: You claimed that the Government of Ireland Act 1914 was altered after it had received Royal Assent. I posted direct links to the actual Government of Ireland Act 1914 that showed that at no time at all after receiving Royal Assent was the Act amended in any way between 1914 and 1920 when the Act was repealed and replaced by the Government of Ireland Act 1920.

4: You claimed that the IRB did not collude with the Germans in order to mount their armed insurrection. I posted links and detailed sources from websites detailing the history of the IRB and Irish Volunteers that showed the opposite.

5: You claimed that the Irish Volunteers did not split - yet the link you provided STATEMENT BY WITNESS DOCUMENT NO. W.S. 242 clearly states that it did - to the extent that out of a Company of 130 men when given the choice which faction to side with (Redmond-ite Constitutional Nationalists or Pearse-ite Republican Nationalists only 7 men turned out for the Republican Nationalist muster. that was representative right across the board for the Irish Volunteer Force that numbered roughly 180,000 men (92.5% of them backed Redmond - only 7.5% of them backed Pearse). To support this I quoted and provided sources from the History of the Irish Volunteers.

6: You claimed that the armed rising was backed by the people of Ireland - Both Keith A and myself supplied links, quotations and sources that showed your contention to be complete and utter nonsense. So massive was the popular support for this armed rising that the seven men who planned it kept it secret from the Executive Council of the Irish Volunteers and from the Supreme Council of the IRB - It was kept secret because those plotting this armed uprising knew that their own leaders would have stopped it in its tracks, which is what they did their utmost to do. So great was the support that only 0.04% of the population turned out for it - 1,500 out of a population of 3.1 million.

7: Artillery being the cause of the fires in Sackville Street - I think that we have conclusively shown that fires were started in Sackville Street at least 40 hours before artillery engaged any target in Sackville Street

8: Who was responsible for the destruction and loss of life? You do not have to be a genius to work out that had there not been an armed rising then none of what happened would have occurred.

9: You stated that the unionists were guaranteed permanent partition in July 1916 by Lloyd George - I supplied sources and quotations that detail that what was guaranteed was that Ulster Unionists would not be forced into any union against their will and links were provided to the Abandoned Amending Bill of 1914 which mentioned the time limited temporary exclusion for Ulster for a six year period and the Unionists agreement to this and also the details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that offered the same time limited temporary exclusion - That proves that at no time at all did the British Government offer the Unionists permanent partition - you were asked to provide evidence that they had - you failed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:21 AM

A few more:

10: You stated that the threat of conscription played a significant role in the rising. Yet it was pointed out to you:

(a) That the decision to mount a rising was taken by the IRB at a meeting held on the 4th September 1914 (Source: History of the IRB)

(b) That when Great Britain declared war on Germany in August 1914 conscription did not exist.

(c) That when conscription was considered it specifically excluded all males who did not reside in Great Britain (Source: Military Service Act 1916) from which the relevant passages were quoted and reference made to the Act itself, all of which you could have checked. The Military Service Bill was introduced in the Commons in January 1916 and passed into Law to become the Military Service Act 1916 on 1st March 1916. As planning for the rising had already been in train since the 4th September 1914 conscription could have played no part at all in it. The Derby Scheme that was used to test if conscription was necessary did not extend to Ireland so any rational thought process would have indicated that neither would conscription when the Derby Scheme showed that conscription was necessary.

What happened AFTER the rising can have no bearing at all on what excuses were used to justify the material destruction and loss of life in Dublin that Easter.

11: You stated that those Court Martialled and executed were not guilty of treason, and that they were not charged with treason. I provided links to the Treason Act and pointed out to you, providing direct quotes from the text, that they were charged with offences under the provisions of the Treason Act.

12: You claimed that the Courts Martial were illegal - I pointed out that under Martial Law declared on the 25th April 1916 they were perfectly legal in accordance with the Army Act 1914, Military Law and under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act 1914.

The contention that in time of war you can form armed companies of uniformed men, declare yourselves to be an Army of an independent State and declare yourselves to be allied to an enemy state and at war with Great Britain then when it all crumbles and fails plead that you should tried as ordinary citizens before civilian criminal courts is bizarre to say the least. Waging war is not a game, it never has been. 3,509 people were arrested in the aftermath of the rising, around 1,800 were imprisoned, 90 were sentenced to death of whom 15 were executed and 75 had their sentences commuted to penal servitude for five years, all being released after about a year under a general amnesty.

Mistakes made? Yes instead of executing the leaders they should have been publicly disgraced, their disloyalty to their own men should have been demonstrated, their deceit exposed. Those imprisoned should have been held until after conclusion of hostilities with Germany.

13: You claimed that the rising had no effect on Unionist views. Both Keith A and myself provided links, sources and quotations that showed when agreement in principle was reached by both Unionists under Carson and Nationalists under Redmond was reached - we even gave you the date (8th July, 1914). Links and quotations supplied by yourself, combined with the above (You cannot just shrug and pretend it didn't happen because it did, it is a matter of record, the 1914 Home Rule Bill could not have been passed without it happening) demonstrate the following:

(a) Agreement in principle reached 8th July 1914 regarding a six year temporary exclusion from direct rule from Dublin for Ulster.

(b) Easter Rising 24th to 29th April, 1916

(c) "Crucial Meeting" of the Ulster Unionist Movement in May or June 1916 which resulted in

(d) Demand for permanent partition on 19th July 1916.

There was only ONE THING that happened of any consequence in Ireland between the 8th July 1914 and the 19th July 1916 that could in any way have influenced a shift in attitude between Unionist and Nationalist camps - the Rising - to state anything else would be ludicrous. The rising undoubtedly hardened attitudes on both sides and more or less guaranteed that Ireland would be partitioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:36 AM

Been there
You have proved nothing, you have offered nothing in dispute on any of these things other than your own uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements and you have attempted to create smokescreens and set up 'straw dogs' to act as a diversion to you having to respond to the real facts..
A typical example is your clinging on to your 'artillery' lifebelt - nobody has disputed that the looters' fires were started before the artillery was used - you didn't "prove conclusively" when the fires were started - I, in fact, introduced the question of the looting and I went on to point out that these fires were brought under control and that the main confligration that followed was caused by the artillery and it was this which devastated Sackvill Street and Dublin City Centre.
All this was brought about by your claim that it was rebel action that brought about the destruction and not that of the troops - those are the facts that you have attempted to cover with your smokescreen.
To claim that you "have provided links" to anything is utterly ludicrous - one of the most distinguishing features of your entire contribution is that you never provide links to anything you have said and have consistently and often pointedly ignored requests to do so
I had a quick shufti through some of our past clashes before I settled down in front of Lewis last night - this has been your practice with all your contributions to this forum, almost without exception, as has been your arrogantly talking down to those who disagree with you.
You grab a handful of 'facts' and statistics out of the air, present them as gospel and arrogantly expect them to be accepted without question - you seldom, if ever produce links to what you say.
Fair play to Keith - he is noted for his scrabbling around to find something to fit his preconceived notions, inaccurate, out of context and invariably misunderstood as they usually are.
You, somewhat lazily, rely on your bluff and bullshit being accepted at face value.
You have dismissed out of hand as "nonsense" or "made up Carroll shite" or "irrelevant", documented and linked information from clearly identified serious works of history and have offered nothing resembling serious research in return - nothing!
I don't think I have ever experienced such an unpleasant crusade by two people who appear to be living in a world of flying Union Jacks and glorious battles that was created in the heads of writers like A. G. Henty, Alfred Lord Tennyson and Charles Mackay - a sort of 'Teribus in Keith's Adventures in Imperial-Land'.
Your ignorance of Ireland, its history, its people has often proved spectacular - your latest "no mortar in Sackville Street" was classic - Dublin was full or mortar-rendered buildings at the time.
You have attempted to present a picture of a rebellion that was unnecessary - it wasn't, and the political machinations of British politicians in forcing through a partition which created a repressively sectarian state has proved that beyond a shadow of doubt.
You claim the men who gave their lives to set in motion the cause of Irish freedom from Empire were selfish and dishonest - they were neither - no group of revolutionaries widely announce their plans in advance - they confine them to 'need-to know'.
As for selfish - their aims were as noble as it comes - not for personal gain but for nationhood after centuries of oppressive rule by a power that had excelled itself a little over half a century earlier by depopulating Ireland and carrying out what nowadays would be recognised and mass-genocide - still referred to as Ireland's Holocaust.
You gloated that the rebellion was a failure - it most certainly wasn't - it turned the apathy of the Irish people into a revolutionary fervour which eventually set the dominoes falling through the entire Empire.
Britain's legacy to Ireland was a divided nation, permanent emigration and an economy that only began to right itself at the end of the 20th century - like many of Britain's former subjects, Ireland is still feeling the evil effects of Imperial rule.
One of the features of your squalid behaviour here has been to attempt to smear revolutions as German Spies and sexual perverts - the age-old sick dirty-tricks method of defusing and denigrating opposition to despotism.
Keith has mounted a campaign to prove the Irish a bitter, hate-filled people, when, as anybody knows who has had anything to do with them, they are exactly the opposite - even if you had never met an Irishman, Keith's dishonest refusal to provide one single shred of evidence of that hatred ,(having claimed several times that he had and actually having refused to do so) speaks for itself
You have both set out to show that Irish people as gullibly-stupid, "brainwashed by propaganda" and ignorant of their own history - as far from the truth as you could possibly get.
Neither of you have made anything that resembles a case yet you, in your ignorance and arrogance have dragged this into yet another epic - just as you did with the Famine, and Homs and the W.W.1. bloodbath - a behavioural pattern or what!!
I don't think I have ever met a case of anybody being so obviously, dishonestly wrong about anything, and proven to be so by factual evidence - an achievement of sorts, I suppose.
Breakfast calls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:25 AM


