BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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