Irish Civil War

Denerick

Given that the sores have long since healed, does anyone here believe they can sympathise with the anti treaty side during the Irish Civil War? By and large the vast majority will say no, but there are always a few Shinners running about. What do you think? Try to come up with a reason without the benefit of hindsight.

brianthebard

Because up to the point at which the treaty was created the vast majority of nationalists, republicans and socialists believed a 32 county Ireland was possible? Seriously its really not that hard to understand if you give half a thought to the policies and convictions of the parties involved.

Denerick

Surprisingly enough, the issue of partition barely raised its head during the Treaty debates. By far and away the most controversial issue was the oath and the comprimise of dominionism. It was only later, in the 30s mainly that Fianna Fáil began to allude the civil war was a conflict over the north, along with the oath and the dominion.

brianthebard

I disagree, even a cursory look at James Connolly's work will show you that partition was mooted or at least seen as a possibility.

Denerick

Eh, sorry, what? James Connolly died in 1916, I'm talking about the Treaty debates. Read them, they are barely mentioned. They are barely mentioned in any of the anti treaty memorandums. Most followed Collins' thesis that the Boundary commission would withir up the remainder of the northern state. The north was an uncomfertable reality that few of the deputies were willing to engage on.

walrusgumble

Denerick wrote: »

Eh, sorry, what? James Connolly died in 1916, I'm talking about the Treaty debates. Read them, they are barely mentioned. They are barely mentioned in any of the anti treaty memorandums. Most followed Collins' thesis that the Boundary commission would withir up the remainder of the northern state. The north was an uncomfertable reality that few of the deputies were willing to engage on.

connolly spent time in belfast involved with trade union activities prior to 1916. he was involved in the textile strike of 1911. connolly saw clearly the secterian divide amonst workers in the dock yards etc. the idea and threat of partition arose long before the treaty. the whole point of the uvf, the whole point the 36th ulster division fought in world war 1 was to ensure that ulster would not be subjected to "Rome Rule"

i do not think connolly was too impressed with the idea of patition
there is an article from the irish worker, published in 14/3/1914 - "Labour and the Proposed Partition of Ireland"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/03/laborpar.htm



much of his writings remain unpublished

as for collins, yes, i agree with you and on his attitude to the north, it was clear in the text of the treaty that, in principle, the country would be united, albeit civil war put any chance that their was to an end.

feck all spoke about the north. i think some records of the debates in the dail and senead on the www.irl.gov.ie

brianthebard

Exactly as walrus says, Connolly saw partition as a real possibility well before the treaty itself was possible, that's the point I was making, it had been on people's minds for years.

Denerick

Eh, yes, did I say otherwise? Everyone knew partition was happening... Don't know what the argument about is here. I'm very confused - Partition was already in place by the time of the truce.

glezo

Denerick wrote: »

Given that the sores have long since healed, .

im sorry my friend, but i dont agree with you here
i dont think these sores have ever been or will ever be healed..

people out their have just very bad feeling to wat happened back then

silverharp

is it safe to say that that Ireland had been partitioned but given the status of a republic that the civil war would not have happened?

I still cant understand taking up arms against your own people on this one. Surely the leadership must have known that once the brits left hey werent coming back and that given a 5 or 10 year period the treaty could have been superceeded?

In the end did it have any lasting effects?


Is it still a sore point? for me its a bit of dead history , I'm sure I'd get annoyed it I read parts of Irish history from the 19thC, but it is still history

Tableman

is it safe to say that that Ireland had been partitioned but given the status of a republic that the civil war would not have happened?

It is absolutely not safe to say this. As already indicated on this thread, the main issue was the oath. However, if the oath was not an issue, then partition would become an issue. It just wasnt the big issue at the tme as a boundary commission was set up and it was to be dealt with later - so everybody was waiting for that.

Even if Ireland was granted full independence at the time, there still could have been a civil war. The Irish were far from united on how to govern a new state.

is I still cant understand taking up arms against your own people on this one. Surely the leadership must have known that once the brits left hey werent coming back and that given a 5 or 10 year period the treaty could have been superceeded?

The brits returning was seen as a very realistic possibility. In fact, some observers elieve that this is why the free state attacked the irregulars in the four courts - they were genuninely worried that if they didnt do it, that the british would use it as an excuse to return to Ireland. Then all that had been gained would be lost.

