Anglo Irish Treaty document of 1921

Sunnyisland

http://treaty.nationalarchives.ie/

See it online here.

The standard view now is that the signing of the Treaty was the right thing to do. With the benefit of hindsight, one finds it hard to quarrel with that view. British/English forces were leaving most of the island’s territory and, as Dev himself ironically proved, the means were there to obtain further degrees of independence later. In a strange way, Dav validated the Treaty he had opposed.
However, there were a lot of intelligent and sincere people who could not live with the compromise. They should not be dismissed out of hand as fools and extremists. There were arguments on both sides and everyone – apart from a few fanatics - wanted the best for Ireland.Irish Times.


In hindsight would anyone here like to give there opinions what Ireland might be like if the treaty was not signed.My opinion is they should have come back to Ireland and put it to the dail & people before they signed the treaty regardless of British threats of a terrible war, as it happened we had one anyway.

Dirk Gently

I actually think Dev done the most to preserve partition and ensure the 6 counties remained British. He created an economically backward autocratic theocracy in the south. Romantic nationalism held the country together through Devs dark reign. Not a very attractive prospect for anyone living in the North. In the absence of armed conflict with one side terrorising another, the choice of joining a 32 county republic will ultimately come down to economic prosperity and social freedoms. Dev done nothing to make the 26 counties attractive to those in the north. The British government and the actions of their soldiers done more for Irish nationalism in the north than Dev ever did. Now that the domination of loyalists over nationalists in the labour and housing markets has been eroded and society has generally more equal opportunities (from a religious point of view) the question again arises, why would those in the 6 want to join the 26.

If we want a 32 county republic we have to start by building a fair and equal 26 county republic, with opportunity and freedom for all, governed by accountable and transparent democratic partys. In essence, we need to be as anti Dev as we can if we want to encourage those across the boarder that their interests and the interests of their families and their businesses lie in joining us.

I do think the negotiating team were railroaded into signing it, under threat from both the British army and the Northern unionists over running them in a bloody war. I'm not sure how much appetite the British forces had for war at that time, they were pretty demoralised themselves militarily and probably could have done without sending troops west but collins knew better than anyone else the limited capabilities of his own forces at that time too. Yes, they probably should have brought it home but if Dev thought he could do better the prick should have went to London himself. The treaty was an opportunity to build a republic and to make ground and influence the north but Dev made sure to **** up that opportunity and paradoxically reinforce partition through his narrow nationalistic and religious policies. The good friday agreement happened about 50 years later than it potentially could have had Dev not chosen the path he did. FF are slow learners.The republican party my hole.

Ian Paisley, the bigot that he is, said back in the 80's that the republic was a priest ridden banana republic. It's hard to disagree with him tbh. He was talking about the republic that Dev built, we need to build a new republic here first before asking those in the north to join us. It's not about the colour of the flag, it's the standard of living people are interested in and the freedom from an oppressive state. That's why nationalists rebelled in the 60's and 70's and that's why a lot of them aren't too bothered about a united Ireland today.

I think Dirk has hit the proverbial nail there. I've studied a lot of material on the period around independence and I can never see any benefit from the unionist side to coming into a united Ireland. In all likelihood the new protestant minority would have been persecuted, much as the catholic minority was treated in Northern Ireland.

steelcityblues

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I think Dirk has hit the proverbial nail there. I've studied a lot of material on the period around independence and I can never see any benefit from the unionist side to coming into a united Ireland. In all likelihood the new protestant minority would have been persecuted, much as the catholic minority was treated in Northern Ireland.

That is a poor argument.

First of all, Ireland does not have a colonial history like Britain, therefore it is better served to treat so called outsiders with respect.

You only have to look at the arrival of many immigrants, and how in general they are treated with a greater level of tolerance here, than in more segregated countries like Britain and France.

I very much doubt that a 'let's isolate protestants' type of campaign would be started in a 32 county State.

KeithAFC

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I think Dirk has hit the proverbial nail there. I've studied a lot of material on the period around independence and I can never see any benefit from the unionist side to coming into a united Ireland. In all likelihood the new protestant minority would have been persecuted, much as the catholic minority was treated in Northern Ireland.

Which is why a huge number of Protestants left the Republic and moved to Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK. It would have been a disaster for Protestants.

FUNKY LOVER

KeithAFC wrote: »

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I think Dirk has hit the proverbial nail there. I've studied a lot of material on the period around independence and I can never see any benefit from the unionist side to coming into a united Ireland. In all likelihood the new protestant minority would have been persecuted, much as the catholic minority was treated in Northern Ireland.