Keith has mounted a campaign to prove the Irish a bitter, hate-filled people, ...Keith's dishonest refusal to provide one single shred of evidence of that hatred

I never claimed that there was any significant hatred.
You faked quotes to claim that I had.
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:44 AM

You have proved nothing, you have offered nothing in dispute on any of these things other than your own uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements and you have attempted to create smokescreens and set up 'straw dogs' to act as a diversion to you having to respond to the real facts..

Good heavens Jim, I'd no idea that prior to my birth that I had written the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and got it through Parliament and had it enacted into law.

Similarly with the following pieces of legislation passed by Parliament:

Parliament Act 1911
Army Act 1914
Defence of the Realm Act 1914
Military Service Act 1916
Government of Ireland Act 1920
Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921

So the above and the stated provisions therein are just "uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements"!!!

A question Jim do you EVER preview your posts and read the complete and utter crap that you write?

Had there been no rising there would have been no destruction or loss of life - that statement is true and blindingly obvious - the rising was brought about by SEVEN MEN who didn't even have the backing of their own organisations and who represented nobody but themselves. They couldn't even agree amongst themselves what form their united independent Ireland would take their views being so disparate.

You grab a handful of 'facts' and statistics out of the air, present them as gospel and arrogantly expect them to be accepted without question - you seldom, if ever produce links to what you say.
Fair play to Keith - he is noted for his scrabbling around to find something to fit his preconceived notions, inaccurate, out of context and invariably misunderstood as they usually are.

The facts are generally facts as are the statistics, not once have you been able to refute them.

They and the arguments I present are not presented as gospel, but are presented to refute ludicrous statements made by yourself and your pals and they are presented for you to refute by countering with what you think are the correct facts and statistics.

Keith A by and large does the same and guess what Jim, to date not one single example have you been able to come up with that disputes what either of us has said.

"your latest "no mortar in Sackville Street" was classic"

Yes Jim it is "classic" yet another example of more Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - I think that if you scroll down to my post you will find that what I asked Rapparee to show me was where the CONCRETE was as that was the word used in the Irish Times witness statement he quoted.

Logic, reasoning, common sense and attention to detail are all sadly lacking in your posts, what they are heavily laced with is emotive claptrap founded on ill-informed, biased fiction and a totally subjective view on history.

On the 6th December 1922 The Irish Free State Constitution Act enacted by the British Government brought into being a 32 county United Independent Ireland.

On the 7th December 1922 six counties of that United Independent Ireland exercised their right of self-determination and opted out, deciding themselves to remain as part of the United Kingdom to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Their right to self-determination having been accepted and acknowledged by all signatories to the Anglo-Irish Treaty. So pray tell how did Great Britain who handed over 32 counties force through Partition. But of course you do not believe in right of self-determination for all do you? You believe that people should be coerced into political and economic unions against their will by force of arms.

C'mon Jim tell us all about how the UK forced the Republic of Ireland to drop its illegal constitutional territorial claim to Northern Ireland in 1998. Oh hang about that came to pass because of the result of a referendum where the actual wishes and desires of the Irish people were established - does that register Mr Carroll? The will of the people not the wishes of some little clique within a clique of a clique of delusional Republicans whose answer to the clearly stated desire of the Irish people was the Omagh bombing - just what on earth do you think they were thinking of, wouldn't your magnificent seven have been so proud of the way they'd followed in their footsteps.

"Evidence" you don't know the meaning of the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:24 AM

"I never claimed that there was any significant hatred."
Sigh........
Yes you did Keith you have claimed generations of schoolchildren have been brainwashed to hate us
Your exact words - yet again
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
The key words in your statement are "brainwashed", "generations" and "keep hate alive"
That may not be significant to you - it obviously isn't, but it is a disgusting racist smear to the people I respect
"You faked quotes to claim that I had."
Have I faked that?
I have faked nothing - and such an accusation is outrageous coming from somebody who has deliberately lied about what they said, has been caught out in that lie and is now attempting to wriggle out of what they actually said.
You really need to pay attention to the basic rules of bog-snorkeling - when you find yourself up to your neck in shit, keep your mouth shut and stop wriggling.
I do not lie - I do not make things up - as I have said, with you pair, I don't have to, you do my work for me.
Your contempt for the Irish, their knowledge of their own history, their independence and the ability to think for themselves is palpable in your claims of their having been tricked and brainwashed into fighting for independence.
Your willingness to lie and distort to substantiate those claims has now spread over at least three, long, ungainly threads.
You have picked 'historians' who have claimed the opposite, you have distorted facts and you have insultingly dismissed the arguments of Irish people who have had the temerity to disagree with by describing their arguments as having been "based on propaganda not fact."
Who do you people think you are - you're certainly not scholars - you have admitted being neither knowledgeable nor interested - who are you intellectual supermen?
You leave a sour taste in the mouth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:29 AM

More lies by teh way Keith
"I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
Your statement was that it had kept hate alive - "keeping hate alive." - once again, exact words.
You are totally inacpable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, even when it's in front of you in black and white.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 08:31 AM

I never claimed that there was any significant hatred.
You faked quotes to claim that I had. ("hate the British"and "to hate us British"
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."
You have found nothing anywhere that contradicts those views.

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
Why else would they be "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda" and "nationalist myths?"
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:53 AM

Finished with this Keith - you have nailed your own bigoted colours to your mast far too often to make it necessary.
Rearrange this into a well--known phrase or saying - "ON HUNG MY PETARD OWN"
Gone - for now - try the 'Bog Snorkelling rule book.
Jim Carroll
By the way – no historian anywhere has ever used the term "brainwashing" or have claimed that there was any attempt to make children hate Britain, nor have they ever claimed that what was taught in schools was historically incorrect.
Kineally suggested in her attacks on revisionism that what was taught in schools was incomplete and unbalanced in order not to implicate Britain or to upset the emigrant's applecart at a time when many thousands f the m were crossing the Irish Sea – the diametric opposite to your own claims.
Of course, you have ben given this in her own words and choose to ignore it in order to save face, which is what this is now about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:10 AM

Well Jim I don't know about schoolchildren but it sure as hell worked with you as you sat there reading fictional accounts of Oirish history and seethed with anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:56 AM

"reading fictional accounts of Oirish history and seethed with anger."
Got me there Teribus - you arguments and evidence have totally overwhelmed me!!
Pathetic even for you
KEITH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:09 AM

By the way – no historian anywhere has ever used the term "brainwashing" or have claimed that there was any attempt to make children hate Britain, nor have they ever claimed that what was taught in schools was historically incorrect.

Yes they have.
Indoctrinating is synonymous with brainwashing.
O'Callaghan stated that children were "indoctrinated" with"anti-British propaganda."
Kineally stated that "nationalist myths" were taught.
Myths are not "historically correct" Jim.

