The Dublin Rising 1916

Originally posted by no1marauder
BDN: [b]And Home Rule would have led to independence in much the same way that other British dominions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent (the Queen's rubber stamp aside).

Funny, that's what I'm saying and DrKF is denying. To be more precise, I'm saying that Home Rule had a lot of support pre-1916 because it was thought to be a stepping stone to independence.[/b]

Is that the case? I had a different understanding. No doubt we're all 'debating' at cross purposes.

Yes, the difference between Home Rule and Republicanism being the length of time it would take to achieve independence.

What do you think of Asquith's comments, out of interest?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Holohan wasn't the commander at Four Courts. Pearse's surrender was not addressed to any specific person so its value would be unaffected by the error in the articles (really 1 article) you cite. I can give you the specific wording of the surrender if you like.

I already explained the shooting and no one cognizant with military law would say the shooting was against the rules of war. A soldier does not have to allow even a civilian to warn his enemies of his troops' locations (you're lying when you describe Playfair as "fleeing"; in fact, the Rebels had released him and the guards). This has nothing to do with "starry eyes" and everything to do with law. You are completely ignorant of military law and bitterly hostile to those of your "countrymen" who fought against the British. But your stubborn, irrational posing doesn't a "murderer" make.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is that the case? I had a different understanding. No doubt we're all 'debating' at cross purposes.

Yes, the difference between Home Rule and Republicanism being the length of time it would take to achieve independence.

What do you think of Asquith's comments, out of interest?

Well this is a good zinger:

The session of 1920 - my first as member for Paisley - was largely taken up by a Government Bill, which, as I said at the time, was passed for the purpose of giving to Ulster a Parliament which it did not want, and to the remaining three-quarters of Ireland a Parliament which it would not have.

I disagree with his statement that Redmond and the Unionists were anywhere near a compromise in 1918. And I disagree with his statement that Sinn Fein would have lost the 1918 election if not for the Military Service Bill.

In essence, Ireland wound up with Dominion status (which most were willing to accept) but with partition (which most found abhorrent).

Originally posted by no1marauder
BDN: [b]And Home Rule would have led to independence in much the same way that other British dominions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent (the Queen's rubber stamp aside).

Funny, that's what I'm saying and DrKF is denying. To be more precise, I'm saying that Home Rule had a lot of support pre-1916 because it was thought to be a stepping stone to independence.[/b]

I am, understandably I think, loath to continue posting, since I may well have to put up with being told what I think (for which childishness one might hope you are at least a little ashamed), but this is flip-flopping nonsense.

To *now* introduce speculation as to the eventual desire of Home Rulers is disingenuous even by your standards. You evidently accepted that the difference between support for Home Rule and support for independence was important just a few posts before, while we were arguing about whether support for independence constituted the majority view in Ireland at the time. You yourself made the distinction between Home Rulers and those seeking independence: "they (the organisers of the Rising) weren't "despairing" of anything and thought the tide was running their way" vis-a-vis Home Rulers. Now, you obviously meant something by that - the tide running their way - and it was surely not at all what you are saying now. You went on to quote Matthew Nathan as support for your position: "I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Nationalists [Redmond's Home Rulers] are losing ground to the Sinn Feiners". Again, you have drawn an important distinction between home Rulers and separatists in any argument about whether support for independence constituted the majority view.

I can, and probably do, perfectly well agree that those who supported Home Rule (those people being, as I have said and you have implicitly accepted, those who may well have formed majority opinion) may have hoped this would lead to independence. But to make *that* the point is an act of desperation on your part, and sits uncomfortably with what you were saying in the quoted post.

I'll say it again: it may well be that many of those supporting Home Rule might have *hoped* it would *one day* lead to independence.
But I don't at all think that that means you can lump those people in with separatists in order to state that desire for independence constituted the majority opinion. That would be deeply anachronistic, for a start.

And for you to try to twist FitzGerald's quote to prove yourself right is downright dishonest. I've posted it a couple of times now, so I might have hoped you'd remember the whole thing, but here's the quote you have been taking selective parts from:

"up to 1914 there was little public support for Irish independence: as I have just said it was despair at the absence of such a spirit that provoked the Rising. It is a failure of imagination on our part, together with a mythic view of history, that make us think otherwise. The truth is that without 1916 our people might well have settled down for a time at least within a Home Rule system."

So, when you say "So Fitzgerald is wrong about that i.e. he shouldn't have suggested that the Irish would have accepted Home Rule for only a "time"?", I would direct you to the fact that he, too, makes a distinction between Home Rulers and separatists, and direct you to the opening line: "up to 1914 there was little public support for Irish independence."

Context is all, unless one is seeking to make a semantic point.

Originally posted by DrKF
I am, understandably I think, loath to continue posting, since I may well have to put up with being told what I think (for which childishness one might hope you are at least a little ashamed), but this is flip-flopping nonsense.

To *now* introduce speculation as to the eventual desire of Home Rulers is disingenuous even by your standards. You evidently accep ...[text shortened]... ence."

Context is all, unless one is seeking to make a semantic point.

