DeValera Megathread

CDfm

It has been claimed that DeV had Aspergers and Moynihan has him showing uncharacteristic empathy.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=eMunoqn0iU8C&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=eamon+valera+and+sex+and+affairs&source=bl&ots=NmzMpYfYoU&sig=oIvkR3LR48OpurNmfaSoq2zbDos&hl=en&ei=yDe1TfnyCIO1hAe23o3kDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

DeV became the establishment & Churchill called him Devil-Eire (though when the finally met got on like a house on fire.

Dwyer and Coogan argue that the way that De Valera was treated by successive British prime ministers does not indicate any secret deal. Dwyer added that Winston Churchill believed he was the devil, and pronounced his name “Devil-Eire” to imply it.
Tom Garvin, professor of politics at University College Dublin, said the book sounded like a distorted version of Irish history and rejected its central thesis as “utter nonsense”. He said the suggestion that De Valera was never put on trial after the Rising was rubbish, dismissing Turi’s assertion that a letter written in 1964 by William Wylie, a prosecuting officer, says no hearing took place.
“Wylie did not say anything of the sort. He says exactly the opposite [in his memoir]; that de Valera was condemned,” Garvin said.
The three historians say De Valera escaped execution after the Rising because the British needed to pacify Irish public opinion, and he was not seen as being of particular importance.
Eamon Ó Cuív, his grandson and the community and rural affairs minister, also dismissed the accusation: “The theory is ridiculous and so I have no further comment.”
Turi, a retired US marine married to an Irish woman, said he had expected Irish historians to disagree, but added: “The evidence is so obvious and readily available, it’s amazing to me that Irish writers never came to this conclusion.”
He decided to write the book having set out to research a Michael Collins biography, but soon finding that “every time De Valera popped up, it was a disaster for Ireland”.
The 470-page hardback will have an initial print run of 3,000 copies and go on sale in Ireland and the UK. Publishers plan to release it in America next year.
Charles Powell, the assistant editor of Stacey International, expects the book to sell well. He said the publishers had been slightly concerned by Turi’s theory, but were reassured by his research and referencing.
“We are convinced of the integrity of the work and try to publish books that raise debate and ask questions,” he said.
“A lot of people agree that the decisions de Valera took were counterproductive to the cause he was supposed to be supporting. Whether that was because he was a British spy or because they were just the decisions he made is more difficult to prove.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898250.ece

I don't know about the Aspergers but DeV was very focused and the Trade War wirh Britain was a disaster.

A probable explanation for his regret is that he had to use the same tactics -internment & execution and expected his" orders" carried out. He needed policemen.

The "Home Rule" Party who adopted the peace and negotiation model had achieved independence which was delayed by the Great War and universal suffrage for men over 21 on women over 30 was introduced so it is arguable that DeV wanted power. He can hardly admit that the independence deal achieved is the same that the Moderate HR Party was in the throes of securing and had been passed by Parliment after 6 or so years of fighting. He got the same deal the moderates were getting.

Of course he is going to be sympathetic to the RIC in later life as he is the Pres and all power springs from him - constitutionally and mythically as the only surviving Commandant of 1916.

Was DeV a democrat ? Reluctantly I think post Civil War. Some of his behavior was like a Mafia Don/Godfather at times but there was a bit of a Franco in him too.

So yes he is going to approve of the hangman when he is the one doing the hanging -the same hangman the RIC used. That is logical.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I'd be curious too! Considering that de Valera died in 1975 it was quite a feat for him to be letting his feelings be known in the 1980s - ??

My understanding of this is that the book refered to was published in the 1980's, as opposed to a reincarnation of de Valera! As per ejmaztec post quote. It could be argued that publishing such a view after someones death is easy as they cannot reject it.

jonniebgood1

Regarding the program which my initial post link discussed I have a list of correspondences arguing over the contents:
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/corks-bloody-secret-a-small-dispute/

It does'nt answer the initial query but is interesting.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I

A probable explanation for his regret is that he had to use the same tactics -internment & execution and expected his" orders" carried out. He needed policemen.

The "Home Rule" Party who adopted the peace and negotiation model had achieved independence which was delayed by the Great War and universal suffrage for men over 21 on women over 30 was introduced so it is arguable that DeV wanted power. He can hardly admit that the independence deal achieved is the same that the Moderate HR Party was in the throes of securing and had been passed by Parliment after 6 or so years of fighting. He got the same deal the moderates were getting.

Of course he is going to be sympathetic to the RIC in later life as he is the Pres and all power springs from him - constitutionally and mythically as the only surviving Commandant of 1916.

Was DeV a democrat ? Reluctantly I think post Civil War. Some of his behavior was like a Mafia Don/Godfather at times but there was a bit of a Franco in him too.

So yes he is going to approve of the hangman when he is the one doing the hanging -the same hangman the RIC used. That is logical.