Which is why a huge number of Protestants left the Republic and moved to Northern Ireland or the rest of the UK. It would have been a disaster for Protestants.

I bet the majority of people don't know that even if a majority voted for a united Ireland,the British has the last say and can refuse it if they believe it doesn't act in the best interests of the united kingdom sovereignty,and only they can call a referendum.

FUNKY LOVER

I bet the majority of people don't know that even if a majority voted for a united Ireland,the British has the last say and can refuse it if they believe it doesn't act in the best interests of the united kingdom sovereignty,and only they can call a referendum.[/Quote]
Was meant to post this on its own,stupid android.

steelcityblues

steelcityblues wrote: »

That is a poor argument.

First of all, Ireland does not have a colonial history like Britain, therefore it is better served to treat so called outsiders with respect.

You only have to look at the arrival of many immigrants, and how in general they are treated with a greater level of tolerance here, than in more segregated countries like Britain and France.

I very much doubt that a 'let's isolate protestants' type of campaign would be started in a 32 county State.

We have minor immigration compared to places like the UK and France! And look at all the trouble it has caused so far. You only have to look at the recent thread about the mayor of Naas who was refusing to deal with 'black africans' and the amount of people who agreed with him.

The resentment seems to be coming largely from areas with large immigrant populations. It isn't an all-Ireland problem, it's located quite exclusively in specific areas. See Mosney for example.

Now, the above examples that I've mentioned are from the liberated, educated and (relatively) wealthy Ireland of 2011. Not 1921.

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
Given that this thread focuses on something historical, it will be moved to the History & Heritage forum. It will be moved locked so that the H&H mods may review it for appropriateness.

jonniebgood1

Given that the 90th anniversary of said treaty has just passed it is appropriate to look at it here. We already have a similar thread but this has taken a different path so I think there is room for both. Further I would welcome the visitors from the politics page and encourage people to look at other threads on the history forum as there is often a cross over between both fora.

Moderator.

robp

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I think Dirk has hit the proverbial nail there. I've studied a lot of material on the period around independence and I can never see any benefit from the unionist side to coming into a united Ireland. In all likelihood the new protestant minority would have been persecuted, much as the catholic minority was treated in Northern Ireland.

This is completely implausible. In the 1920s the six counties was not only the most affluent and industrial part of Ireland but it was also the most densely populated. Catholics were greatly outnumbered (maybe only 30% at that stage). This unionist community not only controlled the economy but also monopolised the ruling class, which had being in power for almost 300 hundred years. Its very difficult to see how such a powerful and entrenched community could be persecuted in a hypothetical 1920s united Ireland.

Furthermore, although tiny protestants in the 26 counties contained to be overrepresented politically after partition. Persecution would not have been difficult considering how demographically swamped they were but yet it never materialised. Your theory is a very misinformed revisionism.

jonniebgood1

robp wrote: »

Furthermore, although tiny protestants in the 26 counties contained to be overrepresented politically after partition. Persecution would not have been difficult considering how demographically swamped they were but yet it never materialised. Your theory is a very misinformed revisionism.

There is a viewpoint that in some areas the protestant community was persecuted after independence. A look at the figures is interesting with the protestant numbers falling by 70% in the period 1891- 1991 (in the 26 counties).
Source


Whilst these figures are not proof of any persecution there was undoubtedly some elements of people being 'persuaded' to leave. Cork in particular saw this happen.

robp

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Whilst these figures are not proof of any persecution there was undoubtedly some elements of people being 'persuaded' to leave. Cork in particular saw this happen.

Yes, it is clear that the community declined considerably. However, this process has also occurred in the six counties quite steadily, even up to recent years. Smaller families, more common intermarriage and higher levels of emigration to more prosperous lands would be the most plausible factors IMO. It wouldn't be wise to say real persecution never occurred after partition but I know no evidence for it.

Personally, the Unionist myth that there was widespread discrimination creates a dangerous pseudo history where sectarianism against catholics in the six counties is seen as equal to what happened in the new Irish state. This is simply not the case.

Fratton Fred

robp wrote: »

Yes, it is clear that the community declined considerably. However, this process has also occurred in the six counties quite steadily, even up to recent years. Smaller families, more common intermarriage and higher levels of emigration to more prosperous lands would be the most plausible factors IMO. It wouldn't be wise to say real persecution never occurred after partition but I know no evidence for it.

