Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The legitimacy of the 1916 Rising

2»

Comments

  • #32
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Did not the Conservatives and Unionists plot to sabotage Home Rule by importing arms?

    Did not Home Rule clear every hurdle in the Commons and was passed only to be suspended by the outbreak of war?

    Did not the British Army plot to mutiny if they were ordered to oppose the UVF?

    Did not Redmond's decision to support the British war effort play a major role behind the decision of tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight and die in World War I?

    Do not all of these facts indicate that Home Rule was dead by 1916 and the only real chance at independence was to abandon the moribund Home Rule cause instead fight for a Republic?

    Did not the subsequent actions of the British in trying to suppress the national will prove the wisdom of the 1916 leaders?

    Does not the overwhelming majority in 1918 election for Sinn Féin prove that the majority of Irish people became republicans and endorsed the 1916 rebellion by voting for those same rebels who stood on an openly republican platform?

    Too many 'did nots' for my liking .


  • #33
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Did not the Conservatives and Unionists plot to sabotage Home Rule by importing arms?

    Did not Home Rule clear every hurdle in the Commons and was passed only to be suspended by the outbreak of war?

    Did not the British Army plot to mutiny if they were ordered to oppose the UVF?

    Did not Redmond's decision to support the British war effort play a major role behind the decision of tens of thousands of Irishmen to fight and die in World War I?

    Do not all of these facts indicate that Home Rule was dead by 1916 and the only real chance at independence was to abandon the moribund Home Rule cause instead fight for a Republic?

    Did not the subsequent actions of the British in trying to suppress the national will prove the wisdom of the 1916 leaders?

    Does not the overwhelming majority in 1918 election for Sinn Féin prove that the majority of Irish people became republicans and endorsed the 1916 rebellion by voting for those same rebels who stood on an openly republican platform?

    David -you need to provide a source for each of the things you are saying/ claiming.

    For example rather than asking : "Did not the Conservatives and Unionists plot to sabotage Home Rule by importing arms?" -you need to give us a source that shows your view that this did happen to be credible.
    Not your opinion, a source

    Similarily you ask "Did not the subsequent actions of the British in trying to suppress the national will prove the wisdom of the 1916 leaders?" This is trailer park talk- you can not "prove the wisdom" of any historical figure. You are welcome to make your points on the history forum but you need to fit in with forum guidelines- If you continue to post conspiracy type nonsense then I will move your posts to the conspiracy theory forum.

    Finally -You, are saying these things so the onus is on you to prove them. Please refer to the forum guidelines on how to do this here : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651


  • #34
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    For example rather than asking : "Did not the Conservatives and Unionists plot to sabotage Home Rule by importing arms?" -you need to give us a source that shows your view that this did happen to be credible.
    Not your opinion, a source

    Do you mean to tell me I need to prove to you that the signing of the Ulster Covenant or Larne gun running of 1914 happened?
    Similarily you ask "Did not the subsequent actions of the British in trying to suppress the national will prove the wisdom of the 1916 leaders?" This is trailer park talk- you can not "prove the wisdom" of any historical figure. You are welcome to make your points on the history forum but you need to fit in with forum guidelines- If you continue to post conspiracy type nonsense then I will move your posts to the conspiracy theory forum.

    Do I need to prove to you that after Sinn Féin won a majority of the Irish seats in the 1918 election and set up an independent parliament that the British tried to crush Irish republicanism?
    Finally -You, are saying these things so the onus is on you to prove them. Please refer to the forum guidelines on how to do this here : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651

    What do I have to prove next? That the Battle of Waterloo happened or that Hitler shot himself? Or that human beings are bipedal?


  • #35
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    Do you mean to tell me I need to prove to you that the signing of the Ulster Covenant or Larne gun running of 1914 happened?



    Do I need to prove to you that after Sinn Féin won a majority of the Irish seats in the 1918 election and set up an independent parliament that the British tried to crush Irish republicanism?



    What do I have to prove next? That the Battle of Waterloo happened or that Hitler shot himself? Or that human beings are bipedal?

    What you need to prove next is that you are capable of following basic instructions. You get an infraction for not doing so in the above post.

    I asked you several times politely to follow forum guidelines. These guidelines are designed to assist people who don't immediately grasp how they should express their views on historical topics.