In the end did it have any lasting effects?

Eh, Did what have a lasting effect, the civil war? Of course it did, On a local level, neighbours didnt talk to eac other for the rest of their lives. On a national level, it has shaped all our governments since. Our two major political parties have no major differences in policy - they are simply sperated by the civil war...

Shutuplaura

Denerick wrote: »

Given that the sores have long since healed, does anyone here believe they can sympathise with the anti treaty side during the Irish Civil War? By and large the vast majority will say no, but there are always a few Shinners running about. What do you think? Try to come up with a reason without the benefit of hindsight.

Quite a few people sympathise with the anti-treaty side. It might also be news to you to hear this but you don't have to be a shinner to sympathise with the anti-treaty side either. I'm not a shinner but have more sympathy for the anti-treaty side than the government because:

1) extra judicial killings by the government would have pissed a fair few people off. It did nothing to stop the fighting and was in some cases an excuse to eliminate potential political rivals.

2) Personally I'd say that the free state government were more to blame for the escalation to war. They physically started the shooting in the four courts. Mick Collins may also have ordered the death of Field Marshal Wilson, the act which led to the British demand that they do something about the Four Courts Garrison.

3) The republicans were idealists who set up an alternative government and swore aliegence to it and its army and had killed or lost friends for it. There was an honest conviction that the Treaty betrayed this. Thats why the oath featured more than partition in the dail debates. Bear in mind that


A)
They had the feeling that they were winning, could continue to win and that the treaty was less than they were fighting for. Hindsight tells us they may have been wrong but I am not sure. I can fully understand their reasons for wanting the war of independance to continue. Interestingly, areas which had fought most successfully against the British were most heavily anti-treaty. They were well motivated confident guerrillas who believed they could continue winning. Mick Collins was shot in his home county because he didn't appreciate this.


The British were possibly bluffing when threatening an escalation of the war. They were trying to scale down their global commitments in the wake of WW1 (including ironically, Iraq) and its likely they were talking tough and that the threats they made to the Irish negotiating team were at least partly hollow.

C)
Its quite reasonable to reject a treaty signed by ones negotiating team under duress. It sets a bad precident for future relations between the UK and Ireland. Serveral anti-treaty TD's made this point. As it was Chruchill tried to bully Ireland into Britains next World War, partly vindicating this view. Luckily most other British PM's were not as hostile to the Irish government and let us do our own thing.

So for the above reasons I've a hell of a lot of sympathy for the anti-republicans. With all available information at the time its by no means certain that British threats were real or that they were in a position to carry them out. The Free State acted as badly if not more so than the irregulars in their conduct of the war and there was no guarentee anyway that what was offered by the british would develop into the independance we now enjoy.

With hindsight though I believe that the war should have been avoided at all costs and I'd like to think that had I been around at the time I would have supported neither. There was a rump of IRA members called the Neutral IRA. They issued calls for calm but were mostly irrelevant.

So there you go - and I think I voted for the Green party the last time!

Shutuplaura

Denerick wrote: »

Eh, sorry, what? James Connolly died in 1916, I'm talking about the Treaty debates. Read them, they are barely mentioned. They are barely mentioned in any of the anti treaty memorandums. Most followed Collins' thesis that the Boundary commission would withir up the remainder of the northern state. The north was an uncomfertable reality that few of the deputies were willing to engage on.

You are right that the north was hardly mentioned. Not everyone believed Collins was talking sense when he spoke of the Irish army being built up to a level capable of retaking the north but the feeling was that economically the North couldn't survive opn its own any way. The thing is, its never been on its own.

The debates were more about the nature of independance and the meaning of that the republic was that these people had struggled for. It wasn't an abstract notion like the Republic of Republican Sinn Fein, it was a state they ahd been trying to organise in the face of what they saw as outside agression by the British. I'm not sure who widespread the landcourts were or how effective the Dails police were to be honest but as institutions they did exist in parts of the country. TD's presumably believed the legitmacy of these institutions they created. The talk about the oath should be seen in that context.

Denerick

To be honest I see the conflict through a prism of constitutionalists and little dictators.

Liam Lynch really fooked up the war for the Republicans. The Republicans actually could have won if they:

1) Didn't put all their best leadership in the four courts/O Connel St.
2) If they had of organised a sortie from Blessington once the Four Courts fell.
3) If the stronger Repulican areas had of organised an advance, which they were well capable of doing.
4) Given O'Malley more support in Dublin. He literally wrote out massive plans and reports but had no men to act on them.
5) They should have replaced Lynch with someone like Tom Barry, who knew how to take the initiative.

