Irish Civil War

walrusgumble

Shutuplaura wrote: »

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.

yes brugha opened the dail.i was referring to the fighting side of things, and we have both noted that he was ignored by collins and ghq (as you pointed, many of whom we irb men, which both brugha and dev left after 1916 - due to their, inter alia, mistrust of secret organisations and need for army to be answerable only to the dail). you will be fully aware that the dail did not reguraly sit after january 1919, for understandable reasons.

by no means, my reference to what brugha was doing during the tan war, was intended to criticise and dismiss brugha, it was simply to add to another posters point that brugha was overestimated.

walrusgumble

Shutuplaura wrote: »

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.

i will try to response the the above excellent responds. however, i feel that they will raise more questions than answers (so anything with a questin mark, is more me asking a question than me actually exprerssing "this is what i think!")

A. signing the treaty during duress.
i understand from reading extracts of diaries from people like robert barton and other history sources, than people like collins and griffith reminded/warned them by asking barton & co whether or not they wished by be hanging from the lamppost in dublin by the people if they refused to sign the treaty. there was an excellent clip in the brendan glesson tv film The Treaty about this.

A. signing the treaty during duress.
i understand from reading extracts of diaries from people like robert barton and other history sources, than people like collins and griffith reminded/warned them by asking barton & co whether or not they wished by be hanging from the lamppost in dublin by the people if they refused to sign the treaty. there was an excellent clip in the brendan glesson tv film The Treaty about this.

to add to your point, i would ask the qustion of whether or not, taking the massive threat of war (whether bluff or not) a side, where some of the signatories really under duress from the british. griffith was happy to accept the proposals, collins & griffith knew or had suspicions that a complete break was probably not possible, considering the reports that came back when dev returned from london in july. would they also feel that they could not come back to the dail from london in decemeber 1921 empty handed?

where the people in ireland, really ture republicans in the sense of brugha? (looking for the results in the general elections that followed). it was not so long ago many were voting for the irish parliamentary party, surely some attitudes were never lost when turning to sinn fein ? - (one person highlighted O'Higgins). maybe not everyone shared there opinion that the physical fight needed to carry on until the goal was achieved? were people simply fed up with attacks and counter attacks? i am not 100% sure what press coverage was like in those days, but surely there were comments, reports and editor opinion pieces in the papers about what happend at the july conference and predicitions of what would occur in the december sessions. surely some people on the streets had an idea of what might be going on and where not completely surprised with the outcome in december? dev always said that all he had to do was look into his own heart and he would know what the wishes of the people were (he elections records years later must have shown this). did the men who signed have a good understanding of what their own constituents were thinking? (collins - of course being from republican cork)





b- collins belief on the weakness of the ira.
interesting one that, considering that GHQ failed to properly communicate and give central directions to all divisions during the war. they had only started to side men down to train battalions in the west until late 1920's. people like tom barry was confident more fighting could continue. what i am aware of is that, by the time of the truce, many of collins's men were either dead or in prison. the british were beginning to get the upper hand on his intelligence system. who knows what would have happened had the war continued for 2 more months. the british must have had an idea of the strength of the ira by truce time. surely, though, the ordinary person and the volunteers themselves knew, without collins telling them, the actually strength of their own units? did collins utter this information in public or in the dail chambers?

c. britain's threat
would britain have implemented further war? would they not be pressured by the rest of the world (america, versaille peace conference) and their own people? rumours had being made though that they would use tanks and aeroplanes. whether or not it was bluff, its understandable ireland were not prepared or in a position to call their bluff. the king had early spoke at the opening of stormount of peace between the island of ireland and britain. did britain know or were they confident that moderate republicas would be "sensible" (in british eyes) and avoid further conflict? good point about the civil war though. did the british actually forsee this? (in talks with collins, churchill demanded action, but was very clear to point out that it must be seen to be action coming from the free state and not them, as to do so, would further strengthen the republican cause and led to many pro treaty people going to the other side. i note one rumour that churchill had suggested to collins to bomb the four courts from the air - churchill being happy to supply planes so long as they were painted in free state colours)

as for your comment on the uvf and their time of action should have come in 1912 when they signed the covenant - excellent point! i would be of the view though, with regard to the liberals home rule bill 1912, maybe they were half hearted about this. surely there were many in that party who were not keen on telling people who wished to remain loyal to westminister that they were now to be ruled by dublin? (domestic wise) you will be aware that it was in relation to another bill and trouble with the lords, that brought about the parliament act of 1911. would genuine pro home rulers in the liberal party be willing to see the party split to the advantage of the opposition over the issue of ireland, and in particular over loyal unionist?