This is ridiculous. I'll repeat what I said on page 5 and people can judge if I'm "flip-flopping":

That "Home Rule" was acceptable to most Irishmen in 1914 was a given, but that hardly means there was "little support for Irish independence". The latter was always the ultimate goal and Home Rule would have been only a stepping stone.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You're not being "facetious"; you're being an [expletive referring to the anus].

An "unarmed child" (who was older than one of the unit commanders of the Rebels) who attempts to warn combat troops so they can come and kill you and your men can be stopped by lethal force according to military law. And if your action is lawful, you can't be a "murderer".

BTW, your article has another fact wrong; Pearse did not write out the surrender from "his prison cell" but at General Maxwell's HQ.

Originally posted by no1marauder
they weren't "despairing" of anything and thought the tide was running their way. Even Sir Matthew Nathan, the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle wrote in March 1915: I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Nationalists [Redmond's Home Rulers] are losing ground to the Sinn Feiners".

Then you are guilty of inconsistency instead, given the above and what I have just said. Engage with the point I made, if you'd be so kind.

Originally posted by DrKF
Then you are guilty of inconsistency instead, given the above and what I have just said. Engage with the point I made, if you'd be so kind.

You made a point? Where?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You made a point? Where?

I am, understandably I think, loath to continue posting, since I may well have to put up with being told what I think (for which childishness one might hope you are at least a little ashamed), but this is flip-flopping nonsense.

To *now* introduce speculation as to the eventual desire of Home Rulers is disingenuous even by your standards. You evidently accepted that the difference between support for Home Rule and support for independence was important just a few posts before, while we were arguing about whether support for independence constituted the majority view in Ireland at the time. You yourself made the distinction between Home Rulers and those seeking independence: "they (the organisers of the Rising) weren't "despairing" of anything and thought the tide was running their way" vis-a-vis Home Rulers. Now, you obviously meant something by that - the tide running their way - and it was surely not at all what you are saying now. You went on to quote Matthew Nathan as support for your position: "I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Nationalists [Redmond's Home Rulers] are losing ground to the Sinn Feiners". Again, you have drawn an important distinction between home Rulers and separatists in any argument about whether support for independence constituted the majority view.

I can, and probably do, perfectly well agree that those who supported Home Rule (those people being, as I have said and you have implicitly accepted, those who may well have formed majority opinion) may have hoped this would lead to independence. But to make *that* the point is an act of desperation on your part, and sits uncomfortably with what you were saying in the quoted post.

I'll say it again: it may well be that many of those supporting Home Rule might have *hoped* it would *one day* lead to independence.
But I don't at all think that that means you can lump those people in with separatists in order to state that desire for independence constituted the majority opinion. That would be deeply anachronistic, for a start.

And for you to try to twist FitzGerald's quote to prove yourself right is downright dishonest. I've posted it a couple of times now, so I might have hoped you'd remember the whole thing, but here's the quote you have been taking selective parts from:

"up to 1914 there was little public support for Irish independence: as I have just said it was despair at the absence of such a spirit that provoked the Rising. It is a failure of imagination on our part, together with a mythic view of history, that make us think otherwise. The truth is that without 1916 our people might well have settled down for a time at least within a Home Rule system."

So, when you say "So Fitzgerald is wrong about that i.e. he shouldn't have suggested that the Irish would have accepted Home Rule for only a "time"?", I would direct you to the fact that he, too, makes a distinction between Home Rulers and separatists, and direct you to the opening line: "up to 1914 there was little public support for Irish independence."

Context is all, unless one is seeking to make a semantic point.

Originally posted by DrKF
I am, understandably I think, loath to continue posting, since I may well have to put up with being told what I think (for which childishness one might hope you are at least a little ashamed), but this is flip-flopping nonsense.

To *now* introduce speculation as to the eventual desire of Home Rulers is disingenuous even by your standards. You evidently acce ...[text shortened]... nce."

Context is all, unless one is seeking to make a semantic point.

You like to repeat posts a lot (easier than thinking I suppose). I believe I've already addressed everything in this repeated post which contains a quote you've repeated about 5 times that I've dealt with in detail.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You like to repeat posts a lot (easier than thinking I suppose). I believe I've already addressed everything in this repeated post which contains a quote you've repeated about 5 times that I've dealt with in detail.

Okely-dokely.

Originally posted by DrKF
Okely-dokely.

Now that that is settled, perhaps you could explain why my interpretation of your position is incorrect?

ME: all of a sudden the Irish went from acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain to a demand for immediate independence.

YOU: Since I am suggesting that the Rising was a catalyst to separatist fervour,


Both are saying the same thing are they not?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Now that that is settled, perhaps you could explain why my interpretation of your position is incorrect?

ME: all of a sudden the Irish went from acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain to a demand for immediate independence.

YOU: Since I am suggesting that the Rising was a catalyst to separatist fervour,


Both are saying the same thing are they not?

It's not at all settled, I just thought, since I don't think you have or will engage with the points above, I'd let it go.

With regards to the point above, I have been entirely consistent throughout.

I think that in 1914 or thereabouts, there was not a great deal of support for separatists. There was, however, a lot of support for Home Rule. Amongst other things, the Easter Rising was a catalyst for a shift in public opinion.

You've tried to make that point equate to my suggesting Irish opinion was "acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain", when that is simply not the case.