Fight or not?

Nodin

And while Gandhi advocated non-violence, violence in India at the time was quite common.

It should also be pointed out that the vast distance of India from Britain precluded easy control, once a majority of Indians decided not to co-operate with the Empire. These are conditions not nessecarily present in every situation.

Offalycool

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

True they were dark days in many respects. We did however have an abortion referendum! Hardly undemocratic.

Dannyboy83

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So well said.
There was also a minor cult of personality surrounding Dev too from what I understand.
When I think back to Irish Press, you can see the seeds of Charlie/Bertie.

Chamberlin and Churchill both hated Dev. Churchill quite liked Collins.
History could have been so very different.

Never understood why the Pope had such a big say in everything.
He was the one who authorised Henry II to invade Ireland in the first place anyway.
Didn't stick up for the Jews either, did he?
The only good pope was John Paul II, The Pope should be ignored permanently by this country.

Legalise abortion, legalise gay marraige, give people the freedom they deserve, then we'd be rich and happy.

Exile 1798

This is an interesting thread.

I was going to quote and reply to some of you but seeing as multiple people have raised the same points perhaps it would make more sense just to give a general reply.

On the question of the necessity of the Easter Rising the answer is quite simple. If you believe Ireland’s place to be as a semi independent country within the United Kingdom then the Rising was not necessary. If you believe Ireland should be an independent Nation and a Republic is every sense of the word then it was necessary.

One of the great achievements of the Rising was to kill Home Rule, which was the most popular Nationalist position at the time. Some people however make the mistake of believing that Home Rule was inevitable (or desirable). Yes a bill had been passed, but so had two bills before it which where never enacted. Let's not forget that the Ulster Volunteers where formed to resist Home Rule before that act was even passed in 1914, and when it was actually passed the British Army in Ireland threatened mutiny, at which point the Liberal government who had passed the bill backed down. Then the war broke out.

Interestingly, after the Rising the British Cabinet tried urgently to enact Home Rule despite the war. So contrary to what some may think, it didn't put Westminster off the idea, quite the opposite. Rather it was Nationalist Ireland who now saw it as a rather poor option compared to The Irish Republic proclaimed at the GPO.

People who talk about the "needless bloodshed" caused by the rebellion don't seem to quite understand the context of the time. Millions of men, many of them Irish, where being fed into meat grinders on the Western Front. I'd say a few hundred dead in Dublin was an exceptionally mild price to pay for the re-birth of a Nation.

Someone mentioned Gandhdi, incredibly thinking that this was a clever point against Pearse and co. At the time of the Mahatma India was a nation of 300 million people. It was being ruled by a handful of British soldiers and administrators and their local lackeys. A non-violent mass movement to overthrow British India was conceivable and made sense. Ireland, a tiny country not at all comparable to India, was a post famine society which had suffered the lost of half it's population. For someone to post a picture of Gandhdi and smugly think that they have made a clever point just shows that that person has no comprehension of history and no understanding of either India or Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

A lot of good points made there exile1798. Welcome to the forum.:)

jank

I would also question your assertion that the Rising killed Home Rule. What actually killed Home Rule was the 1918 electoral defeat of moderate nationalists by extremist republicans

Surely it was the over riding factor in this democratic electorial defeat. The people wanted more freedom then the Home Rule bill was going to offer.

FTA69

The first time I've ever bothered to thank a post, spot on Exile1798.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Exile 1798

Conscription was a major issue, independence was the issue.

The Home Rulers opposed conscription too, both in the parliament and the in the press.

People flocked to the Republicans instead. Sinn Fein ran on a platform of boycotting the British Parliament and instead setting up an independent Dail. This was spelt out in their election manifesto, which explicitly mentions 1916.

GENERAL ELECTION --- MANIFESTO TO THE IRISH PEOPLE


THE coming General Election is fraught with vital possibilities for the future of our nation. Ireland is faced with the question whether this generation wills it that she is to march out into the full sunlight of freedom, or is to remain in the shadow of a base imperialism that has brought and ever will bring in its train naught but evil for our race.

Sinn Féin gives Ireland the opportunity of vindicating her honour and pursuing with renewed confidence the path of national salvation by rallying to the flag of the Irish Republic.


Sinn Féin aims at securing the establishment of that Republic.

1. By withdrawing the Irish Representation from the British Parliament and by denying the right and opposing the will of the British Government or any other foreign Government to legislate for Ireland.