    You have chosen to ignore this and instead post in the manner of an indignant child (as per quoted post above). Now, I have no problem with indignant children as I was once that child myself. However the history forum does not need this type of behaviour so you either abide by the forum practices or you go away. If any of this is unclear then read it a second time.

    Moderator


  • #36
    I swindled the NSA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭I swindled the NSA


    One thing I've always found puzzling about the 1914-16 period is how openly some people/organisations were able to engage in rather seditious (from the authorities standpoint) activities -and all this while a war was going on ?

    Large bodies of (mostly) Men were able to dress up in uniforms, march through the streets, listen to militant speeches and receive all manner of military style training with very little attention from the police/authorities leading to an armed uprising which seems (for a time at least) to have caught the authorities totally off guard ?

    While earlier instances in Ulster may have been attributable to sympathetic police officers/military/intelligence turning a blind eye this was hardly the case in Dublin ?
    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    The Conservatives allied with the Unionists were in open conspiracy against the government and committed treason when they imported German arms to threaten rebellion if Home Rule was implemented.

    Surely it was only treason if it took place after war had broken out between Britain and Germany ?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    DavidRamsay99
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭DavidRamsay99


    I swindled the NSA wrote: »
    One thing I've always found puzzling about the 1914-16 period is how openly some people/organisations were able to engage in rather seditious (from the authorities standpoint) activities -and all this while a war was going on ?

    Large bodies of (mostly) Men were able to dress up in uniforms, march through the streets, listen to militant speeches and receive all manner of military style training with very little attention from the police/authorities leading to an armed uprising which seems (for a time at least) to have caught the authorities totally off guard ?

    While earlier instances in Ulster may have been attributable to sympathetic police officers/military/intelligence turning a blind eye this was hardly the case in Dublin ?

    The British did not turn a blind eye.

    When the Irish Volunteers landed guns at Howth the RIC and British Army tried and failed to intercept the arms. Prior to the rising the movement was spied on, harassed by the security services and police, infiltrated by spies and some Irish Volunteers were recruited as informers.

    The Dublin Castle authorities had ordered the arrests of the 1916 leaders and raids were imminent. Pearse, Connolly and the rest heard of these plans and decided to go ahead with the rebellion. Eoin MacNeill's orders calling off the Rising convinced Dublin Castle that no rebellion would go ahead which is why the British Army were not on high alert and why small numbers of Volunteers actually turned out. Also in the weeks and months prior to the rebellion the Volunteers paraded and practiced maneuvers regularly giving comic relief of the Dublin populace who didn't take them seriously. So when the Volunteers marched on Easter Monday and stormed buildings in the city it came as a complete surprise.
    Surely it was only treason if it took place after war had broken out between Britain and Germany ?

    Home Rule was in the process of passing through the House of Commons when Conservatives and Unionists plotted armed resistance after importing arms from a foreign country that was hostile to the Empire.
    That was treason.


  • #38
    Thomas_.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Thomas_.


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    David -you need to provide a source for each of the things you are saying/ claiming.

    For example rather than asking : "Did not the Conservatives and Unionists plot to sabotage Home Rule by importing arms?" -you need to give us a source that shows your view that this did happen to be credible.
    Not your opinion, a source

    Similarily you ask "Did not the subsequent actions of the British in trying to suppress the national will prove the wisdom of the 1916 leaders?" This is trailer park talk- you can not "prove the wisdom" of any historical figure. You are welcome to make your points on the history forum but you need to fit in with forum guidelines- If you continue to post conspiracy type nonsense then I will move your posts to the conspiracy theory forum.

    Finally -You, are saying these things so the onus is on you to prove them. Please refer to the forum guidelines on how to do this here : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651

    I´ve followed this thread by the conversation you had with the other poster. I was wondering whether this rules apply for some poster who starts a thread or to every poster who also contributes to the debate that he´s obliged to use links to sources to back up his opinion.

    In some cases one can find links to some internet pages, in some cases on has to refer to book pages from writers and there´s only a way to post a link to online shops where this book is available. But it´s rarely the case that even via amazon where one can have a look inside the book, the page of reference in the formed opinion of the poster is available to read.

    The opinion of the OP was most the sort of what I call "Shinner talk" to me which I´ve very often read on various places. Nothing in there that surprised me.