you will of course be fully aware of the "original" Curragh mutiny (1914ish) where british troops in ireland refused to take action against unionists if they took arms against the home rule bill. clear indication of this would be their non intervention during the larne gun running and their acceptance of uvf men drilling in full view, some with arms. wouldn't all of this be powerfully advantage to the unionists, knowing that they said some important british institutions on their side?

with regard to the irish people's apparent acception of what was actually going on in the north, maybe redmond did not want to rock the boat, try and get what he wants without outbreak of war in the country? for the issues you and i have rose; this issues are amongst many as to why pearse did what he did and bring about the rising, and i would support and accept the actual neccisitity for 1916.

the reference about redmond's call to arms; yes he was mistaken. that reference of mine, is my answer to previous threads where people completly dennounced 1916 under some crazy belief that spilling of blood was not neccessary and that redmond would have sorted it out and thus would, naturally result in the ireland of today. (to which i say is possibly nonsense for reasons i pointed out in above posts and this) redmond's call to arms was to show ireland's good will and earn some brownie points (probably inappropriate word) to ensure home rule would be implemented - either way, it would have still lead to spilling of irish blood, albeit, in a foreign land and a foreign war for a foreign army.

shqipshume

Would have disagreed with it

BossArky

Denerick wrote: »

Tis nothing more dangerous than a simple mind.

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)

Banned for a week. Learn to formulate arguments without insulting others.

McArmalite

Denerick wrote: »

Tis nothing more dangerous than a simple mind.

With Thanks from: walrusgumble.... OOOOOOhhh, look who's sore form previous debates we've had . I know, it's the the British friends of Ireland thread isn't it

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)

As Shutuplaura states " 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. "

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

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)

Cathal Brugha took part in the 1916 been wounded quite a few times, his bravery during Easter week became a source of inspiration and admiration right across the 32 counties, and not just down in Clare and possibly Limerick. He was elected a TD and appointed the first Ceann Comhairle of the Dail.

And far from just running a candle store was involved in operations for the IRA, ( including one incidentally with Micheal Brennan in trying to procure arms from London ). One of the main IRA leaders at the start of the civil war, he died of a gun shot wound received just off O'Connell St.

Such was the esteem he was held in, there is a barracks named in his honour in Rathmines, a major street in Dublin and a stamp was released in his honour.

Doubtless Micheal Brennan was a brave local leader who more than played his part - but don't tell us his influence throughout Ireland was greater than Cathal Brugha's :rolleyes:

Shutuplaura

Thansk for your detailed response Walrus. I read down through my comment and I noticed one sentace four lines long with the word 'war' used six times in it so fair play in responding.

From your response I guess we are not too far apart in how we see this whole period. I can see why pragmatically, people would have backed the treaty. Its something I thought about quite a bit and to be honest I speant a long time going over and back between the two views before coming to the conclusion that the Anti-Treaty side was less wrong.

I do think though that the treaty side had a huge advantage in the propaganda side of the war and after all of the years that have gone by a lot of this propaganda is being treated like fact. Perhaps its also the subtilty of the anti-treaty arguments makes it easier to understand the pro-treaty position.

For instance, the anti-treaty people were talking about remaining the war against the British. Forget the inconvenient fact that this is what quite a few of the pro-treaty side also wanted, just at a future date, and you suddnely have one side being seen as an agressor and one as the side trying to restore peace.

Or the loss of the national archives, an event used to show how barbaric the anti-treaty side was. The national army blamed it on the irregulars in the Four Courts when clearly it was as much their fault for using high explosive and incindiary on the building. The lie was spread that it was booby traps and without question it is now repeated as fact.

You are right that the treaty negotiators had a really difficult task when they went to london. In accounts of the procedings its clear that the British dominated, and with a mixture of threats and flattery got them to agree to sign. In truth Dev should have gone and its to his eternal shame that he didn't go. All this aside though, the threat of war is an unacceptable tactic and one they should have really been more prepaired to face, Dev included.

donaghs

Going back to the original question, another reason why the Anti-Treaty forces did not have the support of the majority was the way in which they attacked the infrastructure of the country. Particularly in the latter stages of the war. It was as if they were saying that if they could not govern, then no-one would. Banks were robbed, roads, railways, railway stations, bridges destroyed, trains derailed, etc.

McArmalite

Shutuplaura wrote: »

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.