Indoctrinating children to believe that Britain was to blame for much of Ireland's problems will tend to make them dislike Britain.
It did with Prof. Richardson.

You are a good example of someone who believes all those nationalist myths and anti-British propaganda. (Not from your own schooling, but maybe passed on from family members.)
We all know that you hate Britain, but not all Britons.
Only those of us who point out that your beliefs are myths and propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:48 PM

Two threads you are lying on simultaneously now
Where is there any ebvidence of "brainwashing" - indoctrination certainly does not mean the same - definition "to teach a person or group to accept ideas uncritically - all education does that.
Where is there any indication that what is being taught is wrong or untrue - nowhere.
As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to pre-1932 education that out mythical romanticism - not to hate.
Show anybody who claims that education was slanted at brainwashing kids to hate Britain.
"You are a good example of someone who believes all those nationalist myths and anti-British propaganda."'I've proved every single point I made on te famine thread - you proved nothing and you have been given those dteails above
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM
All of those statements are now fully accepted facts - every one.
You have totally disgraced yourself here and proved nothing.
Now - which facts of mine are nationalist myths exactly - take your time?
I have produces full documented proof of what I claimn - you have yet to produce any
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:52 PM

And for the record
I received my education in an English Secondary Modern Protestant school
Stupid boy!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 02:33 PM

Jim, I said it did not come from your schooling.

Where is there any ebvidence of "brainwashing" - indoctrination certainly does not mean the same

This thesaurus gives them as synonyms, which is also my view but if you prefer, withdraw "brainwashed" and insert "indoctrinated."
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/indoctrinate

As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to pre-1932 education that out mythical romanticism - not to hate.

Not true. You have only asserted it, not shown it.

As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to post-1932 education as involving the teaching nationalists myths as history.

Show anybody who claims that education was slanted at brainwashing kids to hate Britain.

I did show somebody, the eminent Irish historian O'Callaghan, who stated that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."
What effect might that have on impressionable young minds Jim?
It made Prof. Richardson want to join IRA until she learned the truth.

'I've proved every single point I made on te famine thread

I proved the only point I made on the famine thread.
That historians disagreed on Britain being to blame, and most did not believe Britain to be culpable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Where has any of your historians ever said that lies were told to school children?
None ever have.
Kineally specified what she means by myths - making heroes of John Mitchel and Wolfe Tone without putongt their actions into context - they are her 'myths'
Wat was taught in school was fact - Kineally criticises it for not apportioning blame - which she now does as the critic of her review pointed out.
Kineally is one who blames Britain for the famine and devotes an entire chapter to whether it was a deliberate act.
"It made Prof. Richardson want to join IRA until she learned the truth."
Richardson says no such thing - she said she nearly joind the IRA afetr she ws taught - she never said that what was taught was a lie.
Nowhere is there any claim that what was being taught was untrue - another thing you have made up - the critiscism was that the reasons for what happened wee avoided for political reasons.
This is all totally a product of your sick mind
You said that Irish peole were taught to hate - that is not true
You claim that Irish people hate Britain - that is not true
You have now desperately backpeddaled - first claiming that I made it up, now claiming that generations doesn't mean a significant number.
The only "eminent historian I can find named O'Callahan is an Irish blogger – but there again, anybody who appears to back your claims are "eminent" - you're gong to have to enlighten me on that one
If anything incited the Irish to hate Britain it is the 600 years on British rule, not indoctrination
If I was taught about Cromwell's massacres or Dunlavin Green or the massacre of the camp followers after Vinegar Hill or the genocide of the famine or two two 'Bloody Sunday massacres (Croke Park and Derry) or the mass murder of the Easter Week leaders, or the lies about Home Rule or the attempts to involve Ireland in an Imperial War or the half-century ill treatment of the Catholics of the six counties afer rigged elections, or the beating up of Civil Rights Marchers or internment without trial or the death of ten hunger strikers.... and all the other atrocities committed against Ireland, I would hate Britain -
None of these are lies or exaggerations and they are still being revealed.
It transpires that, when the British Courts locked up the Birmingham Six for seventeen years, the judiciary were fully aware of who did the bombings - English MP, Chis Mullen exposed him in his book 'Error of Judgement' or the Diplock Courts or the rigged enquiry into Derry's Bloody Sunnday.
Now, it transpires, the police were aware of the bombings in advance and could have stopped them
This week it has been announced that an investigation is taking place into the murder of six Catholics watching a football match in a bar in Northern Ireland by two Protestant terrorist gunmen - it is claimed that British security forces were involved - they knew the killers and they knew they were armed and did nothing.
I'll be honest with you, I am not a violent man by any means - I pride myself on that, but if you said some of the things you have claimed on threads like this to my face, I would be very likely to punch you - people like you inspire hatred.
I'm surprised that the Irish don't hare people like you
Yu have behan]ved towards Muslims in exactly the same way as you have the Irish - I really can't see why you have been allows to remain a member of this forum, behaving the way you do.
Now - where has anybody ever said that the Irish education system produced hatred in Irish children by telling lies?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:22 PM

Jim Carroll - 09 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Start taking more water with whatever you are drinking Jim.

Otherwise, typical Carroll incoherent rant.

"It made Prof. Richardson say she wanted to join IRA until she learned the truth." - is a more correct way of putting what Professor Richardson said.

Richardson says no such thing - she said she nearly joind the IRA afetr she was taught - she never said that what was taught was a lie.

Jim I think the hint that it was a lie is that bit where she said "until she learned the truth".

Kinealy (Still can't get the name of this favourite Irish Historian of yours right JOM) makes many errors of omission, she details correctly that the bulk of the population drop came about through emigration then makes the mistake of lumping together 1 million dead and makes no attempt to differentiate between those who died from diseases that at the time were incurable (And would remain so for another thirty years) and those who died from lack of food. He history is flawed in as much as she concentrates of what should have been done and not what actually happened at Government level. She does not concern herself with detail, unfortunately those actually dealing with the disaster had to Kinealy simply skips over it and so have you Jim.

Drop in population during Woodham Smiths "Great Hunger" from 8.5 million down to about just over 6 million (Drop of about 31.5%) Drop in population in the previous Great Famine in 1740-41 was 38% - that was the one where they say everyone was saved and disaster averted because they banned the shipment of grain out of Ireland (Another "myth") Here is what actually was banned:

"A government official, the Duke of Devonshire, in an unprecedented move on 19 January 1740, prohibited export of grain out of Ireland to any destination except Britain".

But in 1845 to 1849 it was only the potato harvest that failed not once but three times.

In 1740 to 1741 it was the potato harvest and cereal crops that failed simultaneously in conjunction with an extremely severe winter

In both cases disease was the main cause of death, NOT starvation. And the problems that presented themselves in both was the same - lack of infrastructure to transport, store and distribute food to where those who needed it were - Kinealy doesn't even touch on it. You see those are practical problems, the detail below Government level and Kinealy isn't very good on detail.

But Jim mentioned Cromwell, but of course it wasn't just Cromwell was it and it was during this period that the population dropped by not 31.5%, not 38% but by 41% this percentage caused by war, famine and disease where both sides employed scorched earth tactics to deny their respective enemies food, forage and support. But all this was par for the course in these times as demonstrated by what was happening over in Europe the Thirty years War was coming to an end. An event "classified as the last of the European wars of religion. It was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in European history, resulting in 8 million civilian deaths from famine and disease.

Critics of Kinealy's work say her forte is in the policy of handling disasters yet even with all the machinery, equipment, communications, support and awareness in 1985 in Ethiopia ~500,000 died the world in 1983-1985 could not save them, in the mid-1600s, mid-1700s and mid-1800s it all must have been that bit more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:52 AM

You quoted from one of O'Callaghan's books yourself Jim.
Kineally said that in the 30s, academics tried and failed to get true history taught in Irish schools.
Richardson said her views changed when she learned true history at university, and said that many without that opportunity went on to join IRA as she had wanted to.

Off line for a few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

"the mass murder of the Easter Week leaders"

Really Jim? Don't really know about the others but Patrick Pearse, Tom Clarke, Thomas MacDonagh and James Connelly knew they were dead the second they decided to go ahead with the rising - they set it up to fail, and they lied to their men and deliberately put them into the field to die - the other leaders knew they were dead the second their names went on that Proclamation.