That said, I'm very glad the Republicans lost. A poster mentioned that the executions would put him off the government - I would agree. But they were extraordinary times which called for extraordinary measures. Just remember the government didn't do it for the craic. O'Higgins ordered the execution of Rory O'Connor - One of his best friends and the best man at his wedding. The constitutionalists in power really saw no other alternative, they felt they were fighting for the peoples right to choose their nations path, and, well, the Republicans were 'the virtuous minority' where the peoples will had no meaning.

McArmalite

I once heard that the Treaty which was signed under the threats of Churchill, Lord Birkenhead etc could be classified as an unsustainable agreement in International Law. Whether that's true or not I'm not sure, maybe someone else can tell me. A bit like a man been forced to sign an incriminating document by the threats of the police.

As for James Connolly did indeed warn about the possibilty of partition and also foreseen that in the event of it coming about, as bad as the mistreatment of nationalists in the northeast fo the country already was, their mistreatment would become much worse entrapped there. Meanwhile the founding fathers of this state were attacking the IRA across the country at the behest of the british as unionist mobs and the british army murdered, looted, and ethnically cleansed thousands of nationalists in the six counties.

It should be pointed out that in De Valera's "Document No.2" with his proposed changes to the treaty during the Dail debate, that in part 18 " no election shall be held for the return of members to serve in the Parliament of Ireland ( Dail ) for constituencies in Northern Ireland, unless a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in favour of the holding of such elections before the end of the said month. " which was in effect accepting partition by the Machevilian quisling Dev.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.P.A.170001.html

Shutuplaura

Denerick wrote: »

To be honest I see the conflict through a prism of constitutionalists and little dictators.

Liam Lynch really fooked up the war for the Republicans. The Republicans actually could have won if they:

1) Didn't put all their best leadership in the four courts/O Connel St.
2) If they had of organised a sortie from Blessington once the Four Courts fell.
3) If the stronger Repulican areas had of organised an advance, which they were well capable of doing.
4) Given O'Malley more support in Dublin. He literally wrote out massive plans and reports but had no men to act on them.
5) They should have replaced Lynch with someone like Tom Barry, who knew how to take the initiative.

That said, I'm very glad the Republicans lost. A poster mentioned that the executions would put him off the government - I would agree. But they were extraordinary times which called for extraordinary measures. Just remember the government didn't do it for the craic. O'Higgins ordered the execution of Rory O'Connor - One of his best friends and the best man at his wedding. The constitutionalists in power really saw no other alternative, they felt they were fighting for the peoples right to choose their nations path, and, well, the Republicans were 'the virtuous minority' where the peoples will had no meaning.

Whatever about being glad republicans lost, I'm glad Collins didn't survive the war. He always seemed to me to be a dangerous figure to have running a country. He was head of government and head of the army when he got killed and looked to me to be close to becoming a dictator.

The republicans lost the initiative very quickly. Sitting back waiting to be attacked is always a risky tactic. I honestly believe that they had no stomach for the fight initially. Many accounts of the time say this, especially those of O' Malley and Francis Stewart.

About the executions, well who can say what they felt about it really? They were done in a most cavalier fashion however. The four symbolic deaths were extremely grisly. Shooting prisoners on the basis of where they are from or what sort of message it will send out. Whether it was necessary to win the war or not we can't say for sure. I personally remain unconvinced. I think it just started a terrible spiral of reprisal and counter reprisal that caused nothing but bitterness for decades. The Free state was remarkable good at finding and interning its enemies. I really don't believe that after August 1922 the result was in doubt because so many of the IRA leadership was on the run or in prison already. The Government destroyed all official documents related to the executions in the early 1930's. Obviously some of their reluctance to keep them was out of a legitimate fear of reprisal but it does add to my conviction that there was something shameful to hide in those documents.

Personally, I'm glad Ireland got over the civil war so well. Its a credit to all sides that there was a peaceful handover of power in the 1930's. It could have been so different. I think the country walked a fine line though.

walrusgumble

Australian oath of allegiance found in the Australian Constitution at the time
1I,, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!”