I think you seriously need to back up these opinions with some historical facts other than your own musings -

For one the Home Rule Bill of 1912 offered very little in the way of "independence" as has been pointed out on another thread about the Home Rule bills. The first statement in the Home Rule bill claims that the parliament of Great Britain has total control over Ireland and all Irish affairs.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Regarding the program which my initial post link discussed I have a list of correspondences arguing over the contents:
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/corks-bloody-secret-a-small-dispute/

It does'nt answer the initial query but is interesting.

DeValera admitted freely himself that as a young man he fought with war of Independence with passion - and as time went on that fervour changed into a more contemplative attitude. In his address to Churchill's outrageous charges against the Irish for WWII de Valera began his reply by saying that age had modified him as that "I know the answer I would have made" years ago.

It's not unusual for any one who lives a long life to temper their passions as time goes on - and for a more reflective mood to develop.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My understanding of this is that the book refered to was published in the 1980's, as opposed to a reincarnation of de Valera! As per ejmaztec post quote. It could be argued that publishing such a view after someones death is easy as they cannot reject it.

Yes, I knew that - but it was a strange statement to be allowed to go into print. Made me wonder about the entire article.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I think you seriously need to back up these opinions with some historical facts other than your own musings -

For one the Home Rule Bill of 1912 offered very little in the way of "independence" as has been pointed out on another thread about the Home Rule bills. The first statement in the Home Rule bill claims that the parliament of Great Britain has total control over Ireland and all Irish affairs.

I am not having a go at DeValera - what I am doing is putting him in the context of his time and I am not asserting that he was not progressive or stuck rigidly to positions -more that he adjusted his position over time given the circumstances he found himself in.

I am interested in this point and what was achieved by Collins & Griffiths do you care to expand.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I am interested in this point and what was achieved by Collins & Griffiths do you care to expand.

This was discussed on the thread "What Were The Differences between Home Rule and the Treaty" earlier this month. Here is my post on the first clause of the Home Rule Bill 1914.


And nationalists were concerned at how limited the power of the Irish parliament would be because the very first clause of the bill declared -

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish parliament or anything contained in this act, the supreme power and authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matter and things in Ireland and every part thereof".


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71569137&postcount=18

jonniebgood1

From this link it seems John Chinnery (as per OP) was one of the people killed in what are known as the 'Dunmanway killings'.

Next evening, two men (Robert Howe and John Chinnery) were shot dead at their farms in Ballaghanure, east of Dunmanway. In the nearby village of Ballineen, a 16 year-old, Alexander McKinley was shot dead.

http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/April%201922%20-%2026-28%20-%20dunmanway_massacre.htm
I am struggling to find any book links detailing these events in more detail

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

This was discussed on the thread "What Were The Differences between Home Rule and the Treaty" earlier this month. Here is my post on the first clause of the Home Rule Bill 1914.


And nationalists were concerned at how limited the power of the Irish parliament would be because the very first clause of the bill declared -

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish parliament or anything contained in this act, the supreme power and authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matter and things in Ireland and every part thereof".


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71569137&postcount=18

And how did the legislation compare to other "dominions" with their own Parlimemts - Aus. New Zealand etc ?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

And how did the legislation compare to other "dominions" with their own Parlimemts - Aus. New Zealand etc ?

The dominions that you mention were the result of massive plantations from the mother country and had traditions of seeking the protection and support of Westminster against the indigenous population - unlike India for example which retained a majority indigenous population and developed a more nationalist culture.

The issue for Ireland was that the Home Rule bill was a return to Poynings Law of 1494 which essentially meant that Ireland would only have a puppet parliament entirely controlled by Westminster. And nationalists knew this.

Poynings Law had not been overturned until The Repeal of the Declaratory Act of 1782 - and lasted until the Act of Union in 1800. In other words, The Home Rule Bill of 1912/14 wasn't even a return to the status of Ireland prior to the Act of Union.

CDfm

How much of that is opinion and how much is fact.

The British Parlimentary system had also changed and almost universal suffrage had been introduced.

You also have a independent crown protectorates and dominions -so the position was not static.

Another issue for me would have been Edward Coll's upbringing - he used his mothers family surname when he was brought up. I think the illegilitimacy thing is largely irrelevant. I had a distant relation a teacher & nun in New York and she is mentioned in local papers but there is no record of her otherwise.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/devalera.html

He wasn't inherently anti-English and his mother Catherine married an English Coachman named Charles Wheelwright.

What type of area did he grow up in.

Did any of his neighbours live in mudhuts etc ?

http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/Irish-Mud-Cabins/index.php

http://www.stpetersphibsboro.ie/a_history.htm

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

How much of that is opinion and how much is fact.