The leaders of the Easter Week Rising charged under the provisions of the Treason Act had absolutely no defence in law because they undoubtedly had taken up arms against the King and waged war against him in time of war. And all reference to perceived ills and aspirations as viewed by those men you could list till the cows came home, all that is just window dressing, it would not alter the fact that they had indisputably done what they had done and that was what they were charged with and no-one in their right mind was going to allow them to be given a soap box to air their views in a country that was engaged in a life and death struggle against an extremely powerful foe that these man had colluded with. If you scream and shout about Great Britain being an evil Imperial power then you have no right at all to complain or be surprised when she acts in what you perceive to be an evil imperial manner.

3,509 Arrested, about half of whom were released almost immediately;
1,836 Were imprisoned, all released after a year by general amnesty;
90 Convicted and sentenced to death, 75 of them have their sentences commuted to penal servitude and they became part of the 1,836 detailed above;
15 men executed;
66 Volunteers killed in action.

So out of 1,836 who took up arms against the King just under 5% died - That could have been a lot worse.

The population of Dublin was something in the order of about 310,000 people in 1916 and the death toll was 485. Of that number 260 were civilians who the Leaders of the rising deliberately put at risk by staging their armed insurrection in the middle of their city. That means that between the dates given in the thread title 0.08% of the civilian population of Dublin were killed and something like 0.7% were wounded - That too could have been a great deal worse, indeed should have been if all those claims of indiscriminate artillery and machine gun fire are to be given any credence. I wonder how many of them were the 1,000+ inmates of the Mendicity Institute who ranked as the weakest and most vulnerable in the city, who Sean Heuston just turfed out to fend for themselves, or the 3,000+ civilians, patients and charity cases, nurses and doctors who found themselves trapped inside the South Dublin Union when everything kicked off with no opportunity to get clear. Then there were the civilian residents of Moore Street who the Volunteers gave no chance to flee before they entered their homes and took up positions for their last ditch action.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

""It made Prof. Richardson say she wanted to join IRA until she learned the truth." "
Professor Richardson is one person out of - how many - her politics is hardly one you would steer a boat by - she wishes to give Islamists an opportunity to put their case in Britain - is that somebody you would by a used car from?
You have taken one statement from this person that suits your case to prove something that does not exist.
The claim is that Irish children were taught to hate Britain through feeding children lies - no serious researcher has ever suggested that this was ever the case,
Keith's other star witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite, that Irish history was manipulated to avoid blaming Britain because it was politically expedient for Ireland to do so at a time of continuing emigration.
Neither of you have ventured to suggest exactly what "lies" were told - Keith has absolved himself from doing so by saying he knows nothing of Irish schools - would you like to give it a try - I very much doubt it?
Keith first constructed his argument around Kineally "someone who knows more than the rest of us put together" or some such words, on his basic misunderstanding of the term "revisionist" - now he is reduced to a deliberate misinterpretation of one single phrase.
As well as being an expert on the Famine, her field covers how history was taught - she based an entire book on the subject.
Keith works on soundbites - you don't even bother with that, you rely on people believing your own pronouncements, which nobody ever has really - you have always been an oddball with little support on this forum - your aggressive contempt for those you argue with has made sure of that, as has your extremist right-wing point of view. "Start taking more water with whatever you are drinking Jim." "Otherwise, typical Carroll" incoherent rant."do you really believe that's how an adult should behave - how old are you?
I joked about "pecking order" but it seems it was near enough to the truth to hit a raw spot - whatever you might know on these subjects is wiped out by your aggressive unpleasant manner of talking down to people - your latest offering has reverted you right back to your old insecure insulting behaviour.
Keith's other argument has been that the teaching of Irish history has led the Irish people to hate Britain - he has been forced to frantically back-pedal from that as he has been totally unable to identify any hatred, so he now - all of a sudden - never said that the Irish people hate Britain - a somewhat stupid claim in the face of his own statement.
Keith's now serial dishonesty which has now gone viral, rules him out of any discussion as far as I|'m concerned.
You're own behavior, particularly your refusal to back up your opinion with documented and identified facts, more or less rules you out and your sneery, insecure manner makes any contact extremely unpleasant.
Your ignorance of Irish history is, to say the least, spectacular, and your contempt for the Irish and their understanding and respect for their culture and history is distasteful - your level of argument on this matter is that of a B.N.P. ignoramous.
You want to continue arguing - fine - the subject interests me, but you are going to have to start behaving like an adult if you want to discuss with me - otherwise - go and talk to Keith - you're pretty well matched.
I have no intention of reopening The Famine farce again with you - you refused to address the salient points of the subject last time and I doubt if you want to relive that embarrassment again, so all we can look forward to would be more blustering and abusive haranguing - not interested.
The fact, as I understand them, can be found here 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM - you want to discuss them then do so with documented and identified facts of your own and if you manage do do so without the accompanied abusive arrogance, then maybe we'll discuss it - otherwise, take your unpleasant abuse elsewhere.
I've read what Kineally says and I know what her critics say - I also know that the last twenty years has brought a landslide of fresh study and information which has placed her at the forefront of the subject - that's the type of information you pick up from actually reading the subject rather than carefully selecting convenient snippets from the net.
You entire argument here has been reminiscent of Conservative Unionism - aggressive, bully-boy bluster, which would have given the Irish every reason to hate Britain, had they been inclined.
Let's see if you can manage to put a lid on it and produce some real, verified facts instead of insulting invective.
Give it a try - Keith's out, as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting that you should start contradicting Kineally though - do you want to be struck down by one of Keith's lightning-bolts?Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 05:00 AM

"The claim is that Irish children were taught to hate Britain through feeding children lies"

No Jim that is not "The claim" as you put it, that is the claim as you perceive it. Go back and look at what was actually said.

"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."

Culture of "blame" - "heroes" and "villains" - it most certainly does keep hatred alive - worked for you didn't it Jim. Had you looked at that documentary about the IRA's border campaign of 1956 to 1962 you would have heard the reasons what brought the "volunteers" to join the IRA - you'll soon find out that Louise Richardson was not alone.

There again you never did get back on whether or not it can be considered acceptable for a government to dictate what history is taught and what slant to put on it. But that is what the government did in Irish schools after independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:24 AM

Keith's other argument has been that the teaching of Irish history has led the Irish people to hate Britain

Nope that was your take on what has been said. Certainly it probably contributed to causing some Irish people to hate Britain enough to plant bombs that killed innocent Irish and British civilians - or are you going to try and tell us that that never happened - just like you tried to tell us that there were no cross border campaigns?

Tell us all what you thought was going through the minds of those who planted the Omagh Bomb - a free united Ireland? - unfortunately the cost the "men of the gun" demand comes at far too high a price. But I forgot Jim you are all for coercing people by force of arms.

I have no intention of reopening The Famine farce again with you

Care to explain then why you continually make reference to it and try to drift the thread? There is a very good reason that you don't want to open a Famine thread of your own - your ignorance and lack of knowledge there would be demonstrated as clearly as it has been here and on numerous WWI threads.

As for facts and statistics and detail nobody, not even you, has to-date countered them or corrected them. Wonder why not? I mean if they were just "invented" proving them false would be easy wouldn't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:27 AM