Canadian oath of allegiance found in the Canadian Consitution at the time
“I, [name], do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty ….. , Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God”

Article 4 of the Anglo Irish Treaty 1921 (look away)
“I ……. do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

The Irish Free State Oath of Allegiance, taken from the IFS Constitution of 1922 (look away now boys)
“I ... do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.”

Compare the to the usual oath taken by dominion states in 1921, the Irish one is vastly different to others as seen above. The IFS oath had two elements; the first, an oath to the Free State, as by law established, the second part a promise of fidelity, to His Majesty, King George V, his heirs and successors. That second fidelity element, however, was qualified in two ways. It was to the King in Ireland, not specifically to the British King. Secondly, it was to the King explicitly in his role as part of the Treaty settlement, not in terms of pre-1922 British rule.
The IFS oath was moderate by other dominion standards, and notably indirect in its reference to the monarchy . It was incorrect to say that it was in fact a direct oath to the crown. The oath was an oath of allegiance to the Free State and an oath of fidelity only to the crown by virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.”. This makes the whole issue on how he dail debates centring around the oath even worse, bad enough mere words got people hot under the collar, worse still was the fact that in clear black and white people misunderstood/misinterpreted it.

Shutuplaura

walrusgumble wrote: »

Compare the to the usual oath taken by dominion states in 1921, the Irish one is vastly different to others as seen above. The IFS oath had two elements; the first, an oath to the Free State, as by law established, the second part a promise of fidelity, to His Majesty, King George V, his heirs and successors. That second fidelity element, however, was qualified in two ways. It was to the King in Ireland, not specifically to the British King. Secondly, it was to the King explicitly in his role as part of the Treaty settlement, not in terms of pre-1922 British rule.
The IFS oath was moderate by other dominion standards, and notably indirect in its reference to the monarchy . It was incorrect to say that it was in fact a direct oath to the crown. The oath was an oath of allegiance to the Free State and an oath of fidelity only to the crown by virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.”. This makes the whole issue on how he dail debates centring around the oath even worse, bad enough mere words got people hot under the collar, worse still was the fact that in clear black and white people misunderstood/misinterpreted it.

I don't think you are correct in that Walrus. I do see what you mean but it was still an oath to the crown whichever way you look at it. They got 'hot under the collor' because they had declared independance and established at least some of the organs of state. The state they were attempting to create was specifically republican. Any mention of a monarch in what ever capacity was an anacronism to them. The oath was the most obvious manifestation of the problems these people had with the entire treaty because it was felt that they had already sworn an oath to a republic. Any subsequant oath that mentioned the king in any shape or form is clearly contrary to this, even if it was highly watered down. The line to king George...in virtue of the common citizenship - they felt that common citizenship no longer existed and therefore the oath was meaningless to them.

I respect that view. They hadn't lost the war and had in honestly and sincerity sworn to establish a republic. Realpolitik might say this was now impossible. Oaths though shouldn't be taken lightly.

The 1919-1921 period saw people declare independance and create new states all over Europe as the multi-national empires of the Central powers disintegrated. In this context the question could reasonably be asked - if the Czechs and poles can declare independance, why can't the Irish? Because the British were winners in the war and their idealistic adoption of the 14 points was an opertunistic sleight of hand is the answer.

The point could also be made that the treaty, in giving Ireland limited dominion staus was home rule for slow learners. They had fought a war on the basis of setting up an independant republic. What they got was little better than what could have been achieved without ever firing a shot after 1916? So was the fighting just to readjust the chairs on the Irish political stage or to achieve genuine political change?

The civil war, and the deabtes which preceded it were about the nature of Irish political life and the meaning of the Irish revolution. Kevin O'Higgins famously said that the Irish revolutionaries were the most conservative ever to succeed in pulling off a rebellion. I think this is not how the British government saw it and not how the IRA did either for that matter. The acceptance of the treaty and the pro-treaty victory in the civil war was the defeat of the Irish revolution. The CnaG party were the instrument of British policy and had effectively switched sides.

Field Marchal Montgomery wrote about his experience of the Irish War. It was something along the lines of 'we established an Irish government which crushed the rebels using harsher methods than we had ever dared'.