What do you mean? I was stating facts concerning the laws in Ireland and what the Home Rule law stated. Poynings Law - and the Declaratory Act which overturned it - are not based on opinion.

brianthebard

The DeValera Megathread, for all your DeV bashing needs!

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Another issue for me would have been Edward Coll's upbringing - he used his mothers family surname when he was brought up. I think the illegilitimacy thing is largely irrelevant. I had a distant relation a teacher & nun in New York and she is mentioned in local papers but there is no record of her otherwise.

There are photos available - I have some in books - of the home where de Valera was raised near Brubee Limerick. It's a small cottage type of home.
Maybe you can find a photo on the web? I had no luck when I searched.

I agree, the illegitimacy thing is total irrelevant. We all get here the same way! But it did cause de Valera some concern and probably affected him psychologically given the times - the Victorian age lived long. I do remember reading in one of his letters to his wife a mention of it and his concern about how his political enemies might use it.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

What do you mean? I was stating facts concerning the laws in Ireland and what the Home Rule law stated. Poynings Law - and the Declaratory Act which overturned it - are not based on opinion.

Tempus Fugit -different times.

Are you are saying that compared with other countries like Aus, Canada etc Ireland would have been treated differently or are you saying that there was no guarantee that it would not happen and that at that time it was actually a prudent assumption.

Do you have any precedents here ?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Tempus Fugit -different times.

Are you are saying that compared with other countries like Aus, Canada etc Ireland would have been treated differently or are you saying that there was no guarantee that it would not happen and that at that time it was actually a prudent assumption.

Not saying treated differently - that's another topic. But the aspirations were different, like India Ireland had a strong majority indigenous population with a strong cultural identity and aspirations that differed from and were distrustful of imperial control.

Aside from the land grabs and plantations, the whole Poynings Law issue was fought over for centuries in the Dublin parliament. When the Catholic King James II summoned the Dublin parliament in 1689 one of the first acts taken was to repeal Poynings Law - it was a short lived victory as shortly afterwards under William and Mary it was re-instated. So for any informed nationalist with a knowledge of history going back to that in the early twentieth century would have seemed pointless.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

And how did the legislation compare to other "dominions" with their own Parlimemts - Aus. New Zealand etc ?

It was wasn't on the same level as the dominions at all it was sort of like what Northern Ireland and Scotland have now but with a couple of extra freedoms afaik.

MarchDub

I found this image of de Valera's childhood home in Bruree Limerick. I hope I have the url correct...

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Not saying treated differently - that's another topic. But the aspirations were different, like India Ireland had a strong majority indigenous population with a strong cultural identity and aspirations that differed from and were distrustful of imperial control.

............. So for any informed nationalist with a knowledge of history going back to that in the early twentieth century would have seemed pointless.

brianthebard wrote: »

It was wasn't on the same level as the dominions at all it was sort of like what Northern Ireland and Scotland have now but with a couple of extra freedoms afaik.

I don't know myself which is why I am asking and constotitional stuff & the League of Nations was DeV's bag.

So in looking at DeV what was on his shopping list.

Its OK to say that trust was 0 % .

The reason I am asking about what the conditions were that DeV grew up in etc might give us an idea of his motivations.

Take the universal suffrage out of the equation and pre-1918 only 1/3 of adult men and no women had the vote.

So the concept of democracy was not established but abject poverty and the power of wealth and "political patronage" was.

DublinWriter

Sitting on my bookshelf for the past year has been this:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/03/26/book-review-england%E2%80%99s-greatest-spy-%E2%80%93-eamonn-de-valera-john-j-turi/

Personally, I'm starting to come to the opinion that Dev had been turned by his British interrogator during 1916. The whole story about him avoiding the firing squad because of American citizenship is pure bunk and a folk-myth.

The above book is interesting, although seems to be flawed in many respects, it raises a lot of new points of debate.

MarchDub

DublinWriter wrote: »

Sitting on my bookshelf for the past year has been this:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/03/26/book-review-england%E2%80%99s-greatest-spy-%E2%80%93-eamonn-de-valera-john-j-turi/

Personally, I'm starting to come to the opinion that Dev had been turned by his British interrogator during 1916. The whole story about him avoiding the firing squad because of American citizenship is pure bunk and a folk-myth.

The above book is interesting, although seems to be flawed in many respects, it raises a lot of new points of debate.

This book has been denounced by just about every legitimate historian. It's a fraud. Tim pat Coogan made mincemeat of the author on RTE.

DublinWriter

MarchDub wrote: »

This book has been denounced by just about every legitimate historian. It's a hoax. Tim pat Coogan made mincemeat of the author on RTE.

I'm glad you can quote so liberally from my supplied link!

As I said, the book has a lot of flaws, but Turi did an awful lot of research on primary source documents. What interests me most about his work is his account of Dev's performance in the events of 1916, especially his desertion of his men and his subsequent and bizarre acquittal by his British interrogators.