"No Jim that is not ""
Yes it is.
My family were brought up under the Irish education system so I know from personal experience exactly how it worked
There is no evidence that the Irish hate Britain - Keith has failed to come up with any.
Any hatred comes from British citizens and is based around how the Six Counties administration behaved, nothing to do with education.
Kineally accused the system of ignoring the question of blame - she specifically blames Britain for he famine outcome and goes   - the "Heroes and villians" refers to the limitations of Irish education in teaching events rather than why those events occurred.
It's utterly ridicullous to claim that Irish education deliberately caused anybody to consider join the IRA.
All Irish schools until relatively recently, were largely owned and run by the Catholic Church who opposed Easter Week, opposed the IRA and excommunicated Catholics who were active members
Lets face it, unless you can show otherwise by disputing my list, Britain was culpable for the outcome of the Famine - the only question is whether British policy was deliberately adopted to solve 'The Irish Question' which now appears likely.
If teaching that in schools generates hatred, so be it - it would be wrong not to do so.
I was taught about the Nazi Holocaust in schools - I have no doubt that it generated some hatred against the German people - we have sit-coms to prove it did.
Wsa teaching that subject brainwashing British children to keep hatred alive through the generations - or was it just teaching history?
Up to 1995 no blame was ever apportioned in Irelan - Kineally's point - that is why the Famine has been virtually ignored as a subject for over a century, latterly in order to keep the road to Britain freely open to Irish emigrants.
Immediately after independence Irish schools taught the unvarnished facts, without explanation, just "heroes and villains" - the facts were never altered, but up to 1932, no attempt was made to explain them.
Following the setting up of The Irish Republican State, Irish history was manipulated in favour of Britain, apportioning no blame whatever.
That lasted to the early 60s when more meat began to be put on the skeleton.
The total change, where the Famine was examined minutely, didn't happen until 1997 - that was when the finger was pointed.
If the Irish education system distorted what was taught to kids - how was it distorted and why did it not produce wholesale hatred for Britain throughout Ireland - there is no evidence that it ever did - all the violence came from British Ireland
The Border camopaign is a total red-herring - that is traceble back to the growing unrest in the North - it was at that time that my uncle, aunt and their family were burned out of Derry and forced to flee to Dublin because of the increasing Unionist bigotry - the period is excellently documented in the Thames Television history of 'The Troubles'.
It is never acceptable for any Government to dictate the teaching of history - having been educated in the post Empire era in Britain, I know what an effect it can have on the understanding off the subject, where we were brought up to salute the flag, stand for the Queen and believe that the Empire was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You have, as far as I can see, an accurate account of how Irish histort was taught in Irish schools (can't remember it ever being taiught in English schools) and the reasons for why it was manipulated, certainly not to engender hatred, in fact the opposite.
If yo have any different account, please give it rather pointing at undigested facts and the words of a somewhat eccentric academic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:40 AM

"Certainly it probably contributed to causing some Irish"
Nope - his claim was that it engendered hatred for generations and he did not backtrack on it until I insisted that he produced proof of that hatred
Don;t go spoiling your efforts to get your act together - leave Keith's serial dishonest out of it.
" facts and statistics"
Not sure what " facts and statistics" yoiu are talking about - I've given you the reaso why The Famine was never properly examined - the same applies to Easter Week, which was similarly neglected for political reasons
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:11 PM

Finally finished the decorating !!!


Still receiving generousity, hospitality,kindness, offers of all kinds of help, loads of Guinness when we,ve been singing, the people really appreciate the musicians here.

No change from my previous experience in truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:24 PM

"No change from my previous experience in truth."
Not really - but you didn't expect there to be did you?
Hope you has as good a spell of weather as we did in the next county.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 01:12 PM

Great weather for relaxing ........................ not conjucive when stuck up a ladder with a brush and a roller. Bet I,ve lost a stone this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 01:16 PM

"Bet I,ve lost a stone this week."
Have you looked carefully for it ?
Awkward going round with one stone; you know what happened to Hitler and Goebells!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:50 AM

no serious researcher has ever suggested that this was ever the case,
I have quoted three historians who state unequivocally that it was.
You have produced nothing, because there is nothing for you to produce.

Keith's other star witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite,

She said exactly what I said, and I linked to the History Ireland article of hers where she said it.

Neither of you have ventured to suggest exactly what "lies" were told -

According to Kineally "nationalist myths" were taught instead of history, and according to O'Callaghan the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."

so he now - all of a sudden - never said that the Irish people hate Britain -

I never have said that, and it is a lie to say that I have.
I have always found them warm and welcoming.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:26 AM

No she didn't Keith - you first misinterpred what she said, now you are just making it up.
I examined in some detail another invention of yours yesterday - that of Prof Richardson.
The Prof. certainly did attend a convent school in Ireland where she was taught to respect Irish Republican history.
She later attended a Protestent College (Trinity) where she was taught the other side of the argument (not both sides) - she describes both influences as "two diametically opposed views.
She made her choice on consideration of those views - the current violence that was taking place at the time being a deciding factor.
However - she was not conned into thinking about joining the IRA because of her Catholic "brainwashing" as you invented.
She said she was incensed when she read about The Bloody Sunday Massacre and intended to go to Newry to join the protests there - she was prevented from doing so by her mother, who locked her in her room.
Her nearest contact with and only consideration of joining the I.R.A, was during her time in Protestant Trinity when she was invited to join the Republican Clubs there - she didn't, but she attended meetings.
Your "brainwash thing was as much invented as was your Kineally claims.
"I never have said that, and it is a lie to say that I have."
You have refused to specify which hatred was brainwashed into the Irish children, so none exists - simple as that.
You have now suggested - not identified that some must (not does) exist.
You started out saying that hatred of Britain has been passed on through generations of brainwashing - that as far as I'm concerned, is a complete U-turn.
Take care on those roads now!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 10:34 AM

No she didn't Keith - you first misinterpred what she said, now you are just making it up.

Yes she did, and here she is saying it.
Before you claim "out of context," here is the link to the whole piece.http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

"Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994)."

"...nationalist myths...Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms "

However - she was not conned into thinking about joining the IRA because of her Catholic "brainwashing" as you invented.

She said she would have joined IRA "in a heartbeat" before university opened her eyes to the truth.
She said that many who did not have the same opportunity WERE led to join.

You have refused to specify which hatred was brainwashed into the Irish children, so none exists - simple as that.

False logic Jim.
The effect on children of "indoctrination" with "anti-British propaganda" is bound to produce anti-British feelings in many if not most of them.
Do you deny that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 11:53 AM

""Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994).""
That is teaching Irish history Keith and all those people were and remain national heroes and their contribution to Ireland is undisputed anywhere - unlike the British heroes like Cecil Rhodes who we were "brainwashed to admire in our schools" who are now being exposed as mercenary thugs.
If you think that anybody claims that teaching Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse if "brainwashing" - you really are off your head - I'm attending a launch of a book on the contribution of Thomas Davis to Irish history later this year - the annual RTE lectures are actually entitled the THOMAS DAVIS LECTURES
You really are round the twist.
They were not teaching lies - they were telling it as it was.
Kineally's critiscism was that it was taught without explanation.
Irish Free State 1922-35'
"1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'"
Which is exactly what I said, to which you responded "Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite."
Education changed at the end of the Free State and blame was removed from any teaching - that is what you have just confirmed with your quote.
Irishe children were never at any time taught to hate Britain - not ever - factual history did that.
Kids were taught to admire the heroes certainly - because they were heroes - but that is a million miles away from being brainwashed to hate.
You are now back to claiming that the Irish did hate Britain " is bound to produce anti-British feelings in many if not most of them."
Thought you'd denied saying that - obviously not?
"Do you deny that Jim?"
Of course I ***** deny it and will do so until you produce one single example of that hatred - you have refused to do so - you are making it up.
And you continue to lie about Richardson - to save face no doubt
There are two filmed interviews with her on the web and sever written essays - her subject is terrorism
On each, she links her contact with the IRA to Bloody Sunday.
Her "learning the truth" is basically that she accepted the Protestant version rather than the catholic one.
Truth only becomes truth when it is proven beyond dispute - or apparently, when you pair decide it is.
You have no supporters to your claims of truth.
Her "truth" is no more true than yours and as she is the only one you have been able to come up with during this argument - I know where my money goes.
You will find among her internet stuff that her 'Road to Damascus' conversion led to her views being rejected both by colleagues and friends, making her in the minority too.
You still attempt to maintain an argument long after it has been ripped to shreds - you still have no self-respect
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:40 PM

They were not teaching lies - they were telling it as it was

"Nationalists myths are not the truth.
If taught as history they are lies.


"1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'"
Which is exactly what I said, to which you responded "Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite."

She went on to say that it never happened.
"this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms "
The schools ignored them and carried on with their "distortions."

I do not lie. I quoted exactly what was said on the programme, with a link.

