Should Kevin O'Higgins be honoured by this state?

Seanchai

So, while Fine Gael's Brian Hayes is determined to re-erect monuments to British imperialism in Dublin's Phoenix Park, Fine Gael's Enda Kenny will this evening pay homage to one Kevin O'Higgins by opening a memorial to him at the intersection of Booterstown Road and Cross Avenue in Dublin, where O'Higgins was finally removed from Irish life on 10 July 1927.

It was O'Higgins who signed the execution warrants for no fewer than 77 Irish people, the vast majority of whom were denied the right to a fair trial or even any trial.


To his defenders O'Higgins represented "the rule of law" but even to British historians with imperialist sympathies like Charles Townshend, 'O’Higgins represents the split nature of the Irish State, harping on about the rule of law, while repeatedly setting it aside.’ As Minister for Home Affairs, O'Higgins was also central to the decision to imprison without trial some 12,000 suspected anti-Treaty Irish republicans.

Should this state be honouring Kevin O'Higgins? If so, why?

thecommietommy

Seanchai wrote: »

So, while Fine Gael's Brian Hayes is determined to re-erect monuments to British imperialism in Dublin's Phoenix Park, Fine Gael's Enda Kenny will this evening pay homage to one Kevin O'Higgins by opening a memorial to him at the intersection of Booterstown Road and Cross Avenue in Dublin, where O'Higgins was finally removed from Irish life on 10 July 1927.

It was O'Higgins who signed the execution warrants for no fewer than 77 Irish people, the vast majority of whom were denied the right to a fair trial or even any trial.


To his defenders O'Higgins represented "the rule of law" but even to British historians with imperialist sympathies like Charles Townshend, 'O’Higgins represents the split nature of the Irish State, harping on about the rule of law, while repeatedly setting it aside.’ As Minister for Home Affairs, O'Higgins was also central to the decision to imprison without trial some 12,000 suspected anti-Treaty Irish republicans.

Should this state be honouring Kevin O'Higgins? If so, why?

From memory as I can't find a link, but I believe O'Higgins was a member of Redmond's IPP and only changed sides months after the 1916 rising when he seen Sinn Fein as the coming force. As for a statue to O'Higgins, why not a statue to the Heavy Gang in the 1970's or those who tried to frame up the McBrearty's and others in Donegal etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#Controversy_and_allegations_involving_the_force

Seanchai

I took these yesterday while walking down Booterstown Avenue:

Seanchai

That Liveline show on RTÉ Radio 1 is currently taking calls in on this subject:

Liveline (24.7.2012)

Milk & Honey

That plaque is wrong. He was not the Minister for Justice!

Manach

Perhaps it would be best to think of the memorial as a testimony to the lack of policitical violence in the State. Whilst the civil war did engender a mass of bitterness that lasted for generations, with Mr. O'Higgins passing no futher blood was split within the political realm of the 26 counties.
As I side note, came across this on wikipedia, a poem that Yeats wrote on the assassination.

Farmer Pudsey

No

Civil wars are by their nature are bitter struggles and often great wrongs are done in there names. The Irish civil war was no different. The vast majority of Irish people accepted the treaty as the best option.

In 1922 the Irish state first two heads of state died in a couple of weeks Arthur Griffiths and Micheal Collins. The government under pressure took decisions that combatants capatured under arms would be excuted. Indeed the son of one of the cabinets own ministers was probally excuted out of hand. In the Spanish the republican side excuted Guardia Civils and Franco army excuted captured republicans. This is not to excuse what was done but to put it in context.

Should Kevin O'Higgans be honoured ? The OP seems to be hinting that he was a war criminal. The Irish civil war was mainly caused by the political cowardice of Eamon deValera, furious at been outmanouvered by Griffits and Collins he refused to accept the democratic will of the Dail and of the Irish people he gave a political legitimacy to the hardliners like O'Connor, Barry and Lynch. So should the state take down all monouments to deValera.

No because the civil war is over and attempts to rake it up wheather it be by the likes of Eoghon Harris or the OP should not be accepted.

Kevin O'Higgins was a Cabinet Minister in the first goverment who took hard decisions along with the rest of that cabinet. These decisions managed to keep the state in existance and when it lost it electrol mandate it handed over power. By that stage Kevin O'Higgins had paid for the part he played in the formation of the state with his life, may he rest in peace along with all the people who died on both sides in that tragic time in our history.

He was Minister for Justice at the time of his death it had been changed in1924 under the Minster and Secretaries act from Home Affairs.

Fenian Army

Civil war is an incorrect term I believe. Counter revolution more like. The progressive revolutionaries were cut down by men like O'Higgins, leaving us with a pathetic Free State and a divided Ireland (in more ways than one).

golden lane

Fenian Army wrote: »

Civil war is an incorrect term I believe. Counter revolution more like. The progressive revolutionaries were cut down by men like O'Higgins, leaving us with a pathetic Free State and a divided Ireland (in more ways than one).

was that not the will of the people.....or do they not matter..????