Yes indeed. As has been said before on this forum, if WW1 was about the freedom of small nations, then how come the british empire was larger at the end of it than before it.

walrusgumble wrote: »

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)

Yes I've often thought that the subject of the differences between the government of Ireland act 1914 and the Treaty in 1921. Had a quick read on wiki and it's an interesting aspect to the period.

Home Rule Act 1914 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Home_Rule_Act

Government of Ireland Act 1920 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920#Structures_of_the_governmental_system

Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

walrusgumble wrote: »

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?

Well Parnell expressed a complete break from the empire. For example
"When we have undermined English misgovernment we have paved the way
for Ireland to take her place amongst the nations of the earth.
And let us not forget that that is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen aim.
None of us whether we be in America or in Ireland . . . . will be satisfied
until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England." *

As for O'Connell, he ran with the hares and the hounds as quick as the winds change. Redmond was completely servile and gullible to the british govt. I doubt if he'd say anything too radical that might upset his betters over on the mainland.


* The Irish Parliamentary Tradition by Brian Farrell

Judgement Day

Just been reviewing your recent postings and I am intrigued that you have had nothing to say about the recent activities of the Continuity/Real IRA?

McArmalite

Judgement Day wrote: »

Just been reviewing your recent postings and I am intrigued that you have had nothing to say about the recent activities of the Continuity/Real IRA?

Off topic.

jiggajt

Denerick wrote: »

but there are always a few Shinners running about.

I have a small bone of contention with that statement. It implies that the only anti-treaty-ites were radical sinn fein-ers. Lets not forget that the vast majority of those who walked out on the dail vote to accept the treaty went on to form Fianna Fail in 1926. People always tend to blame the dark side of violence in irish history on sinn fein but we should note that pretty much every party in the country has blood on its hands. (except the greens!)

As for the original question of whether or not i can sympathise with the anti treaty side my answer would be no. Civil war is always counter productive especially for a newly emerging state. In a way the distraction of the civil war left the question of partition on the long finger and alienated the North while the south recovered. By the time the southern government had got itself together it was too late to solve the issue.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

With Thanks from: walrusgumble.... OOOOOOhhh, look who's sore form previous debates we've had . I know, it's the the British friends of Ireland thread isn't it

As Shutuplaura states " 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. "

soar?, ya amadan! i don't take discussions on the forms personal like you. I am also better equipped in making an argument. I stand by that "thanks". but most importantly, i am capable of reading a persons post IN FULL, and i am capable at least, for sake of a balanced discussion, see both sides of each argument.

Secondly, have one more glance at the "british friends of ireland". You will note, unless you are truely brain dead, that the purpose of the discussion was to assess whether or not there were british citizens who were friends of ireland. You managed to diss a number of labour UK party members like ken lingstone. of course, except bothering to discuss it properly, the usual 800 years carry on, kicks in. despite the fact that gentlemen like livingstone has received numerous death threats from loyalist and english people and despite the fact he worked hard for the irish in britian over the years.

You will also note the tone of a majority of people, whom disagreed with teh major tone of your comments. discussed whether a certain person was good bad or indifferent, regardless of opinions, at least most were capable of at least debate intelligently.

move on, lad. how should one even bother entertain moranic rants and get accussed of saying things or being misinterpreted by others who clearly and often even expressly say that they did not read posts in full.

so by all means, let everyone have a look at the said thread.

sorry lad, but i got a life, i dont get sore over nonsense like this, even if i am on hiding to nowhere whilst discussing something.

like i say, (and i do appologise to others) in principle, i stand by my thanks tag, i am fully aware what mods might do.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

Cathal Brugha took part in the 1916 been wounded quite a few times, his bravery during Easter week became a source of inspiration and admiration right across the 32 counties, and not just down in Clare and possibly Limerick. He was elected a TD and appointed the first Ceann Comhairle of the Dail.

And far from just running a candle store was involved in operations for the IRA, ( including one incidentally with Micheal Brennan in trying to procure arms from London ). One of the main IRA leaders at the start of the civil war, he died of a gun shot wound received just off O'Connell St.

Such was the esteem he was held in, there is a barracks named in his honour in Rathmines, a major street in Dublin and a stamp was released in his honour.