The effect on children of "indoctrination" with "anti-British propaganda" is bound to produce anti-British feelings in many if not most of them.
How can you deny that obvious fact Jim?
That you do shows how closed you mind is to the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 01:26 PM

Incidentally
This is the mythology that was taught in Irish Schools - nothing to do with teaching to hate anybody, rather it is exactly the opposite.
"The first annual report of the Department of Education highlighted the fact that the central educational aim of the Free State was 'the strengthening of the national fibre by giving the language, music, history and tradition of Ireland their natural place in the life of Irish schools'.25 Policy makers intended history to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past held by many Irish revolutionaries. Pearse, for example, idealised education in pagan and early Christian Ireland and argued that its character could be revived through an education of 'adequate inspiration'.26 He believed that 'a heroic tale is more essentially a factor in education than a proposition in Euclid ... what Ireland wants beyond all...is a new birth of the heroic spirit'.27"
It comes directly from one of your above references
HOLOHAN
You will not find a reference to "brainwashing children to hate", or distorting or lying or anything resembling any of these things.
Neither will you find anything in the works of Kineally though she uses this book extensively.
It points out how, after gaining independence Ireland began to imbue children to understand Ireland and no longer being a subject of Britain but an independent nation - 'The Harp without the Crown' or 'Ourselves Alone' (the literal traslation of 'Sinn Fein')
You are the only one to have suggested children were taught to hate - you have never produced a single quote of anybody making such a disgusting claim.
I hadn't realised Holohan's book is on line - I've just read it - it's extremely easy to access and understand, though I doubt if you will overcome your "disinterest" in order to do so.
On the basis of nothing that ersembles evidence you will continue to describe Ireland as a gullible, brainwashed nation - which makes yo the racist you are.
This is all yourown work not Kineally's, not Holohan's, not even Richardson's - all yours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:52 PM

"This is the mythology that was taught in Irish Schools - nothing to do with teaching to hate anybody, rather it is exactly the opposite.
"The first annual report of the Department of Education highlighted the fact that the central educational aim of the Free State was 'the strengthening of the national fibre by giving the language, music, history and tradition of Ireland their natural place in the life of Irish schools'.25 Policy makers intended history to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past held by many Irish revolutionaries. Pearse, for example, idealised education in pagan and early Christian Ireland and argued that its character could be revived through an education of 'adequate inspiration'.26 He believed that 'a heroic tale is more essentially a factor in education than a proposition in Euclid ... what Ireland wants beyond all...is a new birth of the heroic spirit'.27"

i.e. The new Free State Government wanted and deliberately directed that instead of history they had to teach school children in the Irish Free State bullshit. By the way is this the same Pearse character who wanted one of the German Crown Princes to become King of Ireland after Germany won the First World War?

They {The Government of the newly independent Ireland} wanted "to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past held by many Irish revolutionaries." - In other words indoctrination = "brainwashing" a load of complete and utter codswallop - If you are going to teach history then teach F*****G History not some complete and utter prat's romantic notion of what he thought things were like.

"You will not find a reference to "brainwashing children to hate", or distorting or lying or anything resembling any of these things."

Oh no? Mr Carroll just WTF do you think the following means "to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past There is History pure and simple there is no such thing as romantic history and if you teach something as "history" that is "unhistorical" then you are filling the minds of children with bullshit, which is wrong. But there again the crowd who put this train wreck on the tracks somehow had to justify why under their direction Irishmen had been killing Irishmen for Irish independence for the best part of two years and they still ended up with a partitioned island because a large number of Irishmen wanted no part of their "revolutionary dream".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 02:45 AM

MGM·Lion was right - and I was wrong - this thread did run and run.
I hung on because it was an opportunity to discuss a subject I am interested in and it also proved to be an example of the very worst of British rule of Ireland down the centuries distilled into two people who, whenever criicism of the British Empire has raised its ugly head, have been first on the rostrum to defend it, The Famine, WW1, Irish Independence...... these boys where there, fighting to defend the glories of the Empire
In Keith's case, Britain's continuing rule of Ireland has also been a subject worth defending, even to the point of accusing Northern Irish children of being the cause of three nights of sectarian rioting - I don't know if there is a word for hatred of Irish children - depicting them as sectarian rioters and brainwashed small humans - Eirokinderphobia maybe, but if has been displayed to the full her
The only "hate that has been proven here has been the hate of two people for the Irish nation - gullible, ignorant of their history, unworthy of independence, historically duped by foreigners for fighting for independence, guilty of a non-specified hatred, and now sneered at for not being able to throw off British rule completely - not nice people (and I don't mean the Irish).
The history of England's relationship with Ireland has been of oppression, exploration and mass-murder by the richest and most powerful Empire the world has ever seen - echoes of that Empire has resonated throughout this argument as it did with similaar arguments about present-day sectarianism and The Famine.
The only hatred proved here has been that of two people against an nation which remains, in my personal experience, peaceful, friendly and extraordinarily welcoming to strangers - I defy either of these two to prove otherwise, as neither of them have ben able to show a single shred of evidence that the Irish were "brainwashed to hate, they will not show the Irish to be other thna I have described,
I thought it might be worth finishing this often distressing (for me - obviously they have reveled in their hatred in everything Irish) argument with some of the historical quotes that have marked British rule of Ireland - this pair can proudly take their place in that history.
Then I am gone
Jim Carroll

Anti-Irish quotes throughout history
Politics.ie
They live on beasts only, and live like beasts. They have not progressed at all from the habits of pastoral living. ..This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. Of all peoples it is the least instructed in the rudiments of the faith. They do not yet pay tithes or first fruits or contract marriages. They do not avoid incest.
- Giraldus Cambrensis/Gerald of Wales, The History and Topography of Ireland, 12th Century

How godly a deed it is to overthrow so wicked a race the world may judge: for my part I think there cannot be a greater sacrifice to God.
- Edward Barkley, describing how the forces of the Earl of Essex slaughtered the entire population of Rathlin Island, Co. Antrim, 1575

I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume [the Irish]; our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected for their overthrow.
- English Viceroy Arthur Chichester writing to Elizabeth I's chief advisor, Nov. 1601

The time hath been, when they lived like Barbarians, in woods, in bogs, and in desolate places, without politic law, or civil government, neither embracing religion, law or mutual love. That which is hateful to all the world besides is only beloved and embraced by the Irish, I mean civil wars and domestic dissensions .... the Cannibals, devourers of men's flesh, do learn to be fierce amongst themselves, but the Irish, without all respect, are even more cruel to their neighbours.
- Barnaby Rich, A New Description of Ireland, 1610

All wisdom advises us to keep this [Irish] kingdom as much subordinate and dependent on England as possible; and, holding them from manufacture of wool (which unless otherwise directed, I shall by all means discourage), and then enforcing them to fetch their cloth from England, how can they depart from us without nakedness and beggary?
- Lord Stafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in a letter to King Charles I, 1634

So ended the fairest promise that Ireland had ever known of becoming a prosperous and a happy country.
- Sir William Temple, about 1673, (the export of wool from Ireland to England was forbidden in 1660)

Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it - by heavens - squelch it.
- Thomas Carlyle, British essayist, 1840s

...being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure had been applied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence in a manner as unexpected and as unthought of as it is likely to be effectual.

The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.
-Charles Trevelyan, head of administration for famine relief, 1840s

[existing policies] will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good.
- Queen Victoria's economist, Nassau Senior

A Celt will soon be as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the red man on the banks of Manhattan.
- The Times, editorial, 1848

I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours.
- Cambridge historian Charles Kingsley, letter to his wife from Ireland, 1860

A creature manifestly between the Gorilla and the Negro is to be met with in some of the lowest districts of London and Liverpool by adventurous explorers. It comes from Ireland, whence it has contrived to migrate; it belongs in fact to a tribe of Irish savages: the lowest species of Irish Yahoo. When conversing with its kind it talks a sort of gibberish. It is, moreover, a climbing animal, and may sometimes be seen ascending a ladder laden with a hod of bricks.
-Satire entitled "The Missing Link", from the British magazine Punch, 1862

This would be a grand land if only every Irishman would kill a Negro, and be hanged for it. I find this sentiment generally approved - sometimes with the qualification that they want Irish and Negroes for servants, not being able to get any other.
- British historian Edward Freeman, writing on his return from America, about 1881

...Furious fanaticism; a love of war and disorder; a hatred for order and patient industry; no accumulative habits; restless; treacherous and uncertain: look to Ireland...
As a Saxon, I abhor all dynasties, monarchies and bayonet governments, but this latter seems to be the only one suitable for the Celtic man.
-Robert Knox, anatomist, describing his views on the "Celtic character", 1850

The Celts are not among the progressive, initiative races, but among those which supply the materials rather than the impulse of history...The Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and the Teutons are the only makers of history, the only authors of advancement. ...Subjection to a people of a higher capacity for government is of itself no misfortune; and it is to most countries the condition of their political advancement.
- British historian Lord Acton, 1862