Fenian Army

‘The people who are in favour of the treaty, are not in favour of the treaty on its merits, but are in favour of the treaty because they fear what is to happen if it be rejected. That is not the will of the people, that is the fear of the people.’ – Liam Mellows, 1922

Dannyboy83

No

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Civil wars are by their nature are bitter struggles and often great wrongs are done in there names. The Irish civil war was no different. The vast majority of Irish people accepted the treaty as the best option.

In 1922 the Irish state first two heads of state died in a couple of weeks Arthur Griffiths and Micheal Collins. The government under pressure took decisions that combatants capatured under arms would be excuted. Indeed the son of one of the cabinets own ministers was probally excuted out of hand. In the Spanish the republican side excuted Guardia Civils and Franco army excuted captured republicans. This is not to excuse what was done but to put it in context.

Should Kevin O'Higgans be honoured ? The OP seems to be hinting that he was a war criminal. The Irish civil war was mainly caused by the political cowardice of Eamon deValera, furious at been outmanouvered by Griffits and Collins he refused to accept the democratic will of the Dail and of the Irish people he gave a political legitimacy to the hardliners like O'Connor, Barry and Lynch. So should the state take down all monouments to deValera.

No because the civil war is over and attempts to rake it up wheather it be by the likes of Eoghon Harris or the OP should not be accepted.

Kevin O'Higgins was a Cabinet Minister in the first goverment who took hard decisions along with the rest of that cabinet. These decisions managed to keep the state in existance and when it lost it electrol mandate it handed over power. By that stage Kevin O'Higgins had paid for the part he played in the formation of the state with his life, may he rest in peace along with all the people who died on both sides in that tragic time in our history.

He was Minister for Justice at the time of his death it had been changed in1924 under the Minster and Secretaries act from Home Affairs.

Good post.
The men resorted to extreme violence and destruction to subvert the democratic will of the Irish people.
They must surely have expected dramatic consequences given the nature of their crimes...live by the sword...
Devalera jailed plenty of them when he came to power anyway, fianna fail was created because there was simply NO reasoning with the hardliners, so Dev walked out on them when it was his turn too.

golden lane

Fenian Army wrote: »

‘The people who are in favour of the treaty, are not in favour of the treaty on its merits, but are in favour of the treaty because they fear what is to happen if it be rejected. That is not the will of the people, that is the fear of the people.’ – Liam Mellows, 1922

we are happy with it......golden lane's parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and everybody else i knew.......ie. the people of the free state/republic of ireland....

Snickers Man

No

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That plaque is wrong. He was not the Minister for Justice!

He WAS Minister for Justice. Look up his entry on the Oireachtas website.


He was a fascinating contradiction, worthy of more detailed study than the bete noire persona which embittered Republicans (sic) like to smear him with.

Sure. He was a tough guy. He ruthlessly executed rebels who had continued fighting against the legitimate Irish government granted a mandate by the Irish people. But I believe he had been one of the most vocal opponents of a reprisals policy when it was discussed at cabinet. Although as a dutiful minister, he carried out the decisions of cabinet.

There were other sides to him too. For a start, he was insistent on having an unarmed regular police force. This to my mind is one of the great legacies of the Free State. We are probably the only country in history to disarm our police force. Most countries retain an armed constabulary. O'Higgins deserves credit for that.

He also would have been appalled by the level of corruption in politics today. In his book on Irish controversies This Great Little nation Gene Kerrigan describes how O'Higgins dealt with a letter from a number of businessmen suggesting that they would be willing to contribute financially to the support of his government/party in return for greater "access" to ministers.

He threw it on the fire.

jonniebgood1

To examine the OP question requires a proper look at the facts behind the different rhetoric expressed about O'Higgins and there is very little expressed so far about any achievements or missed opportunities in his life. Did he serve the country, did he help Ireland achieve independence, what was his role in the War of Independence, could he have done more and in its most basic form just what did he do? There are 2 books on his life and this historyireland review details a summary of some of his more notable aspects:

...
it is worth pointing out that Eamon de Valera recognised his abilities during the War of Independence when he requested that he attend cabinet meetings. O’Higgins was at this time working as William T. Cosgrave’s assistant in the Department of Local Government, a role that gave him a good grounding for his later administrative work when he became minister for economic affairs in the provisional government initially chaired by Michael Collins. It was, however, for his role as minister for home affairs (renamed justice in 1924) during the Civil War, when he officially sanctioned many state executions, including that of his best man, that he suffered such a terrible fate at the hands of aggrieved republicans. The author capably charts his subject’s gradual political evolution from an ardent republican separatist to a more reflective thinker who sought to create an agreeable formula for peacefully achieving Irish unity.
The book is neatly arranged in well-crafted chapters that divide into sections so that in working one’s way through the text one gains a good insight into the mind of O’Higgins as he confronts various political crises, such as the ‘army mutiny’ of 1924 and the Boundary Commission, or defends various complex pieces of legislation in parliament. Although de Valera was to be O’Higgins’s main political protagonist outside Dáil Éireann, Thomas Johnson’s robust political exchanges with the minister for justice clearly mark the leader of the Labour Party out as one of O’Higgins’s key opponents within the Dáil chamber. For example, during the course of a debate on the Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill in March 1925, Johnson accused the minister of being ‘a budding Bismarck, with his views as to the relations of the state and the individual—that loyalty to the state and good citizenship are going to be induced by repressive legislation’. O’Higgins dryly responded by depicting Johnson’s protest as having been rendered ‘in a formal mechanical way like a man talking in his sleep or a gramophone record turned on—“Let me see the Treason Bill; what should I say in connection with this? Well, I should denounce the minister. It is always a good principle and a safe thing to denounce the Minister”.’
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume14/issue5/reviews/?id=114109

It might also be a good idea in considering the OP question to research what O'Higgins contemporaries view of him was. What did Dev think of him as opponent or Collins as compatriot before his death.

Fenian Army

Unarmed police force is hardly that impressive when you look at the reasons why:
1). The incompetence of members (I think a recruit was killed or injured early on)
2). Having ex ric members who joined the garda armed caused much unease for the public but also the ex IRA men in the force.

thus he didn't really have a choice.

Farmer Pudsey

No

Fenian Army wrote: »

‘The people who are in favour of the treaty, are not in favour of the treaty on its merits, but are in favour of the treaty because they fear what is to happen if it be rejected. That is not the will of the people, that is the fear of the people.’ – Liam Mellows, 1922

If we take this argument a step further we could make the point that the people voted in favour of the reason stability treaty did so out of fear and we do not have to accept the result it makes no difference if the people voted out of fear or not they voted and you accept the result

Personelly I voted against the treaty but I have had to accept the result.

In 1922 a large majority of the IRAwere against the treaty and found it hard to accept. However the majority of the Dail and the people were for it. It must have been hard for these soldiers to accept this outcome however it dose not condone there action and they were not helped when deValera choose to go against the treaty along with Cathal Brugha and the 1916 Widows and women.

In 1916 the revolutionarys could claim that the British government ignore the will of the people and there own parliment in refusing to give Home Rule to Ireland after it was passed in 1912 and the use by the Tory Party of the Unionist to try to cause the downfall of the then liberal government as they had done in the late 1800's. So they had right on there side in mounting the 1916 rebellion even if the more than likly had not the majority of the people behind them at the time.

In 1922 there was no such excuse all nationalist TD were represented and they voted for the Treaty. Dev walked out of the Dail refused to accept its authority and refused to accept the result of the following election. Remember he also refused to be a delegate at the treaty talks even though Loyal George the Britism PM was involved. It would also may have been more advantagous to leave the smoking gun of Collin at home at that time.

Kevin O'Higgans is often vilified by so called republicans it is forgotten that he was against the reprisals but accepted the will of the Government of the day. It haunted him until his death. The Irish government was the youngest government in the history of the state O'Higgans himself was only 32 or 33 I think and only 36 at his death. Liam Lynch as leader of the anti-treaty forces has ordered the targeting of pro-treaty TD and senators which led to the assination of Sean McHale TD and from that led to the reprisel policy. All that can be ever be held against the First Government ane Kevin O'Higgin's is that they met Fire with Fire.

Also it should be remembered is that O'Higgins put down the 1924 army Munity ( when other cabinet ministers went missing), gave us an largly unarmed Police Force and when other European countries with lesser issue followed the path to dictatorship while in Ireland kept us on the path to demoracy

Fenian Army

"so called republicans"?

O'Higgins was hardly a republican, given he betrayed the Irish republic and had more republicans executed than the British did.

You talk about democracy and rule of law... yet O'Higgins cared little for these as he showed when having people executed without trial.

Fire with fire :rolleyes: That makes it all right then, like.

Path to democracy? Don't make me laugh. Path to a backward repressive exploitative state more like, certainly one which the men of 16 did not fight and die for.

Delancey

Apologists for O'Higgins frequently trot out the line that he was troubled by all the things he did and executing men without trial was something he hated.
Big Deal ! There is no escaping the fact he ordered the executions / murders of people as reprisal - in modern parlance he was a War Criminal and it shocks me to think there is a suggestion of some monument in his honour.