Doubtless Micheal Brennan was a brave local leader who more than played his part - but don't tell us his influence throughout Ireland was greater than Cathal Brugha's :rolleyes:

the first paragraph is excellent proof, that Mcarmlite does not read posts in full. THE WORLD AND ITS MOTEHR KNOWS BRUGHA'S RECORD IN 1916. I clearly refered to the Tan War. Again, YES! Brugha got busy at teh wake of civil war, but was not a public face in the miliatary side of things during the tan war.(he had joined dev in criticising the war, however, unlike dev he did not criticise war in general, more in the methods used) Yes, he inspired many, and no doubt people like collin himslef. but he was cut out and often, as Minister for Defence, completely undermind by the irb. Yes he planned to bring war to britain, but planning and trying is much different to actual implementation. At no time is anyone slagging him off, he is a hero and had no problem risking his life for ireland (something to commend as very few would have the courage to do). What we are saying though, in response to another poster's comment, Brugha's influence during the tan war was overemphasised.

Again, Read Posts, NO ONE ACTUALLY DISMISSED BRUGHA BEING AN INSPIRATIONAL MAN!
But again, did he fight in the fields/ditiches and trenches etc during the tan war? no! - the reality is, whilst highly respected, i doubt very few in places like cork, during the tan war, were too concerned or inspired by brugha as they had their own leaders.


You have some nerve to consider Western Division as local, particularily when you have admitted you know next to nothing about Michael Brennan. BUT NO, (and again if you read the thread!!!!) I DO NOT SAY BRENNAN'S INFLUENCE WAS GREATER THAN BRUGHA. (just a reminder, the context to the first response about brugha was the tan war - by the way, thanks for the history lesson lol)

Balmed Out

The war of independence wasn't really won in Dublin. The majority of incidents took part in cork, limerick, tipperary, clare and longford. What inspired the guys doing the work wasn't anything coming from the mouths of brugha, dev or for that matter michael collins. What gave them a lift was news of succesful ambushes in crossbarry or wherever else by "regional" figures. Its possible that the likes of tom barry were far more crucial to our independence then even the most important of national figures. The leaders of the more sucessful columns generally looked to the national movements actions with frustraion for not pulling their weight.
I reckon michael brennan was possibly the most succesful outside of cork and as far as his influnce goes i cant think of any really sucessful comander who joined the free state besides sean mac eoin. I would guess this had a very real influence over the tide of general public opinion.

Denerick

I apologise to everyone (Bar one) about how this thread turned out. WalrusGrumble puts it very well; people need to read other peoples posts before making over the top comments. I might have been irritated by one users post, but I had no excuse to go to the length of dragging down a perfectly good thread for the sake of one troll.

BossArky

I'm going to lock this thread for the moment to let things cool down.

All - please attack the post, not the poster.

Denerick, if you want this reopened let me know.

BossArky

Reopened on requrest. This will be locked if things get heated again.

walrusgumble

i take note of the last two posts.

back to the topic here,

what i find ridiculously strange with future actions after the civil war and in light of reasonably clear intentions from the 1916 declaration that all irish men AND women would have full and equal rights, that dev would pretty much lower the rights of women with his constitution; now the easy answer would be his own background, his genuine concern for family life, and the church teachings at the time. but how can it be accepted in light of the fact that women during this time did just as much as the men, eg cumann na mban, clerks, informants etc. moreover, cumann na mban were very very vocal in their attitude towards the treaty, the constitution of 1922 compared with bunreacht na heireann and subsequent legislation, did not impose restrictions or plant them in a box.

getz

walrusgumble wrote: »

the first paragraph is excellent proof, that Mcarmlite does not read posts in full. THE WORLD AND ITS MOTEHR KNOWS BRUGHA'S RECORD IN 1916. I clearly refered to the Tan War. Again, YES! Brugha got busy at teh wake of civil war, but was not a public face in the miliatary side of things during the tan war.(he had joined dev in criticising the war, however, unlike dev he did not criticise war in general, more in the methods used) Yes, he inspired many, and no doubt people like collin himslef. but he was cut out and often, as Minister for Defence, completely undermind by the irb. Yes he planned to bring war to britain, but planning and trying is much different to actual implementation. At no time is anyone slagging him off, he is a hero and had no problem risking his life for ireland (something to commend as very few would have the courage to do). What we are saying though, in response to another poster's comment, Brugha's influence during the tan war was overemphasised.

Again, Read Posts, NO ONE ACTUALLY DISMISSED BRUGHA BEING AN INSPIRATIONAL MAN!
But again, did he fight in the fields/ditiches and trenches etc during the tan war? no! - the reality is, whilst highly respected, i doubt very few in places like cork, during the tan war, were too concerned or inspired by brugha as they had their own leaders.