2. By making use of any and every means available to render impotent the power of England to hold Ireland in subjection by military force or otherwise.

3. By the establishment of a constituent assembly comprising persons chosen by Irish constituencies as the supreme national authority to speak and act in the name of the Irish people, and to develop Ireland's social, political and industrial life, for the welfare of the whole people of Ireland.

4. By appealing to the Peace Conference for the establishment of Ireland as an Independent Nation. At that conference the future of the Nations of the world will be settled on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Ireland's claim to the application of that principle in her favour is not based on any accidental situation arising from the war. It is older than many if not all of the present belligerents. It is based on our unbroken tradition of nationhood, on a unity in a national name which has never been challenged, on our possession of a distinctive national culture and social order, on the moral courage and dignity of our people in the face of alien aggression, on the fact that in nearly every generation, and five times within the past 120 years our people have challenged in arms the right of England to rule this country. On these incontrovertible facts is based the claim that our people have beyond question established the right to be accorded all the power of a free nation.

Sinn Féin stands less for a political party than for the Nation; it represents the old tradition of nationhood handed on from dead generations; it stands by the Proclamation of the Provisional Government of Easter, 1916, reasserting the inalienable right of the Irish Nation to sovereign independence, reaffirming the determination of the Irish people to achieve it, and guaranteeing within the independent Nation equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens.


Believing that the time has arrived when Ireland's voice for the principle of untrammelled National self-determination should be heard above every interest of party or class, Sinn Féin will oppose at the Polls every individual candidate who does not accept this principle.

The policy of our opponents stands condemned on any test, whether of principle or expediency. The right of a nation to sovereign independence rests upon immutable natural law and cannot be made the subject of a compromise. Any attempt to barter away the sacred and inviolate rights of nationhood begins in dishonour and is bound to end in disaster. The enforced exodus of millions of our people, the decay of our industrial life, the ever-increasing financial plunder of our country, the whittling down of the demand for the 'Repeal of the Union,' voiced by the first Irish Leader to plead in the Hall of the Conqueror to that of Home Rule on the Statute Book, and finally the contemplated mutilation of our country by partition, are some of the ghastly results of a policy that leads to national ruin.

Those who have endeavoured to harness the people of Ireland to England's war-chariot, ignoring the fact that only a freely-elected Government in a free Ireland has power to decide for Ireland the question of peace and war, have forfeited the right to speak for the Irish people. The green flag turned red in the hands of the Leaders, but that shame is not to be laid at the doors of the Irish people unless they continue a policy of sending their representatives to an alien and hostile assembly, whose powerful influence has been sufficient to destroy the integrity and sap the independence of their representatives. Ireland must repudiate the men who, in a supreme crisis for the nation, attempted to sell her birthright for the vague promises of English Ministers, and who showed their incompetence by failing to have even these promises fulfilled.

The present Irish members of the English Parliament constitute an obstacle to be removed from the path that leads to the Peace Conference. By declaring their will to accept the status of a province instead of boldly taking their stand upon the right of the nation they supply England with the only subterfuge at her disposal for obscuring the issue in the eyes of the world. By their persistent endeavours to induce the young manhood of Ireland to don the uniform of our seven-century old oppressor, and place their lives at the disposal of the military machine that holds our Nation in bondage, they endeavour to barter away and even to use against itself the one great asset still left to our Nation after the havoc of the centuries.

Sinn Féin goes to the polls handicapped by all the arts and contrivances that a powerful and unscrupulous enemy can use against us. Conscious of the power of Sinn Féin to secure the freedom of Ireland the British Government would destroy it. Sinn Féin, however, goes to the polls confident that the people of this ancient nation will be true to the old cause and will vote for the men who stand by the principles of Tone, Emmet, Mitchel, Pearse and Connolly, the men who disdain to whine to the enemy for favours, the men who hold that Ireland must be as free as England or Holland, Switzerland or France, and who demand is that the only status befitting this ancient realm is the status of a free nation.

ISSUED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF SINN FÉIN

oscarBravo

Exile 1798 wrote: »

One of the great achievements of the Rising was to kill Home Rule, which was the most popular Nationalist position at the time. Some people however make the mistake of believing that Home Rule was inevitable...

Aren't these points mutually contradictory?