Personally, the Unionist myth that there was widespread discrimination creates a dangerous pseudo history where sectarianism against catholics in the six counties is seen as equal to what happened in the new Irish state. This is simply not the case.

Define discrimination.

Is a state that sets laws and policy based on Catholic doctrine discriminating against non Catholics?

The loyalists insisted that home rule is rome rule. Up until very recently, has anything in the Republic ever been done that would prove them wrong?

dubhthach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There is a viewpoint that in some areas the protestant community was persecuted after independence. A look at the figures is interesting with the protestant numbers falling by 70% in the period 1891- 1991 (in the 26 counties).
Source


Whilst these figures are not proof of any persecution there was undoubtedly some elements of people being 'persuaded' to leave. Cork in particular saw this happen.

It would be interesting if they did equivalent census maps for periods:

• 1871
• 1881
• 1891
• 1901
• 1911
• 1926

The population of the 26 counties fell by 32.48% from 1861 to 1926. In maps above the population had fallen by 19.9% betweween 1861 and 1991.

From looking at the Census figures here I see following for Church of Ireland membership:
http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=74640

• 1911-1926: -34.19% (yearly average: -2.27%)
• 1926-1936: -11.6% (yearly average: -1.16%)
• 1936-1946: -13.9% (yearly average: -1.39%
• 1946-1961: -16.67% (yearly average: -1.11%)
• 1961-1971: -6.03% (yearly average: -0.603%
• 1971-1981: -2.42% (yearly average: -0.242%)
• 1981-1991: -6.47% (Yearly average: -0.647%)

The figure during 1980's is interesting, I assume this reflects the state of economy was in, one wonders how much economical factors were in the decline of Church of Ireland figures after 1926. Just as we are seeing young professional emigrating now it wouldn't surprise me if we saw lots of University educated CoI professionals emigrating during previous economic downturns.

The biggest drop above is obviously from 1911-1926. I'm not sure but I do believe the Census figures include British military personnel. The lack of a census in 1921 makes it harder to pinpoint when the highest level of decline occurred. (15 year inter-census period as oppose to usual 10)

I should add as of 2006 census both the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian numbers have recovered to the 1946 levels, meanwhile there are more Methodists in the state then anytime since 1911.

Sunnyisland

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Define discrimination.

Is a state that sets laws and policy based on Catholic doctrine discriminating against non Catholics?

The loyalists insisted that home rule is rome rule. Up until very recently, has anything in the Republic ever been done that would prove them wrong?

The majority of the citizens in the newly formed Republic of Ireland were Catholics, a fact that has been consistently reflected in the laws of the state since independence.At the time of partition 10 per cent of the population of the new Free State was Protestant. This number dwindled to a current figure of 4 per cent partly due to the Catholic church's insistence on the children of mixed marriages being brought up as Catholics. The Catholic ethos of the state has, however, been greatly eroded to large extent in recent years.
But lets not forget the state of Northern Ireland was no better with The first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, describing the state as having ‘a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. Its all swings and roundabouts it seems.

jonniebgood1

It is correct that there was widespread discrimination in both states. THis is a report on Protestants in Cork that contains some interesting statistics. In comparison to the war of independence much of the following period is under reported for many reasons.

Dr Andy Bielenberg's talk was drily titled 'Protestant emigration from the south of Ireland 1911-1926, some statistical evidence'. But there was nothing dry about his final figure. Excluding extraneous factors (such as connections with the British forces, civil service, World War One casualties etc) Dr Bielenberg concluded that 39,000 southern Protestants became "involuntary migrants" in that period.

"Involuntary migrants," is another name for victims of intimidation.

As Bielenberg showed, many of them were not farmers, but small-town traders and artisans.

Behind the figures we glimpsed a grim picture -- decent Irish families caught in a conflict over which they had no control, and forced to flee from the land of their birth.

To this day, Dublin Protestants have little sense of the suffering of their country cousins. But in rural Ireland, the enforced exodus of almost 40,000 Protestants left scars on the soul as well as on the landscape. It was good to hear that some who fled came back to their farms -- proof that expelled southern Protestants were patriots who loved their country with the same passion their descendants show today.

Kevin Myers, writing in the Irish Times, was the first to break the silence about the sufferings of southern Protestants in that period. Academic study only began with the publication of Peter Hart's book, The IRA and its Enemies. At the seminar, with the heavy lifting behind him, Professor Hart shifted the focus to the notion of fear.

As Hart argues, both the IRA and its Protestant "enemies" became prisoners of a paralysing fear that the other side was secretly conspiring. This led to pre-emptive strikes, almost always by the IRA.