You have some nerve to consider Western Division as local, particularily when you have admitted you know next to nothing about Michael Brennan. BUT NO, (and again if you read the thread!!!!) I DO NOT SAY BRENNAN'S INFLUENCE WAS GREATER THAN BRUGHA. (just a reminder, the context to the first response about brugha was the tan war - by the way, thanks for the history lesson lol)

yes cork had its own leaders of ethnic cleansing --in west cork in 1916 the bishop of meath gave retrospective approval for the cold blooded murders of protestants-in 1922 many thousands of protestants fled their homes in terror .i can tell you a lot more .

walrusgumble

getz wrote: »

yes cork had its own leaders of ethnic cleansing --in west cork in 1916 the bishop of meath gave retrospective approval for the cold blooded murders of protestants-in 1922 many thousands of protestants fled their homes in terror .i can tell you a lot more .

shhhh be careful, you might be considered a blasphasist from others of the holy bible of republicanism. no doubt someone is going to say, ya he/she was an enemy, supporter of the union etc.. well, plenty of catholics and some republicans turned informers too.

really though, a bishop in 1916? (i am more interested in the period as oppose to the bishops rant - which is highely possible) just, i understand that in 1916, the church and and local governments etc publicly condemned the war and at least gave lip service condeming the use of violence during the tan war and civil war, threatening excommunication. what happened to that bishop? was he packed away to the other end of the world, like father dominc o'connor and father albert bibby? (i wish to point out they were sent off for their activiity in general) strange considering a true republican needs not be reminded that the republic they fought for has its foundations from the protestants.

could you indicate to me source wise this information? was it just him or the church in general?

getz

walrusgumble wrote: »

shhhh be careful, you might be considered a blasphasist from others of the holy bible of republicanism. no doubt someone is going to say, ya he/she was an enemy, supporter of the union etc.. well, plenty of catholics and some republicans turned informers too.

really though, a bishop in 1916? (i am more interested in the period as oppose to the bishops rant - which is highely possible) just, i understand that in 1916, the church and and local governments etc publicly condemned the war and at least gave lip service condeming the use of violence during the tan war and civil war, threatening excommunication. what happened to that bishop? was he packed away to the other end of the world, like father dominc o'connor and father albert bibby? (i wish to point out they were sent off for their activiity in general) strange considering a true republican needs not be reminded that the republic they fought for has its foundations from the protestants.

could you indicate to me source wise this information? was it just him or the church in general?

being honest with you my infomation came from the dublin website www.reform.org go into articles and the historical prospictive its very good

meganj

I think the originalquestion asked is a very interesting one. While it's easy now to say that we should've voted for the treaty or against the treaty or however you see fit the fact of the matter is that the treaty ws ratified by a majority. The split in the Dail resulted in a civil war an awful time in Ireland's history.

Without the benefit of hindsight i would've voted yes, absolutely. But i can undertand the reasons for voting against it. Pearse's wife was present at the debates and she expressed the opinion that the treaty was not what her husband had given his life for. But I really think that that's the main argument against it, that it wasn't the republic that so many people had given their lives for.

But there are so many reasons for ratifiying it.

Economically speaking Ireland would have faultered and failed if we cut off all contact with Britain. Militarily the only reason that the British came to the table was because they couldn't win a guerrilla war. But after the truce so many soldiers came out of the "woodwork" and their faces were known.

In addition to this the treaty was created by a group of British men who had just negotiated the Treaty of Versailles (you all remember that, the treay that started WW2 because it crippled Germany) they could've easily done that to Ireland, and no one can say if Britain had resumed war and we had lost (or won) that the terms would've been so favourable.

Obviously i'm not doubting that the treaty was not what it should've been, but as Collins said "it remains a stepping stone, freedom to achieve our freedom" and as Dev would say when he took the oath after realising that there was no power left in fighting against men who had followed him into hell, it was an empty formula.

That's my opinion on it anyway, but it is interesting to note that all the women present in hte Dail voted against ratification, they had all lost husbands and brothers and I don't know that if I had the chance to vote that i would vote to ratify because while the post asks to consider it without the benefit of hindsight it's impossible.

Balmed Out

There was no ethnic cleansing in Cork.