It's also instructive that the use of violence to "kill off" a popularly-held ideal is seen as a "great achievement".

junder

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Conscription was a major issue, independence was the issue.

The Home Rulers opposed conscription too, both in the parliament and the in the press.

People flocked to the Republicans instead. Sinn Fein ran on a platform of boycotting the British Parliament and instead setting up an independent Dail. This was spelt out in their election manifesto, which explicitly mentions 1916.

And no mention of the unionist question, FYI arthur griffth was a well known anti-semite

Nodin

junder wrote: »

And no mention of the unionist question, FYI arthur griffth was a well known anti-semite

And held some racist views as well, I seem to recall. Him, Churchill, Carson and the vast majority of the population held these kinds of beliefs Such was, unfortunately, the nature of the times.

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

They were asking for Home Rule for 45 years and had the overwhelming democratic majority.

What is the significance of this “45 years” that yourself and others keep harping on about? Consider the following equations:

y = ax
y ≥ b

Let x denote the number of years taken for Home Rule to be implemented. Let y denote the level of Republican bloodlust, which is directly proportional to x and a is the proportionality constant. Let b denote some constant value at which violence becomes acceptable. Please insert appropriate values for a and b and solve for x.

gurramok wrote: »

As you are strongly arguing in favour for Home Rule, do you think we should join the UK again as independence was a 'mistake' in your eyes?

:rolleyes: I’m either with you or against you, eh?

gurramok wrote: »

Then how would you have dealt with armed Unionist opposition to Home Rule?

I’m not sure to be honest, but I would have been surprised if partition could have been avoided in the event that Home Rule was implemented.

gurramok wrote: »

Ireland wanted autonomy for the Irish people, not the British people. The British people had Westminister, Ireland's parliament was stolen from her in 1801.

Nonetheless, Irish people were represented (rather effectively) at Westminster.

gurramok wrote: »

Most countries which had a thumping majority in favour of autonomy, in history have not waited 45years+ for a degree of autonomy.

Maybe not, but I thought Ireland’s situation was unique, was it not? Or may Ireland’s situation only be compared to other countries’ when it suits your argument to do so?

gurramok wrote: »

Those people you speak of were occupying soldiers in which cases committed atrocities against the Irish people since 1801. They were not unarmed innocent civilians.

So no civilians were killed? None at all?

gurramok wrote: »

The Brits learnt from their mistakes of the US. They never taxed people to the hilt in Aus/NZ/Canada after US independence hence those places of British extraction never really had a case for rising up.

But Ireland did because?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Not all avenues of diplomacy were explored…

Would you not agree that all diplomatic options should have been explored before the threat of violence was even considered?

Deleted User wrote: »

You see little evidence because you don't want to consider the Irish violent actions as being justified.

Violence is rarely justified. I will accept that it is sometimes necessary as a defensive measure, but that caveat does not apply in the case of the Rising.

Deleted User wrote: »

You've taken the stance that all violence is wrong…

No, I have not. I have taken the stance that the use of violence to advance a political goal is wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's a question for you.... Just curious but if Ireland had not gained its freedom, and had continued under British auspices throughout WW2, do you believe that more people would have died fighting on the side of the allies, than those who died fighting during the War of Independence?

Possibly, but who’s to say that Ireland would not have had control over it’s own military affairs by the 1940’s had Home Rule been granted 20 years earlier?

Deleted User wrote: »

You have shown nothing to suggest that Home rule would have given Ireland independence prior to this time.

Likewise, you have shown nothing to suggest otherwise. I have never said that independence was guaranteed, but considering the popular support for independence in this country and the progress that had been made in securing Home Rule, I see little reason why the advances toward full independence would have ground to a halt in the early 20th century.

Exile 1798

oscarBravo wrote: »

Aren't these points mutually contradictory?

It's also instructive that the use of violence to "kill off" a popularly-held ideal is seen as a "great achievement".

No. There are two points. Revisionists say that The Rising put an end to Home Rule because it enflamed opinion and turned Nationalist support away from HR and towards a Republic. This is true. (They say this as if it where a bad thing, it was in fact a great thing.)

That doesn’t however mean that Home Rule was inevitable as they continually claim. For all the reasons I mentioned and more, there was certainly no guarantee of Home Rule. So this is a false claim on their part, so better for them to stop making it.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Obviously that was wrong, but was the US revolution wrong too, french revolution.