    To the way you´ve moderated this thread I can only say that this is a good way although for some it might be the hard way to take part in discussions when it is demanded to provide links to every opinion. I think that when one comes up to represent something as a fact, he should indeed provide a link that backs that up, if someone is merely forming and expressing an opinion of his own, I´m not sure whether a link is really necessary because it can be left as being just a posters opinion, not a factual statement.


  • #39
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Thomas_. wrote: »
    I´ve followed this thread by the conversation you had with the other poster. I was wondering whether this rules apply for some poster who starts a thread or to every poster who also contributes to the debate that he´s obliged to use links to sources to back up his opinion.

    In some cases one can find links to some internet pages, in some cases on has to refer to book pages from writers and there´s only a way to post a link to online shops where this book is available. But it´s rarely the case that even via amazon where one can have a look inside the book, the page of reference in the formed opinion of the poster is available to read.

    The opinion of the OP was most the sort of what I call "Shinner talk" to me which I´ve very often read on various places. Nothing in there that surprised me.

    To the way you´ve moderated this thread I can only say that this is a good way although for some it might be the hard way to take part in discussions when it is demanded to provide links to every opinion. I think that when one comes up to represent something as a fact, he should indeed provide a link that backs that up, if someone is merely forming and expressing an opinion of his own, I´m not sure whether a link is really necessary because it can be left as being just a posters opinion, not a factual statement.

    In relation to more controversial assumptions expressed as facts in this thread sources are a good idea and sometimes they need to be sought. When the OP was asked to back up his posts with facts (sources) he was not able to do so. To most people reading the thread this shows itself clearly that he was not reading events properly. It is a problem on a forum though as not every thread has got a forum moderator following it. In such cases reliance goes on checking reported posts, of which there are plenty that do not warrant actions. There are lots of posts that do not have sources as the information contained is quite clearly accepted. Any poster should be willing to provide a basis for their opinion if asked.


  • #40
    Thomas_.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Thomas_.


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    In relation to more controversial assumptions expressed as facts in this thread sources are a good idea and sometimes they need to be sought. When the OP was asked to back up his posts with facts (sources) he was not able to do so. To most people reading the thread this shows itself clearly that he was not reading events properly. It is a problem on a forum though as not every thread has got a forum moderator following it. In such cases reliance goes on checking reported posts, of which there are plenty that do not warrant actions. There are lots of posts that do not have sources as the information contained is quite clearly accepted. Any poster should be willing to provide a basis for their opinion if asked.

    I understand your point and I see it that way that your efforts taken is to provide better standards of debate with a focus on facts and opinions that can be backed up by sources. I think that such an approach is worthy to get support from members of these boards. I´m with you there in that case.


  • #41
    I swindled the NSA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭I swindled the NSA


    DavidRamsay99 wrote: »
    The Dublin Castle authorities had ordered the arrests of the 1916 leaders and raids were imminent. Pearse, Connolly and the rest heard of these plans and decided to go ahead with the rebellion..

    Isint the "castle document" generally accepted to have been a forgery ?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    I swindled the NSA wrote: »
    Isint the "castle document" generally accepted to have been a forgery ?

    Exaggerated rather than forged. See link http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/making-sense-of-easter-1916/


  • #43
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Thomas_. wrote: »
    I understand your point and I see it that way that your efforts taken is to provide better standards of debate with a focus on facts and opinions that can be backed up by sources. I think that such an approach is worthy to get support from members of these boards. I´m with you there in that case.

    So this is where you've ended up? Finally banned from P.ie? :P

    Well I never!


  • #44
    Thomas_.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Thomas_.


    Jesus. wrote: »
    So this is where you've ended up? Finally banned from P.ie? :P

    Well I never!

    Who are you and what are you talking about?


  • #45
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Thomas_. wrote: »
    Who are you and what are you talking about?

    Don't try that one pal. You've been booted out of P.ie for trolling and you've ended up here. Should have used an alias to keep your cover Sir


  • #46
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Jesus. wrote: »
    So this is where you've ended up? Finally banned from P.ie? :P

    Well I never!
    Thomas_. wrote: »
    Who are you and what are you talking about?
    Jesus. wrote: »
    Don't try that one pal. You've been booted out of P.ie for trolling and you've ended up here. Should have used an alias to keep your cover Sir

    Nobody is interested in this tripe. Any more by PM only.

    moderator


Advertisement