You would not confide free representative institutions to the Hottentots [savages], for instance.
- Lord Salisbury, who opposed Home Rule for Ireland, 1886

...more like squalid apes than human beings. ...unstable as water. ...only efficient military despotism [can succeed in Ireland] ...the wild Irish understand only force.
- James Anthony Froude, Professor of history, Oxford
________________________________________
A View of the State of Ireland
Edmund Spenser (Google Books)
Marry those be the most barbaric and loathy conditions of any people (I think) under heaven...They do use all the beastly behaviour that may be, they oppress all men, they spoil as well the subject, as the enemy; they steal, they are cruel and bloody, full of revenge, and delighting in deadly execution, licentious, swearers and blasphemers, common ravishers of women, and murderers of children.[...]
And first I have to find fault with the abuse of language; that is, for the speaking of Irish among the English, which as it is unnatural that any people should love another's language more than their own, so it is very inconvenient and the cause of many other evils. ...It seemeth strange to me that the English should take more delight to speak that language than their own, whereas they should, methinks, rather take scorn to acquaint their tongues thereto. For it hath ever been the use of the conqueror to despise the language of the conquered and to force him by all means to learn his.
________________________________________
Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations
Ernest Cashmore, Michael Banton (Google Books)
The Irish emigrant experience can only be understood by recognising the dramatic impact that centuries of British colonialism has had for the Irish people. As a result of its geographical position and internal political feuds Ireland became the first English colony.[…] The native Irish were depicted as savage heathens who were "more uncivill, more uncleanly, more barbarous and more brutish in their customs and demeanours, than in any other part of the world that is known." Consequently, it was justified, through military conquest and legislation such as 1697 Penal Laws, to deprive the native population – "the uncivilised Other" – of their religious, civil, and land rights.
________________________________________
Out of Africa, out of Ireland
Rootsweb
In Black Folk Then and Now, Du Bois concurs: "Even young Irish peasants were hunted down as men hunt down game, and were forcibly put aboard ship, and sold to plantations in Barbados".
According to Peter Berresford Ellis in To Hell or Connaught, soldiers commanded by Henry Cromwell, Oliver's son, seized a thousand "Irish wenches" to sell to Barbados. Henry justified the action by saying, "Although we must use force in taking them up, it is so much for their own good and likely to be of so great an advantage to the public." He also suggested that 2,000 lrish boys of 12 to 14 years of age could be seized for the same purpose: "Who knows but it might be a means to make them Englishmen."
________________________________________
The Love of the Irish
Slate
Britain sometimes meant well in trying to govern Ireland, but the contempt felt by Englishmen towards the Irish kept surfacing. Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria's favourite Prime Minister, couldn't stand the Irish. He described the native Irish way of life as consisting of "clannish brawls and coarse idolatry". Lord Salisbury, the influential Conservative Prime Minister at the end of the 19th century, denied that the Irish could ever have self-government with this doubly racist sentiment that: "You would not confide free representative institutions to the Hottentots, for example." (Although, in a moment of sanity, he conceded that Ireland did need "lots and lots of money", which, at last, it has got.) James Anthony Froude, a discipline of Carlyle's and a professor of history at Oxford described the Irish as being "more like squalid apes than human beings" and Charles Kingsley, the author of The Water Babies, continued the primate analogy by writing from Ireland that he was "haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country". The humorous magazine Punch repeatedly, throughout the reign of Victoria, portrayed the Irish as Simian creatures, chimp-like, with long arms and the long upper lip of the monkey, and The Times' editorials excoriated the Irish at every turn for their "want of character", fecklessness, hopelessness, and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 03:55 AM

From the link supplied by Jim in his last post:

Tierney believed that the very purpose of a free Irish state would be to forge an Ireland through education that linked the Gaelic state of the past to what he envisaged as the Christian state of the future.

Unfortunately for Tierney's beliefs there never was any such thing as a Gaelic State of the past

"Raised on songs and stories. Heroes of renown" – just about sums it up. And if you have been daft enough to swallow it, then learning the actual history of the place must come as one hell of a shock.

In his academic work, MacNeill identified the basis of the Irish nation in the remote Gaelic past. He showed that the Irish nation was an ancient historical entity whose formation could be traced back to the fifth century: 'the Irish people stand singular and eminent … from the fifth century forward, as the possessors of an intense national consciousness'

Any historian whose speciality is medieval history {The study of history from the 5th to the 15th centuries} could destroy MacNeill's notions in an instant and expose them as pure fairy tales.

In 1924, the orthodox Catholic Bulletin declared that 'The Irish nation is the Gaelic nation; its language and literature is the Gaelic language; its history is the history of the Gael. All other elements have no place

In terms of teaching anybody anything that is a ludicrously myopic, isolationist and retrograde point of view on which to build a system of education. The results of which have hardly been a success – if this system has been in place for 90 years how come only somewhere between 5% and 10% of Ireland's population use it?

"In the 2011 census for the Republic, 94,000 people reported using Irish as a daily language outside of the education system, and 1.3 million reported using it at least occasionally in or out of school. There are several thousand Irish speakers in Northern Ireland. It has been estimated that the active Irish-language scene probably comprises 5 to 10 per cent of Ireland's population.{Source: Romaine, Suzanne (2008), "Irish in a Global Context", in Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín and Seán Ó Cearnaigh, A New View of the Irish Language, Dublin: Cois Life Teoranta, ISBN 978-1-901176-82-7 – Just in case Jim thought I'd made it up}

In Gaeltacht areas, however, there has been a general decline of the use of Irish. It has been predicted that, within 10 years, Irish will no longer be the primary language in any of the designated Gaeltacht areas {Source: "Ranafast Gaeltacht in Donegal fights Irish language decline – BBC News". Bbc.co.uk. 2015-08-13. Retrieved 2015-10-31.}

Wonder if non-Irish folks following this thread are aware of it but if you want any civil service or government job in the Republic you must be able to speak Gaelic. I once knocked round Lahinch golf course with an American who had employed one of the caddies, a youngster about 14 years old. Through the summer he'd been making money at the club hand over fist but he told us that all that was about to come to an end because he had to go off to summer school for intensive Gaelic instruction as that would open up more employment options for him when it came time to leave school. He thought it a complete and utter waste of time and absolutely hated the idea of doing it.
   
Milne argued that the majority of Protestants in the Irish Free State had considered themselves Irish in imperial terms. In contrast with southern Catholic nationalists, southern Protestant unionists felt deeply the pressure of political change. Many schools under Protestant management did not subscribe to the Gaelicicising policies and the historical perspective of the new state. They had to bear the rigours of a state Gaelicisation policy, or else see their schools deprived of all public funding.

The will and choice of the people Jim, or simple big state bully-boy coercion?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 04:30 AM

You are the only one to have suggested children were taught to hate - you have never produced a single quote of anybody making such a disgusting claim.

I have never made that claim.
I did claim that Irish children were indoctrinated with anti-British propaganda, keeping hate alive.
I quoted the Irish historian O'Callaghan who stated that schools "indoctrinated" children with "ant-British propaganda."

Indoctrinating children in schools with anti-British propaganda will inevitably engender a negative view of Britain in may if not most of those children.

Are you in favour of indoctrination and propaganda in schools Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 05:49 AM

"You will not find a reference to "brainwashing children to hate", or distorting or lying or anything resembling any of these things." – Challenges Jim Carrroll

He then supplies a link - HOLOHAN – from which we get the following:

1: "The perception is common among Irish teachers, politicians and historians that there were serious deficiencies and flaws in the approach to the teaching of history and in the process of curricular development. These defects are thought to have contributed to the phenomenon, as expressed by Joe Lee, that 'the modern Irish, contrary to popular impression, have little sense of history. What they have is a sense of grievance which they choose to dignify by calling it history'

Taken directly from "Teaching Irish Independence: History in Irish Schools, 1922-72", by John O'Callaghan.

2: Platitudes on the harmful effects of biased history teaching should consider that for most of the period, apart from the endeavours of the Irish Historical Studies school, academic history itself progressed little beyond an aspiration to objectivity

For developments in academic scholarship, see Theo Moody (ed.), Irish historiography 1936-71 (Dublin, 1971).

3: "I believe it is necessary to stress again the great responsibility the teachers of any nation have for the way they interpret history and pass it on to the youth of their country. I believe that if history could be taught in such a fashion that it would help to create harmony among people rather than division and hatred, it would serve this nation and all nations better."