Certain aspects, yes. I am sure that many an event took place during both revolutions of which neither French nor American people are particularly proud.

jank wrote: »

Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1944 is one of the more extreme ones i can choose.

Eh, I think that would have been a case of people resisting transportation to extermination camps. It was a fight for survival; politics had nothing to do with it.

djpbarry

Exile 1798 wrote: »

If you believe Ireland’s place to be as a semi independent country within the United Kingdom then the Rising was not necessary. If you believe Ireland should be an independent Nation and a Republic is every sense of the word then it was necessary.

Can you demonstrate that independence could not have been achieved without the Rising? Didn’t think so.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

People who talk about the "needless bloodshed" caused by the rebellion don't seem to quite understand the context of the time. Millions of men, many of them Irish, where being fed into meat grinders on the Western Front.

It was their choice to enlist.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I'd say a few hundred dead in Dublin was an exceptionally mild price to pay for the re-birth of a Nation.

I’d say one single death is too high a price to pay for a political goal.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

Would you not agree that all diplomatic options should have been explored before the threat of violence was even considered?

Actually I don't. You see I don't have this aversion to violence that you have. I believe that at that time violence was the method needed to force the British out of the Empire mentality. Force was the only thing a military nation like the British could respect.

Violence is rarely justified. I will accept that it is sometimes necessary as a defensive measure, but that caveat does not apply in the case of the Rising.

who is making the justifications? For myself, I can see plenty of times when violence can be justified.

No, I have not. I have taken the stance that the use of violence to advance a political goal is wrong.

Which is pretty much any form of violence including nations, or organisations.

Possibly, but who’s to say that Ireland would not have had control over it’s own military affairs by the 1940’s had Home Rule been granted 20 years earlier?

I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely considering the British viewpoint towards firstly the Irish, and secondly the need to keep a strong face in Europe. Until WW2 Europe was still a continent of Empires, and empires historically did not give up their colonies easily. It took WW2 for Britain to start truly releasing their colonies, so by your logic it would have been more likely to have occurred by the mid-50's.

Likewise, you have shown nothing to suggest otherwise. I have never said that independence was guaranteed, but considering the popular support for independence in this country and the progress that had been made in securing Home Rule, I see little reason why the advances toward full independence would have ground to a halt in the early 20th century.

I don't need to show otherwise. History is my proof. Home Rule didn't achieve anything on its own prior to the Rising. It was a carrot that the British waved at the Irish to have them obey their masters. How long would Home Rule have needed to be in effect, before it actually gave the Irish what they needed? Since Home Rule didn't solve the problems, the onus would be on you to prove that it could, which you haven't.

Exile 1798

djpbarry wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that independence could not have been achieved without the Rising? Didn’t think so.

Can you prove or disprove the existence of God? Didn't think so.

djpbarry wrote: »

It was their choice to enlist.

Wow.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’d say one single death is too high a price to pay for a political goal.

Unless of course they chose to enlist.

Dudess

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is it not occupation of Northern Ireland that's being referred to, rather than British people simply choosing to come live in Ireland?

the_syco

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very little is ever achieved through violence. It's claimed that the 1916 rebellion led to the Free State, but Home Rule was on the cards anyway, so there's no reason exactly the same settlement couldn't have been arrived at through peaceful negotiation as was achieved after years of slaughter.

To hell with Home Rule. With HR we still were under English Rule.

I agree with the GFA, which, um, existed due to violence, to stop the violence.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

Would you not agree that all diplomatic options should have been explored before the threat of violence was even considered?

Actually I don't. You see I don't have this aversion to violence that you have.

I find that attitude rather disturbing.

So at what point will violence be justified in order to achieve the stated Republican goal of a United Ireland? How long do you have to wait?

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is pretty much any form of violence including nations, or organisations.

In many cases, yes. Would you not agree that there is rarely (if ever) justification for conflict between nations?

Deleted User wrote: »

I would suggest that it would be highly unlikely considering the British viewpoint towards firstly the Irish, and secondly the need to keep a strong face in Europe.

Maybe, but I still think conscription would have been unlikely, given the huge opposition to it during WWI.

Deleted User wrote: »

Home Rule didn't achieve anything on its own prior to the Rising.

I don’t understand that statement; how can something that was not implemented achieve anything? Home Rule was not given a chance to achieve anything.

Deleted User wrote: »

It was a carrot that the British waved at the Irish to have them obey their masters.