FF compramised to come to power themselves - that is why the fiction that the Irish War of independance was a success has been maintained.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I don't think you are correct in that Walrus. I do see what you mean but it was still an oath to the crown whichever way you look at it. They got 'hot under the collor' because they had declared independance and established at least some of the organs of state. The state they were attempting to create was specifically republican. Any mention of a monarch in what ever capacity was an anacronism to them. The oath was the most obvious manifestation of the problems these people had with the entire treaty because it was felt that they had already sworn an oath to a republic. Any subsequant oath that mentioned the king in any shape or form is clearly contrary to this, even if it was highly watered down. The line to king George...in virtue of the common citizenship - they felt that common citizenship no longer existed and therefore the oath was meaningless to them.

I respect that view. They hadn't lost the war and had in honestly and sincerity sworn to establish a republic. Realpolitik might say this was now impossible. Oaths though shouldn't be taken lightly.

The 1919-1921 period saw people declare independance and create new states all over Europe as the multi-national empires of the Central powers disintegrated. In this context the question could reasonably be asked - if the Czechs and poles can declare independance, why can't the Irish? Because the British were winners in the war and their idealistic adoption of the 14 points was an opertunistic sleight of hand is the answer.

The point could also be made that the treaty, in giving Ireland limited dominion staus was home rule for slow learners. They had fought a war on the basis of setting up an independant republic. What they got was little better than what could have been achieved without ever firing a shot after 1916? So was the fighting just to readjust the chairs on the Irish political stage or to achieve genuine political change?

The civil war, and the deabtes which preceded it were about the nature of Irish political life and the meaning of the Irish revolution. Kevin O'Higgins famously said that the Irish revolutionaries were the most conservative ever to succeed in pulling off a rebellion. I think this is not how the British government saw it and not how the IRA did either for that matter. The acceptance of the treaty and the pro-treaty victory in the civil war was the defeat of the Irish revolution. The CnaG party were the instrument of British policy and had effectively switched sides.

Field Marchal Montgomery wrote about his experience of the Irish War. It was something along the lines of 'we established an Irish government which crushed the rebels using harsher methods than we had ever dared'.

FF compramised to come to power themselves - that is why the fiction that the Irish War of independance was a success has been maintained.

Good post Laura. " The CnaG party were the instrument of British policy and had effectively switched sides. " CnaG were mostly nothing but political oppurtunists and willing puppets, many of them former Redmondites like O'Higgins who switched from the IPP to Sinn Fein in 1917/18 as they seen SF as the coming unstoppable force. Apart from maybe Collins and Sean McEoin, they contained barely anyone who had been at the forefront of the fighting. Unlike those on the Republican side, Brugha, Barry, O'Malley, Breen, Lynch etc
Interesting Montgomery's quote, ( btw, Montgomery had a nephew was one of the 19 known as the Cairo Gang killed by Collin's men ).

Denerick

Good post Laura. " The CnaG party were the instrument of British policy and had effectively switched sides. " CnaG were mostly nothing but political oppurtunists and willing puppets,

Nonsense, they were the constitutionalists who carried out the peoples will as opposed to the enlightened minority who interpreted the peoples will, either that or they couldn't give two craps about 'the will of the people'.

And there were plenty on the pro treaty side who were at the forefront of the war. Michael brennan, Mac Eoin, O Duffy etc. Your right about O'Higgins though, a very hard man to sympathise with.

McArmalite

Denerick wrote: »

Nonsense, they were the constitutionalists who carried out the peoples will as opposed to the enlightened minority who interpreted the peoples will, either that or they couldn't give two craps about 'the will of the people'.

Montgomery - 'we established an Irish government which crushed the rebels using harsher methods than we had ever dared'.

And there were plenty on the pro treaty side who were at the forefront of the war. Michael brennan, Mac Eoin, O Duffy etc. Your right about O'Higgins though, a very hard man to sympathise with.

I've mentioned McEoin, although they played their part, I wouldn't put O'Duffy in the same league as Brugha, Breen, O'Malley, Barry, Lynch etc ( even though he took part in the capture of an RIC barracks with O'Malley ).
BTW, who the hell was Michael brennan ??

Denerick

For a start you are overemphasising Brugha. He did very little in revolution. O Duffy was in prison for much of the war and involved in GHQ. As you mentioned, he was involved in the Bellatrain attack with O Malley in Monaghan, a relatively minor affair.

And I think you misunderstand the Montie quote. He was been ironic, that we were more extreme with our rebels than the Brits were with us.