Hart believes the most important lesson is of the power of small violent acts to produce fear out of all proportion to the act itself.

The next speaker, John Borgonovo, author of Spies, Informers and the Anti Sinn Fein Society seemed determined to redress any perceived revisionist imbalance.

Although Borgonovo has clearly done a lot of work, it seemed to me that his American background blocked out some local nuances. Like the Aubane Society, he makes far too much of public protestations on the part of some Protestant clerics that they had no problems.

In 1922, in provincial Ireland, Protestant clerics were a small minority whose community was held hostage by armed men. What else would they say? And given the anti-Catholic pogroms in Belfast, a Cork Protestant cleric could hardly publicly complain about Protestant farm families forced to sleep in their fields.

As the Belfast pogroms are sometimes used as an excuse for the bad treatment of southern rural Protestants, let us pause here to point out two big differences. First, a Catholic family driven from mixed area of Belfast had the support of other Catholics in a similar situation. Second, the family was merely moving a few miles to another part of the city.

By contrast, a Protestant family forced to flee was frequently on its own, had no support from other families and -- most significantly -- were not just made move from one town to another, but forced to flee the country of their birth, leave their farms and shops behind, and start a new life, in Australia, Canada or the UK. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/eoghan-harris/scarred-by-forced-exodus-of-southern-protestants-1574348.html

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The loyalists insisted that home rule is rome rule. Up until very recently, has anything in the Republic ever been done that would prove them wrong?

There were many aspects of how the loyalists made their decisions and perhaps some contradictions.
They insisted on staying as part of the union, i.e. staying loyal. Yet they did not show any loyalty to the tens of thousands of Protestants in the 26 counties.
Using the 'Rome rule' as an excuse does not wash for me. If they had stayed with their southern counterparts they could have formed a powerful force with maybe land owning Catholics in the south.

robp

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is correct that there was widespread discrimination in both states. THis is a report on Protestants in Cork that contains some interesting statistics. In comparison to the war of independence much of the following period is under reported for many reasons.

Surely we need to draw a major distinction between wartime and peacetime? Awful things occurred during the War of independence and the civil war. No one would deny that.

I am referring to the period after the civil war. This is when discrimination is utterly indefensible.

jonniebgood1

robp wrote: »

Surely we need to draw a major distinction between wartime and peacetime? Awful things occurred during the War of independence and the civil war. No one would deny that.

I am referring to the period after the civil war. This is when discrimination is utterly indefensible.

You are correct with this distinction. There is also a clear distinction between political discrimination (Gerrymandering or pro- Catholic laws) and violent discrimination (burning homes, attacking people). Are you talking about political discrimination. After the civil war there was little violence in both North and South in the short term (post 1924).

People are dismissing the fact that Northern Ireland was home to a large protestant militia that could and I'm sure would have 'defended' protestants in the same way that catholic militias did for catholics. They would have been funded from the UK and most definitely were more organised and aggressive than anything the Catholics could offer at the time.

In fact you could easily argue that partition saved Ireland from an even bigger mess than we got in reality.

Dr.Nightdub

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

In fact you could easily argue that partition saved Ireland from an even bigger mess than we got in reality.

Dunno about that.

Partition was implemented in June 1921 with the opening of the NI Parliament. Take Belfast as an example: there were 485 deaths from July 1920 to October 1922. Of those, 20% came before partition and 80% afterwards. Of the deaths post-partition, over 3/4 happened after November 1921, when the NI Government assumed responsibility for policing and security and the Specials were re-mobilised.

Now anyone can go round in counterfactual circles about woulda-coulda-shoulda, but that's what did happen.

KeithAFC

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

People are dismissing the fact that Northern Ireland was home to a large protestant militia that could and I'm sure would have 'defended' protestants in the same way that catholic militias did for catholics. They would have been funded from the UK and most definitely were more organised and aggressive than anything the Catholics could offer at the time.

In fact you could easily argue that partition saved Ireland from an even bigger mess than we got in reality.

Partition was vital to stopping an all out war between Republicans/Catholics and Protestant/Ulster Loyalists.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Partition was vital to stopping an all out war between Republicans/Catholics and Protestant/Ulster Loyalists.

If we could I do wonder what would the outcome of that would have been ? Where would Ireland be now ?




Serious opinions please not what our own wishes & political outlooks would favor

pedroeibar1

wrote:

Dr Bielenberg concluded that 39,000 southern Protestants became "involuntary migrants" in that period. "Involuntary migrants," is another name for victims of intimidation.