I don’t know how the passing of a bill three times by the House of Commons could possibly be considered a “carrot”. The promise of a Bill could be considered a carrot, the drafting and passing of said Bill could not.

Deleted User wrote: »

How long would Home Rule have needed to be in effect, before it actually gave the Irish what they needed?

I guess we’ll never know, but I suspect that Pearse and co. knew that it had the potential to be successful. In such a scenario, popular support for a violent uprising would be minimal.

Deleted User wrote: »

Since Home Rule didn't solve the problems, the onus would be on you to prove that it could, which you haven't.

I don’t have to. The argument here is about whether a violent uprising was justified. I don’t have to demonstrate the benefit of Home Rule, I merely have to point out that nobody can demonstrate that independence could not possibly have been achieved in the absence of the Rising. As long as possibility of achieving one’s goal through political means exists, then violence is not justified, in my opinion.

I find it genuinely disturbing that so many posters here believe that violence is a just political tool. Have we learned nothing from history?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

Exile 1798 wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

Can you demonstrate that independence could not have been achieved without the Rising? Didn’t think so.

Can you prove or disprove the existence of God? Didn't think so.

Is that your way of saying that it is impossible to say whether independence could or could not have been achieved had the Rising not taken place? Is it not therefore reasonable to conclude that independence would still have been a possibility in the absence of a Rising?

Exile 1798 wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

Exile 1798 wrote:

Millions of men, many of them Irish, where being fed into meat grinders on the Western Front.

It was their choice to enlist.

Wow.

Wow what? They enlisted by choice, did they not?

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Unless of course they chose to enlist.

What?

Dudess wrote: »

Is it not occupation of Northern Ireland that's being referred to, rather than British people simply choosing to come live in Ireland?

How can it be considered an “occupation” if the British presence is supported by the majority of the population?

the_syco wrote: »

To hell with Home Rule. With HR we still were under English Rule.

As opposed to the Free State?

Dudess

djpbarry wrote: »

How can it be considered an “occupation” if the British presence is supported by the majority of the population?

Ah yes, hegemony, the tyranny of the majority etc.

It's getting farcical really the way any kind of nationalist/moderate republican thinking at all gets dismissed and sneered at on this forum as if it's all just chucky ranting and raving.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

What is the significance of this “45 years” that yourself and others keep harping on about? Consider the following equations:

y = ax
y ≥ b

Let x denote the number of years taken for Home Rule to be implemented. Let y denote the level of Republican bloodlust, which is directly proportional to x and a is the proportionality constant. Let b denote some constant value at which violence becomes acceptable. Please insert appropriate values for a and b and solve for x.

You left out Z for the amount of lives lost at the hands of the British occupation.
No-one has a right to a victims monopoly.

djpbarry wrote: »

:rolleyes: I’m either with you or against you, eh?

No. You are a strong advocate of Home Rule and arguing against independence, so can you get off the fence and state your position?

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not sure to be honest, but I would have been surprised if partition could have been avoided in the event that Home Rule was implemented.

Why not accept the democratic wish of the majority that wanted Home Rule, after all we all accept democracy or is it when it only suits?

djpbarry wrote: »

Nonetheless, Irish people were represented (rather effectively) at Westminster.

Temporarily as part of horse trading. There was no consensus from Britain saying "Hey, those guys who have a 80%+ electorate behind them across the water want Home Rule, we should grant it as we espouse democracy".

Rather, it was a case of ''Hey, those guys who have a 80%+ electorate behind them across the water want Home Rule, we'll give it if the numbers are right in the British Parliament'

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe not, but I thought Ireland’s situation was unique, was it not? Or may Ireland’s situation only be compared to other countries’ when it suits your argument to do so?

Nope. I asked you to look up how other countries have tried to get their freedom. You will find most(not all) ended up in armed rebellions. The vast majority didn't wait 45 years either.

djpbarry wrote: »

So no civilians were killed? None at all?

Yes, most were killed by the British over countless years, you denying this?

djpbarry wrote: »

But Ireland did because?

Ireland is not majorly settled by British settlers who counted less than 20% of the population, we are a different nation to Britain. We are Irish and have a self-determind right to our destiny.
If you don't believe that, why do you still have your Irish passport?:rolleyes:

diverdriver

Klaz wrote:

Home Rule didn't achieve anything on its own prior to the Rising. It was a carrot that the British waved at the Irish to have them obey their masters.