Denerick

getz wrote: »

being honest with you my infomation came from the dublin website www.reform.org go into articles and the historical prospictive its very good

On another thread I commented on that 'website'. Its fringe stuff mate, buy yourself a couple of books before quoting websites as if they are authoritive. Most of the time those articles are written by people with serious agenda's and are rarely written with the use of the historical method. Try David Fitzpatrick 'The two Irelands' or even some of Michael Hopkinson's stuff. Reform.org is not good, to be frank.

walrusgumble

Denerick wrote: »

On another thread I commented on that 'website'. Its fringe stuff mate, buy yourself a couple of books before quoting websites as if they are authoritive. Most of the time those articles are written by people with serious agenda's and are rarely written with the use of the historical method. Try David Fitzpatrick 'The two Irelands' or even some of Michael Hopkinson's stuff. Reform.org is not good, to be frank.

i found michael hopkinson's book on the civil war to be excellent in the attempt not just to state what happened around the country but also its a very balanced book which is credibly important when discussing the civil war. i take it is book on the tan war is of the same standard

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

soar?, ya amadan! i don't take discussions on the forms personal like you. I am also better equipped in making an argument. I stand by that "thanks". but most importantly, i am capable of reading a persons post IN FULL, and i am capable at least, for sake of a balanced discussion, see both sides of each argument.

Secondly, have one more glance at the "british friends of ireland". You will note, unless you are truely brain dead, that the purpose of the discussion was to assess whether or not there were british citizens who were friends of ireland. You managed to diss a number of labour UK party members like ken lingstone. of course, except bothering to discuss it properly, the usual 800 years carry on, kicks in. despite the fact that gentlemen like livingstone has received numerous death threats from loyalist and english people and despite the fact he worked hard for the irish in britian over the years.

You will also note the tone of a majority of people, whom disagreed with teh major tone of your comments. discussed whether a certain person was good bad or indifferent, regardless of opinions, at least most were capable of at least debate intelligently.

move on, lad. how should one even bother entertain moranic rants and get accussed of saying things or being misinterpreted by others who clearly and often even expressly say that they did not read posts in full.

so by all means, let everyone have a look at the said thread.

sorry lad, but i got a life, i dont get sore over nonsense like this, even if i am on hiding to nowhere whilst discussing something.

like i say, (and i do appologise to others) in principle, i stand by my thanks tag, i am fully aware what mods might do.

Since this post is mainly about your beautiful thread - british friends of Ireland, could you post it over there " ya amadan ", I'll post my reply to it then :rolleyes:

( BTW, what do you mean by " You managed to diss a number of labour UK party members like ken lingstone. " ?? )

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

i take note of the last two posts.

back to the topic here,

what i find ridiculously strange with future actions after the civil war and in light of reasonably clear intentions from the 1916 declaration that all irish men AND women would have full and equal rights, that dev would pretty much lower the rights of women with his constitution; now the easy answer would be his own background, his genuine concern for family life, and the church teachings at the time. but how can it be accepted in light of the fact that women during this time did just as much as the men, eg cumann na mban, clerks, informants etc. moreover, cumann na mban were very very vocal in their attitude towards the treaty, the constitution of 1922 compared with bunreacht na heireann and subsequent legislation, did not impose restrictions or plant them in a box.

" cumann na mban were very very vocal in their attitude towards the treaty " Cumman na Mban voted overwhelmingly against it - 419 Cumann na mBan members voted against as opposed to 63 in favour. Over 400 of its members were then imprisoned by the Free State. Luckily for them none of them met the same fate as many of the male prisioners. To me it asks a serious question about the motivations of the founders of this state, power for power sake where they could grant themselves all the trappings of state and it's self rewards.

JohnThomas09

not sure if I should be posting this here.

I recently came across a stroy in a local history book about a civil war soldier who was killed in my area.At the time they had to bury him in the local cemetery at night.I have the date he was buried but it doesnt give his name,also no headstone was ever placed there.

I went to the local parish records but they only start in 1927 and this happened in 1922.Where could I find out more?

walrusgumble

JohnThomas09 wrote: »

not sure if I should be posting this here.

I recently came across a stroy in a local history book about a civil war soldier who was killed in my area.At the time they had to bury him in the local cemetery at night.I have the date he was buried but it doesnt give his name,also no headstone was ever placed there.

I went to the local parish records but they only start in 1927 and this happened in 1922.Where could I find out more?

yeah,that kind of thing happened ALOT during both the Tan War and Civil War - for fear of arrest etc and wish to give a soldier's funeral, though at most times, the headstone or records were noted. sad, regardless of what background you come from.

this may take years, and possible fruitless discovery, but check the military records of that time. many people who took part in the tan war and civil war provided statements/reports years later. see if local papers refer to missing people etc