As Bielenberg showed, many of them were not farmers, but small-town traders and artisans..

I wonder if that comment is not more than a little inaccurate?
Undoubtedly there was sectarian activity and unpleasantness, often provoked by a Catholic clergy that had its own agenda. However, many families never fully recovered from the loss of sons in World War 1, and others saw no prospect of marriage for their daughters within their own social class, so a move to England was seen as providing the means for a possible marriage match. I wonder was consideration given by Bielenberg to the (1908) papal decree of Ne temere- that required children of mixed marriages be raised as Catholics and would have a big effect on the continuation of the 'Protestant Stock'.
P.

FeckinUsername

KeithAFC wrote: »

Partition was vital to stopping an all out war between Republicans/Catholics and Protestant/Ulster Loyalists.

And what a tremendous success that has been.

owenc

FeckinUsername wrote: »

And what a tremendous success that has been.

And care to explain how it would be if it didn't happen? Believe me you have no idea.

owenc

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There is a viewpoint that in some areas the protestant community was persecuted after independence. A look at the figures is interesting with the protestant numbers falling by 70% in the period 1891- 1991 (in the 26 counties).
Source


Whilst these figures are not proof of any persecution there was undoubtedly some elements of people being 'persuaded' to leave. Cork in particular saw this happen.

It didn't really have a high population anyway. I think what stopped its growth was the ne temera and the lack of immigration between england and southern ireland. I think the thing about protestants coming up here is propaganda rubbish, i only know 2 people with ancestors from down south, if they were really coming up in such numbers as folk would suggest it would be obvious. Its not like we see a big jump in population up here after 1922. If they really came up in such numbers were are they? Because i certainly can't see them.

owenc

realies wrote: »

The majority of the citizens in the newly formed Republic of Ireland were Catholics, a fact that has been consistently reflected in the laws of the state since independence.At the time of partition 10 per cent of the population of the new Free State was Protestant. This number dwindled to a current figure of 4 per cent partly due to the Catholic church's insistence on the children of mixed marriages being brought up as Catholics. The Catholic ethos of the state has, however, been greatly eroded to large extent in recent years.
But lets not forget the state of Northern Ireland was no better with The first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, describing the state as having ‘a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. Its all swings and roundabouts it seems.

Exactly.

ejmaztec

The Musgraves decided to stay in the South, despite the prevailing atmosphere.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Musgrave-Group-Plc-Company-History.html

Sales increased at Musgrave Brothers after the question of land rights was settled by the 1903 Land Act, which set up a government-sponsored program for tenants to buy their farms from their landlords. Irish farming was given a boost by the Land Act, and both the quality and quantity of goods produced increased. With more prosperous farmers, grocers too did well, and revenue grew rapidly for Musgrave during the first ten years of the new century. Thomas's son John L. Musgrave succeeded to the managing director position in 1908, and he presided over the company for the next 40 years. Sales grew steadily between 1908 and 1914, ending at £277,658. Then Ireland was swept into World War I, and the country went through difficult changes in the ensuing years. The movement for Irish independence from England came into full force immediately after the war, and much of the bitterest struggle centered around Cork. The Musgrave family was Protestant, and well-known as such, so its members were in a tricky position in the predominantly Catholic area. John L. Musgrave and his cousin Stuart Musgrave, Jr., also a director, were ready to flee Cork at any moment if they were endangered. In 1923, Ireland split into the Irish Free State (Republic of Ireland), and Northern Ireland, which remained part of the United Kingdom. Musgrave Brothers badly needed to expand its premises on Grand Parade, but the fighting and political instability had made this impossible. Finally in 1925 the company completed large new premises on Cornmarket Street. This was a huge grocery warehouse with over a million square feet of floor space. It was the most modern such business in Ireland, and gave the company some competitive advantage over other wholesale grocers in the area. By that time, the retail side of the business had dwindled, and the company was almost exclusively involved in the wholesale business.

I suppose it's possible that many protestants were actually Church of England, and took off in that direction instead of heading to the North.

FeckinUsername

owenc wrote: »

And care to explain how it would be if it didn't happen? Believe me you have no idea.

I believe that there would have been serious disturbance. An all out Civil War indeed. However, the half baked solution rubber stamped in '21 has led to two Civil Wars and almost continual strife in the north eastern part of the country ever since. Perhaps it may have been better if we had just pushed ahead with the democratic will of the people in the first place. Those opposing freedom for the entire country were in a small minority. Granted, they were an armed and militant minority, but a minority none-the-less.