Have you ever managed to stay awake during history lessons in school? Obviously not because home rule was voted for again and again by the Irish people only be rejected by the British government. When it finally got through it was in the teeth of opposition from the Unionists, Conservatives and the House of Lords. In the end their powers had to be curtailed before it got through. So far from being a carrot it was a hard won concession wrung from Britain at the height of it's power.

No one knows how Home Rule would have worked out because it was never tried. My opinion is that it would have led to Dominion status relatively quickly which in effect the Free State was. Then finally real independance as the Home Rule parliament became established and dominated by Republicans. All without a shot fired in anger.

One thing to bear in mind, we would never have got a United Ireland, Ulster was always going to stay British in any scenario we care to consider. We simply do not have the power to eject every Unionist even if the British pulled out and left them on their own, which is something they would never do. So we might as well get used to the idea and learn to live with them. Putting a gun to their collective heads and telling them we want them to join us or else won't work and didn't work. Even Sinn Fein figured out that one. Now they're trying to love bomb them into a United Ireland. Good luck with that!

diverdriver

diverdriver wrote: »

Klaz wrote:

Have you ever managed to stay awake during history lessons in school? Obviously not because home rule was voted for again and again by the Irish people only be rejected by the British government. When it finally got through it was in the teeth of opposition from the Unionists, Conservatives and the House of Lords. In the end their powers had to be curtailed before it got through. So far from being a carrot it was a hard won concession wrung from Britain at the height of it's power.

Did I stay awake in History? yes, actually I did. Did I say anything false?

True Home Rule was a carrot, because it was something ever beyond the reach of the Irish. It was something that was allowed to run whenever the British truly needed something from the Irish people. It would never have been allowed when the British didn't need some manner of support. It was the carrot because it was something that gave a few concessions but nothing that would free the Irish people from British rule. And that was what the Irish wanted. Freedom from British Authority.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I find that attitude rather disturbing.

Your choice. It doesn't bother me. I just see it as being realistic.

So at what point will violence be justified in order to achieve the stated Republican goal of a United Ireland? How long do you have to wait?

You see violence in the north doesn't amount to anything worthwhile. There is zero chance of the North joining the South through violence. It wouldn't have happened 60 years ago, and its not going to happen now.

I approve of the War of Independence, because it pushed the British to the negotiation table where the Irish had something to bargain with. Before the Rising and the subsequent war, the Irish had nothing to hold over the British, and the British could just ignore their requests. However, through the use of violence, the status was changed and Irish people could demand something different.

In many cases, yes. Would you not agree that there is rarely (if ever) justification for conflict between nations?

Not really. I look at the reasons in each instance, and then decide. I'm not inclined to make a sweeping statement that all violence is wrong, since under certain circumstances there are definite advantages.

Maybe, but I still think conscription would have been unlikely, given the huge opposition to it during WWI.

Which wouldn't have mattered since Irish people would have been bound by their oath of allegiance, and could be imprisoned for refusing to fight if called up. Home Rule wouldn't have given the Irish people the true ability to refuse.

I don’t know how the passing of a bill three times by the House of Commons could possibly be considered a “carrot”. The promise of a Bill could be considered a carrot, the drafting and passing of said Bill could not.

Take WW1 for example, the British indicated that Irish desires for more freedom would be examined more favorably if Irishmen would go to war. And so Irishmen went off, and fought the Germans, and the carrot was removed. It was a promise of concessions or freedoms... a ghost image without any real substance.

I guess we’ll never know, but I suspect that Pearse and co. knew that it had the potential to be successful. In such a scenario, popular support for a violent uprising would be minimal.
I don’t have to. The argument here is about whether a violent uprising was justified. I don’t have to demonstrate the benefit of Home Rule, I merely have to point out that nobody can demonstrate that independence could not possibly have been achieved in the absence of the Rising. As long as possibility of achieving one’s goal through political means exists, then violence is not justified, in my opinion.

History has shown that violence in the forms of the Rising and the War of Independence was justified. They succeeded in giving the Irish freedom from British rule.

I find it genuinely disturbing that so many posters here believe that violence is a just political tool. Have we learned nothing from history?

Actually i consider that its history that has taught us that there are times when violence is needed... But each to their own. I'm not attempting to convince you that violence is necessary. I just believe that it was required in this period of Irish History.