Michael Brennan was a leader in west Clare. He played a vital role in the war and in the civil war for the staters.

walrusgumble

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I don't think you are correct in that Walrus. I do see what you mean but it was still an oath to the crown whichever way you look at it. They got 'hot under the collor' because they had declared independance and established at least some of the organs of state. The state they were attempting to create was specifically republican. Any mention of a monarch in what ever capacity was an anacronism to them. The oath was the most obvious manifestation of the problems these people had with the entire treaty because it was felt that they had already sworn an oath to a republic. Any subsequant oath that mentioned the king in any shape or form is clearly contrary to this, even if it was highly watered down. The line to king George...in virtue of the common citizenship - they felt that common citizenship no longer existed and therefore the oath was meaningless to them.

I respect that view. They hadn't lost the war and had in honestly and sincerity sworn to establish a republic. Realpolitik might say this was now impossible. Oaths though shouldn't be taken lightly.

The 1919-1921 period saw people declare independance and create new states all over Europe as the multi-national empires of the Central powers disintegrated. In this context the question could reasonably be asked - if the Czechs and poles can declare independance, why can't the Irish? Because the British were winners in the war and their idealistic adoption of the 14 points was an opertunistic sleight of hand is the answer.

The point could also be made that the treaty, in giving Ireland limited dominion staus was home rule for slow learners. They had fought a war on the basis of setting up an independant republic. What they got was little better than what could have been achieved without ever firing a shot after 1916? So was the fighting just to readjust the chairs on the Irish political stage or to achieve genuine political change?

The civil war, and the deabtes which preceded it were about the nature of Irish political life and the meaning of the Irish revolution. Kevin O'Higgins famously said that the Irish revolutionaries were the most conservative ever to succeed in pulling off a rebellion. I think this is not how the British government saw it and not how the IRA did either for that matter. The acceptance of the treaty and the pro-treaty victory in the civil war was the defeat of the Irish revolution. The CnaG party were the instrument of British policy and had effectively switched sides.

Field Marchal Montgomery wrote about his experience of the Irish War. It was something along the lines of 'we established an Irish government which crushed the rebels using harsher methods than we had ever dared'.

FF compramised to come to power themselves - that is why the fiction that the Irish War of independance was a success has been maintained.

there is nothing that you have said about the oath issue that one could disagree with, as you at least understand there was no direct allegiance to the crown of england. but as you pointed it was shaped as george being king of ireland too. further it is quiete clear, as you pointed and i am fully aware, any oath of allegiance or fedility to any crown went completely against the oath men and women of ireland took in promising to establish a republic. the term hot under the collar is inappropriate.

with regard to the government of ireland act 1914 (home rule), government of ireland act 1920 (which replaced the 1914, and brought in partition) and the treaty 1921 (yes, say what you like, it was home rule, as you say) and the comparisons. the first note, it that the treaty ended the idea of the retainment of irish mp's at westminister, the head of state/representative of britain in ireland had far less real power or say in legislation (or at least in pratice, prime ministers had in de facto come into existance), ireland was allowed its own army (limited)

with regard to what happened before 1916; i would like to raise a genuine question. how many examples onn the constitutional side, bearing in mind militant rebellions peppered the 1790- 1800's and the idea of complete break from the empire , actaully expressed a complete break from the empire? o'connell (certainly not), butt, parnell (he did utter some references, have a gawk at the statue in o'connell st), redmond? the right to rule on domestic affairs yes, but with regard to the people, was the actual idea of complete independence on all frontiers and having no shared connection with britian , even within their mind frame? can the actions of 1916 onwards be credited for the new mindframe of the likes of fianna fail which lead to the offical break under fine gael in the mid 1940's? i acknowledge that this maybe aloaded question and is hard to give a definite answer, but, was there really any evidence of ipp's intentions at that time to leave the union. what would happen if the 1914 act came in. would there have, in light of what we know or allege to know about the ipp, an attempt to leave the empire.

with regard to spilling of blood, i am in know doubt you are aware that many irish men fought in the first world war in the hope of attaining home rule. would that not be considered a sarifice? nothing too that the uvf had also fought for britain for of course loyalty and their own interests, how could britian force an all ireland home rule, when that section would violently oppose it. wasn't redmond's call to arms not a failure too, even if 1916 had not occurred? do you really think partition would not have occurred?

with regard to fianna fail compromising. yes, they did in 1926 by entering the dail set up under the treaty and recognising the oath. however, this is where collins's notion of freedom to achieve freedom steps in. dev was no use staying out in the cold. the majority of people voted for the treaty and recognised all institutions established under the treaty. once in power fianna fail set the foundations of dimantling the treaty and practically all but offically declaring a republic with the enactment of bunreacht na heireann.

