Though much of the book bears only tangential relevance to the Coolacrease killings
I would say that the book provides the context (the War of Independence in Offaly) in which the killings took place. It also provides the context to the claims made in the politically driven and historically revisionist TV documentry.
The recent “Ranch War” had extended from Galway and Meath to touch on Offaly, so land hunger cannot be discounted as a contributing factor.
To my recollection from reading the book - none of their neighbours were interefered with by the IRA, many of whom were also Protestant and some of whom owned bigger tracts of land. It seems far more likely that they were shot because they had fired on the IRA party felling trees as a roadblock near their home, or because of their close association to, and supected collaboration with, the British forces whom they frequently entertained at their home and were suspected of giving information to. These seem to be far more important factors in their death.
On top of this, of course, the work of David Fitzpatrick, Charles Townshend and many others hasn’t gone away, you know.
I know it hasnt and I never said it had. This of course would be the same David fitzpatrick who has an issue with Gerard Murphy using anonymous sources. "One story has a citation reminiscent of Tim Pat Coogan at his most secretively melodramatic: “I was told this by a very reliable source.” " This would also be the same David Fitzpatrick who had no issue with his former Ph D student Peter Hart using anonymous sources. Some of whom Hart later admitted may not have been IRA veterans after all (See Tom Barry - Bothar Na Saoirse Documentry) or whom many now suspected were completely invented by Hart who may have fabricated evidence to support his conclusions. (see Niall Meehans article on Spinwatch or 'Troubled History'.) Fitzpatrick pioneered the stastical approach used by hart and others however - this is far removed from "cause and effect" history. This approach often fails to examine killings in detail and instead trys to pidgeon hole deaths using a demographic statistic to explain their cause ie - "The Pearsons were killed because they were Protestants. End of story. Please disregard all other possible (and more likely) explanations. Now please refer to chart B Protestant deaths in Offaly 1919-1921"
I've read Townshends book on the British Campaign in Ireland - I dont remember him stating that there was a sectarian campaign in the south. What relevence is it to this debate / discussion?
Niamh Sammon’s claim that these were sectarian killings cannot be sustained.
Nor can the claim that the men were deliberately shot in the genitals
Yeah Eoghan Harris that great Historian of our day whom I have yet to see or hear of in an archive invented the claim about the genitals. The same Harris who is a leading supporter of Hart and Murphy's fantastic claims about the War.
but in all other regards, attempts to explain away the nature and location of the men’s wounds also fail. Most threadbare of all excuses here is that the firing squad was inexperienced
Offaly was hardly a leading county in the Republican military campaign during the war, the county only really seems to have gotten active between may and july 1921 when an IRA Staff Officer from Dubklin arrived. (This is another indicator that the Pearson killings were not due to local factors land etc.) Philip Mc Conway is writing a detailed account of the county's role in the war. I hope to see this in print in the next year or two.
"If they were short of ammunition why waste bullets on a firing squad when one to each brain from a Webley would suffice? ... RIC man Patrick Foley was found with 26 bullet wounds, at least seven of which would have proved fatal, "
Yes firing squads were used commonly by the IRA - Why well it seems to have been an imitation of British military practice of the period. There is not much difference between the IRA's attitude to suspected spies and the treatment given to those executed by the British as suspected spies in WW1. I am writing about this for my Ph D thesis so I wont go into more detail expending my efforts here. If you need any more information on this British attitude to spies I think you should look up the phrase "Short Shrift" or "Giving Spies Short Shrift" whivch was commonly used by the British during WW1. To put it bluntly the IRA operated by the military norms, standards and practices of the day when dealing with suspected spies and intelligence agents.
why waste bullets on a firing squad when one to each brain from a Webley would suffice?
Same thing could be asked about any British execution by firing squad, in WW1, 1916 or the WOI.
"The Pearsons were done to death with deliberate cruelty, "
Yes they undoubetedly were - those suspected of spying usually are done to death with deliberate cruelty by the army they oppose. Can you tell me is there a way of executing someone by firing squad, hanging, lethal injection etc that is not deliberately cruel? The very act of taking someones life - especially as a military punishment is designed to be deliberately cruel is it not? no matter how well trained the executioner(s) is (/are).
Michael you seem to be doing a lot of "hurling from the ditch" here - I trust that you are putting your considerable knowledge of military history to use and that you are completeing, and publishing, work of your own. Id be glad to take any relevent submissions for the website I administer.
Padraig