Statement by the Coroner at the inquest into the death of Lord Mountbatten in 1979 – that glorious occasion where the bold Fennian men sallied forth against near impossible odds and successfully murdered a 79 year old man and two teenage boys, one of whom was Irish, who were out for a days fishing, four others were seriously injured, one of them Lady Doreen Brabourne aged 83 died from her injuries the following day. How proud Pearse and Connolly must have been.

This comment reflects the assumption that Irish history teaching propagated a prejudiced and potentially dangerous account of Irish history; that it presented a jingoistic version of Irish history to young people and was an underlying factor in Irish Republican Army (IRA) violence because it instilled hatred of England as an evil oppressor and glorified the militancy of the campaign for independence.

4: James Dillon, speaking in the Dáil in April 1959, felt that an interesting survey would be an enquiry into 'the places of education of the internees recently released from the Curragh Camp'. Dillon was concerned with the kind of instruction they received, where they got it and from whom. A comprehensive survey would certainly help to put allegations about the role of nationalist-motivated history teaching as a determining factor in republican violence in context.

Hey Jim numbers are building- three historians, nope four counting O'Callaghan, a Coroner and the leader of Fine Gael, all thought there was a link. But let's see how this survey got on:

The ongoing failure of the Department of Education to open its records to full public scrutiny continues to hinder research on history teaching. While history teaching has not suffered from academic neglect, much of the work in the area has been from a pedagogical rather than a historical perspective.

Now I wonder why the Department of Education would object to public scrutiny of its records relating to the teaching of history in Ireland? Ah but wait a minute Dev was still alive in 1959 wasn't he and Irish History ended at 1921, the Civil War that de Valera needlessly instigated was never taught, didn't happen according to Ruth Dudley Edwards, and she should know she sat through the lessons where the Irish Civil War was totally ignored and by-passed.

5: In his 1992 thesis, Doherty argued that the vague minimalism that characterised formal guidelines governing the teaching of history reflected the limited nature of central control over education, and facilitated a populist conception of that history. He showed that so inadequate was teachers' professional training and so vulnerable were their terms of employment to managerial and local pressure, they became actively engaged in the promulgation of socially acceptable beliefs.

Socially accepted beliefs do not amount to history.

6: However, the conception of history and history teaching as a method of restoring and renewing the Gaelic past did not consider those whose past was not a Gaelic one. The emergence of a new consensus on Irish identity meant that those who did not subscribe to it, in political, cultural or historical terms, became outsiders in the state. Roy Foster's review of the cultural revival movement was highly critical: 'the emotions focused by cultural revivalism around the turn of the century were fundamentally sectarian and even racialist'

Whoops Jim there's another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 10:33 AM

Also from Jim's link,

"At the inquest into the death of Lord Mountbatten in 1979 the (Irish)coroner
stated:
I believe it is necessary to stress again the great responsibility the teachers
of any nation have for the way they interpret history and pass it on to the
youth of their country. I believe that if history could be taught in such a
fashion that it would help to create harmony among people rather than
division and hatred, it would serve this nation and all nations better."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 01:22 PM

Somewhere back down the thread Jim Carroll was complaining about injustices heaped on the Irish up North and he specifically mentioned Diplock Courts and mass internment without trial.

But of course Great Britain did not introduce non-jury trial or mass internment to Ireland did they Jim - Your pal Eamon de Valera did that in the late 1930s - ever heard of such a thing as the Special Criminal Court? Article 38 of the Constitution of Ireland? Or the "Offences against the State Act 1939". When the IRA mounted its S-Pan bombing campaign on the British mainland in the late 1930s de Valera had IRA members rounded up and interned - guess where? - The Curragh. Later after the Second World War when the IRA mounted their cross-border campaign of 1956 to 1962 internment was introduced again as evidenced by the following:

James Dillon, speaking in the Dáil in April 1959, felt that an interesting survey would be an enquiry into 'the places of education of the internees recently released from the Curragh Camp'

Just thought that I'd put that in in case you claimed that none of this ever happened. So clear precedents set for both in Ireland when applied to internal security problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:15 AM

What is a Field General Court Martial if not a trial without a jury .................... or any defence come to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:29 AM

From another thread this contribution fro Jim Carroll:

"I've just withdrawn from a thread in which you and your mate have launched personal attacks on my friends, family my neighbours and in fact the vast majority of the occupants of this island by representing them as "brainwashed" ignorant, gullible, and misled by propaganda."

More Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit". I do not think that either Keith A or I have launched any such personal attack and besides I think it was the five historians quoted, the former Leader of Fine Gael and the Coroner who held the inquest into the death of Lord Louis Mountbatten who all linked the political meddling and interference into educational matters and the faux-history that was taught in schools in the Republic of Ireland for purely political purposes to the violence that has blighted the island since independence.

There again Jim you could always provide examples of such personal attacks - but track record would tend towards the probability that you won't.

Example 1: Of any personal attack against the friends of Jim Carroll?

Example 2: Of any personal attack against any of Jim Carroll's family?

Example 3: Of any personal attack against any of Jim Carroll's neighbours?

Example 4: Of any personal attack against the Irish nation?

Numbers 1, 2 & 3 will be impossibly difficult for Mr Carroll as I do not know any of them, can you actually make a personal attack against people you do not know, and for that matter how do you make a personal attack against the entire population of a country?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:47 AM

Ah a technical question from Raggytash, that of course he would have not had to ask if he had bothered to look it up himself.

What is a Field General Court Martial if not a trial without a jury .................... or any defence come to that.

Field General Court Martial: The Court is made up of a Judge Advocate, and between three and seven (depending on the seriousness of the offence) officers and warrant officers. Rulings on matters of law are made by the Judge Advocate alone, whilst decisions on the facts are made by a majority of the members of the court, not including the Judge Advocate, and decisions on sentence by a majority of the court, this time including the Judge Advocate.

The three to seven members of the panel fulfil the role of the Jury with the added advantage that they can ask any question they wish directly.

Non-Jury trials and mass internment were introduced as solutions to internal security problems in Ireland NOT by the British but by the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the instigation of the man who first turned the IRA loose and was instrumental in fomenting the Irish Civil War - Eamon de Valera.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 11:59 AM

yet more jingoistic double speak

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 01:27 PM

Jingoistic doublespeak??

You asked a simple question Raggy? Naturally in your usual smart-arsed, ill-informed way, you know like the point you tried to make regarding when conscription was introduced, and I answered it.

At a Court Martial the President is the Judge the other panel members fulfil the role of the Jury. Now then Raggy tell us all what is so hard to grasp about that set up.

Non-Jury trials and mass internment were not introduced in Ireland by the British in Northern Ireland. They just followed the precedent set in dealing with the IRA by Eamon de Valera and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:00 PM

So you are trying to say that a panel of army officers, colleagues of General Maxwell, could act as a jury of 12 good men and true, the peers of the accused. Just which planet do you live on.


Don,t bother to reply I already know the answer. Your hatred of anything not "BRITISH" is appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:14 PM

What guarantees that the 12 are all good men and true? Besides Raggy Military Justice does not require those 12 men, it requires whatever is required to make up a Court Martial panel. Tell me whether or not martial law had been declared on the 25th April 1916? The other thing you seem to have overlooked, those who rose in Dublin did so as armed men in uniform, called themselves the Army of the newly declared Republic and read a Proclamation that stated they were allied to Germany - on what grounds should any of these men been tried as civilians in a civilian criminal court? If you opt for violent solutions then accept violent consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:32 PM

Your hatred of anything not "BRITISH" is appalling.
Does the Irish Army not also have court marshals?
Any army in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 03:50 PM

Raggy an example please of this alleged hatred of mine "of anything not "BRITISH".

Oh but I forgot you are one of the set on this forum who are good at throwing out baseless accusations but very poor at substantiating them.

Don't worry Rags, I'm not holding my breath - you're as predictable as the tide.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: AmyLove
Date: 04 Jul 16 - 08:11 AM

An excellent resource from Villanova University:

Library Exhibits :: To Strike for Freedom! The 1916 Easter Rising

This booklist is worth checking out, too (six pages of listings) (the link is too long to make clickable):

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/libraries/Heritage%20and%20History/Documents/1916-booklists.pdf