Shutuplaura

Hi Walrus. You raise some excellent points. There are indeed some very good reasons for favouring the pro-treaty side over the anti treaty one. Its all counterfactual history and therefore supposition. I do believe though that if you are going to wage a war for a goal, giving up short of that goal amounts to a defeat. The negotiations in the form they took where the British negotiating team dominated are a recognition of this. They wrung some consessions from the British and secured a better form of government from them than the partitioned home rule offered in the government of Ireland act.

My problem with all of this is and remains the question of

a)
why they agreeded to sign under duress (understandable that a section of the Dail was annoyed by this)?


if they were as close to defeat as Collins later made out (he may have been in a position to know, however, it was also worth his while to exagerate the IRA's weakness in order to sell his treaty to the public)?

and

C)
if in the event that further war did lead to an Irish Republican defeat would any future settlement imposed by the British would have given substantially less that the treaty gave the Irish people (had the British been serious and waged terrible war in the country and won, a consitutional concession seems likely. Terrible war that the British threatened would have probably looked like the Free State actions in the Civil war and so we would have perhaps avoided the war at all had the British been bluffing, and replaced one terrible fratricidal war with another terrible war, less terrible to me because it wasn't a civil war..)?

About your other points, I believe the 1916 rising did herald a change in Irish desires./ Not suddenly but the start of a gradual shift. It started with sympathy for the rebels and grew from there. Count Plunkett only barely won the Roscommon by-election in 1917. After his victory the by-election results became less difficult for SF. The Sinn Fein support for anti-conscription was a major boost to the republican movement. Without this I think its questionable that they would have had such support post war. Basically that is how I see (and I reckon its hardly a particulary original belief) the rise of SF and republicanism. Perhaps you could also throw in war weariness/disilliusionment with WWI.

For what its worth I also believe that the UVF in 1912 were bluffing. The Government in 1912 (not 1914) should have made it clear that Home Rule on an All Ireland basis was going to happen. This was its lawful duty and it failed to do so. Instead the government waited, the UVF grew stronger and eventually armed itself in 1914. The UVF grew support and encopuragement from the weakness of the British Government. The stronger it appeared the more unlikely it was that the government would stand up to it, the more unlikely governemnt action against it was the more support form the British establishment if gained.
The UVF in the end was so close to the establishment that it became an entire division of the army in 1914 and its leader Carson joined the war cabinet. The time for action was 1912 after the commons vote.

It could legitmately be asked why should the Irish people in such circumstances be able to trust the British Government when it and its army don't want to enforce its own laws. Thats why I'd support all rebal actions from 1916 on. I'm not a physical force republican per se. The whole period was a tragedy stemming from the weakness of the British government in those crucial years.

Sorry I don't understand your mention of Redmonds call to arms. I think he was mistaken. He was playing loyalty bidding against the UVF leadership. The contempt that nationaist opinion was given by the British Establishment showed iwhen they didn't allow the IVF form their own divisions, like the UVF was allowed. For what its worth I think the Irish who fought in the British army were not fighting for anything particularly noble, though I respect the bravery of all men from every side who fought in the Western Front. I guess it was a failure because it didn't shore up support for him in the long term. Although it was successful from a British Army recruitment point of view.

Shutuplaura

Denerick wrote: »

Nonsense, they were the constitutionalists who carried out the peoples will as opposed to the enlightened minority who interpreted the peoples will, either that or they couldn't give two craps about 'the will of the people'.

And there were plenty on the pro treaty side who were at the forefront of the war. Michael brennan, Mac Eoin, O Duffy etc. Your right about O'Higgins though, a very hard man to sympathise with.

As elected legislators that was their job wasn't it? To interpret the will of their constituents...

Look both arguments have their merits and both sides have their enlightened leaders and unsympathetic hard men. Its very hard to like Dev for one. I don't think you can break anything as complex that happened 90 years ago down to a clear right or wrong. As it is all I said was I'd have more sympathy with the anti treaty side (and most with the neutrals).