MarchDub

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'm glad you can quote so liberally from my supplied link!

As I said, the book has a lot of flaws, but Turi did an awful lot of research on primary source documents. What interests me most about his work is his account of Dev's performance in the events of 1916, especially his desertion of his men and his subsequent and bizarre acquittal by his British interrogators.

Actually I didn't even read your link - and didn't need to. I had heard the Coogan debate on RTE when it went out. There was also a discussion on this forum at the time if you care to search it out.

brianthebard

DublinWriter wrote: »

Sitting on my bookshelf for the past year has been this:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/03/26/book-review-england%E2%80%99s-greatest-spy-%E2%80%93-eamonn-de-valera-john-j-turi/

Personally, I'm starting to come to the opinion that Dev had been turned by his British interrogator during 1916. The whole story about him avoiding the firing squad because of American citizenship is pure bunk and a folk-myth.

The above book is interesting, although seems to be flawed in many respects, it raises a lot of new points of debate.

The concept is not 100% ridiculous, but the author is. He spammed this forum for ages trying to shill his book, which in my mind is a huge mark against him. Diarmuid Ferriter does not shill his books on boards. It might be fair to say that DeV had a nervous breakdown during the Rising, but desertion?

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Actually I didn't even read your link - and didn't need to. I had heard the Coogan debate on RTE when it went out. There was also a discussion on this forum at the time if you care to search it out.

This Sunday Times Review is a bit more realistic DW

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898250.ece

Redmond & Asquith did a deal on suspending executions and Maxwell as C in C exceeded his authority in continuing them. This was done on May 3rd.

(General Lowe who handled the fighting in 1916 & accepted Pearses surrender was as safer pair of hands and was against the executions and did not mention 1916 in his "who's who " entry. His aide de camp & son the actor John Loder acted & was friends with the Irish actor Arthur Shields ( Barry Fitzgeralds brother)who was a volunteer in the Rising )

So Maxwell exceeded his authority and DeValera was the beneficiary of the politicians ability to reassert their authority. So rather than Devalera being "turned" any execution following May 3 and the executions of Pearse, McDonough and Clarke were done with dubious authority.

Because DeValera wasn't executed was his good luck -that others from May 4th were was their bad luck.

Perversely, Maxwell's greatly contributed to the success of the rising and added legitimacy to the use of violence as he contravened an order of the Prime Minister and ,if my memory serves me correctly, the Kings wishes.

edit & DeV's breakdown -well he was a teacher & intellectual ffs & not a soldier
e

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

It was wasn't on the same level as the dominions at all it was sort of like what Northern Ireland and Scotland have now but with a couple of extra freedoms afaik.

This sounds a small bit like free state status, minus partition?

The attention given to the part of the 3rd home rule bill about British rule is overemphasised. The bill provided (in the proposed alterations to the bill) a means for partition only being a temporary measure which was more than the negotiated treaty after the war of independence.

brianthebard

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This sounds a small bit like free state status, minus partition?

The attention given to the part of the 3rd home rule bill about British rule is overemphasised. The bill provided (in the proposed alterations to the bill) a means for partition only being a temporary measure which was more than the negotiated treaty after the war of independence.

Well I'm not 100% sure but I don't think NI and Scotland have their own navy and army, set their own defence policies, set their own taxes, or have full control of their own finances? Do they have control of their foreign affairs? HR Ireland would have had none of those things. Another difference between NI/Scotland, HR Ireland and Canada would be that the former still have/had MPs sit at the House of Commons for them whereas Canada as a dominion didn't.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Well I'm not 100% sure but I don't think NI and Scotland have their own navy and army, set their own defence policies, set their own taxes, or have full control of their own finances? Do they have control of their foreign affairs? HR Ireland would have had none of those things. Another difference between NI/Scotland, HR Ireland and Canada would be that the former still have/had MPs sit at the House of Commons for them whereas Canada as a dominion didn't.

Yes and another significant clause in the Home Rule bill 1914 was the total control over trade that the Westminster Parliament retained. Section 7 of the second clause clearly states that trade is not to be exercised freely by the Irish parliament. That the Irish Parliament "Shall not have power to make any laws" in relation to "trade with any place out of Ireland".

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes and another significant clause in the Home Rule bill 1914 was the total control over trade that the Westminster Parliament retained. Section 7 of the second clause clearly states that trade is not to be exercised freely by the Irish parliament. That the Irish Parliament "Shall not have power to make any laws" in relation to "trade with any place out of Ireland".

This was a strange aspect of the bill- These restrictions essentially meant that Britain had to subsidise Ireland as spending was above income. I know there was alot of contentious points in the bill but the biggest question would seem to be could it have been used in the same way as free state status was; enough freedom to achieve freedom, but with a means to avoiding permanent partition?