McArmalite

Denerick wrote: »

For a start you are overemphasising Brugha. He did very little in revolution. O Duffy was in prison for much of the war and involved in GHQ. As you mentioned, he was involved in the Bellatrain attack with O Malley in Monaghan, a relatively minor affair.

And I think you misunderstand the Montie quote. He was been ironic, that we were more extreme with our rebels than the Brits were with us.

Michael Brennan was a leader in west Clare. He played a vital role in the war and in the civil war for the staters.

So someone whom I think most people, unless maybe your from West Clare, would never have heard of - Michael Brennan, played a " played a vital role " while Cathal Brugha " did very little in revolution ". :rolleyes:

I only mentioned O'Duffy's invovlement in the capture of the first RIC barracks in the country to bring attention to the fact that he had done his bit on the frontline. Doubtless though if Michael Brennan had been invovled you'd be telling us it was an act of momumental importance.

And you interpret Mountgommery's statement as " ironic ". I suppose the threat form the british of " terrible and immediate war " was ironic as well no doubt .

Will you do me a favour, will you please not comment on any posts of mine on any thread, nor I will do likewise in responce to you. Thanks.

Denerick

McArmalite wrote: »

So someone whom I think most people, unless maybe your from West Clare, would never have heard of - Michael Brennan, played a " played a vital role " while Cathal Brugha " did very little in revolution ". :rolleyes:

I only mentioned O'Duffy's invovlement in the capture of the first RIC barracks in the country to bring attention to the fact that he had done his bit on the frontline. Doubtless though if Michael Brennan had been invovled you'd be telling us it was an act of momumental importance.

And you interpret Mountgommery's statement as " ironic ". I suppose the threat form the british of " terrible and immediate war " was ironic as well no doubt .

Will you do me a favour, will you please not comment on any posts of mine on any thread, nor I will do likewise in responce to you. Thanks.

Tis nothing more dangerous than a simple mind.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

So someone whom I think most people, unless maybe your from West Clare, would never have heard of - Michael Brennan, played a " played a vital role " while Cathal Brugha " did very little in revolution ". :rolleyes:

I only mentioned O'Duffy's invovlement in the capture of the first RIC barracks in the country to bring attention to the fact that he had done his bit on the frontline. Doubtless though if Michael Brennan had been invovled you'd be telling us it was an act of momumental importance.

And you interpret Mountgommery's statement as " ironic ". I suppose the threat form the british of " terrible and immediate war " was ironic as well no doubt .

Will you do me a favour, will you please not comment on any posts of mine on any thread, nor I will do likewise in responce to you. Thanks.

peopel within the region that comprises of the Western Division and parts of the 1st southern division are fully aware of whom michael brennan is, particularily during the civil war (battle of limerick)

cathal brugha took little or no part in the planning or fighting in the tan war. he was shut our and ignored by the likes of collins and GHQ, despite being the minister for defence. Brugha spent most of the time in his candle making store and on the run (he like collins escaped the german plot)

Denerick

Its response to the Monty quote is impossible to articulate :pac: (Really don't think it/he/she understands on the most basic level what that quote is saying)

Shutuplaura

Denerick wrote: »

Its response to the Monty quote is impossible to articulate :pac: (Really don't think it/he/she understands on the most basic level what that quote is saying)

You start a thread asking if anyone still dared be unenlightened enough to have any sympathy with the anti treaty side....why? To insult them?

I don't think Monty (Who by the way I admire immensly. He considered himself Irish apparently which is fine by me.)was being ironic. I don't see how irony can be seen in that statement. Its a fairly bland appraisal of what happened after the civil war started. Would Lloyd-Georges threat, if he meant it and if he was able to get the political support for it of immediate and terrible war have been any worse than what the Free-State did to crush their enemies?


Here is a question for you. Lynch was in Dublin just prior to the outbreak of war. What was he doing in the city?

Shutuplaura

walrusgumble wrote: »

cathal brugha took little or no part in the planning or fighting in the tan war. he was shut our and ignored by the likes of collins and GHQ, despite being the minister for defence. Brugha spent most of the time in his candle making store and on the run (he like collins escaped the german plot)

Brennan was an important regional figure. Brugha was nationally known. He chaired the opening of the first dail didn't he?

He was consistantly sidelined by Collins, probably for a good reason. But likewise, he did though consistantly oppose the IRB in its efforts to undermine Dail control of the volunteers. Wrong headed but admirable.