The description of him as Minister for Justice is misleading ( notwithstanding what the Oireachtas website says ) , his title at his time of death was Minister for Home Affairs.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

You talk about democracy and rule of law... yet O'Higgins cared little for these as he showed when having people executed without trial.

<<Ironic.

Fenian Army wrote: »

O'Higgins was hardly a republican, given he betrayed the Irish republic ....

<<Wrong.

He joined the Irish Volunteers in 1915. Two years later he became captain of the Stradbally company, Carlow brigade, and in 1918 was imprisoned for five months in Mountjoy gaol and Belfast internment camp. In the December 1918 general election he was elected Sinn Féin MP for Queen's county, quickly gaining recognition for his abilities in Dáil Éireann. In January 1919 he became assistant minister for local government, and raised a republican loan of £10,000 in his constituency. Upon the arrest of the minister for local government (W.T. Cosgrave) in 1920, O’Higgins became substitute minister. In the general election of May 1921 he was re-elected for the Laois-Offaly constituency and again appointed assistant minister for local government in August.

Through his Sinn Féin activism, O’Higgins met his future wife, Brigid Mary Cole (1898–1961). an English teacher at St Mary’s College, Knockbeg. http://www.ucd.ie/archives/html/collections/ohiggins-kevin.html

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

<<Ironic.




<<Wrong.

Great contribution, A+.

Accepting the treaty and a "free state" was as clear cut a betrayal of the Irish republic declared in 1916 as you can get.

I can see you have resorted to your usual bullsh!t however "<< Ironic" Really stellar stuff. Conductive for good discussion all right.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

Great contribution, A+.

Accepting the treaty and a "free state" was as clear cut a betrayal of the Irish republic declared in 1916 as you can get.

I can see you have resorted to your usual bullsh!t however "<< Ironic" Really stellar stuff. Conductive for good discussion all right.

Ok fair enough- Maybe I should have been more polite about it. The first point was it is ironic to point to democracy and then hold O'Higgins up against that given he was upholding the majority view in the civil war.

The second point I felt that I needed to make was that he had a role before the civil war. I think that needs to be recognised also rather than focusing fully on his post treaty role. He played a positive and prominent role in this country ending 800 years of British rule and that is significant. The same person who did this was then bloody minded enough to have his own bestman executed but a figure like him is taken for what he is. If you stripped people like him of whatever inner drive that made him carry through with the executions then you would most likel remove the actual passion that made him a rebel against British rule in the first place. Can you see the point I am making?

Snickers Man

No

Fenian Army wrote: »

Accepting the treaty and a "free state" was as clear cut a betrayal of the Irish republic declared in 1916 as you can get.

I don't see how that could be the case, given that it was signed by representatives of an elected assembly (the Dail) and further mandated by the populace as a whole in a general election shortly afterwards.

By what right, legal moral or otherwise should the presumed aims of the "men of 1916" continue to have a veto down through all the years on what the Irish electorate can decide for itself in its own time and place? That point has always mystified me when made by "supposed" republicans.

Farmer Pudsey

No

Delancey wrote: »

Apologists for O'Higgins frequently trot out the line that he was troubled by all the things he did and executing men without trial was something he hated.
Big Deal ! There is no escaping the fact he ordered the executions / murders of people as reprisal - in modern parlance he was a War Criminal and it shocks me to think there is a suggestion of some monument in his honour.

The description of him as Minister for Justice is misleading ( notwithstanding what the Oireachtas website says ) , his title at his time of death was Minister for Home Affairs.

As I posted already at the time of his death he was Minster for Justice it was set up under the 1924 Minsters & Secretaries act see link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_and_Secretaries_Act_1924.

Anyway Minster for Home Affairs is the equivlent post in a lot of other Countries.

He was enacting the policy of government after the delibrate targeting of members of the Dail by the anti Treaty forces at the behest of the COC Liam Lynch. Liam Lynch who a lot of historians believe whereabout was betrayed to the Irish Army by his own side as he was unwilling to end the Civil War.

You could consider those that were capatured under arms were guilty of Treason which was a Capital offence. Also it was these same republicans that targeted his family and murdered his father and burned his family home. Also his assassination has be considered a henious crime as Republican had laid down arms and not redeclared a reopening of hostilities.

Like I stated in my earlier post this is a tragic part of our history in which brave men of high principle took a stand on there views and we should not question there motives or besmirch there names by calling them Criminals.
Fenian you would want to go away and read a selection of historical books from that era to get a balanced view and not the trash sold in Sinn Fein shops.

Einhard

No

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't see how that could be the case, given that it was signed by representatives of an elected assembly (the Dail) and further mandated by the populace as a whole in a general election shortly afterwards.

It seems that, for some, republicanism isn't so much about the will of the people, but rather abouyt the will of a self-selected, narrow band of Republicans. Thus, the elected government of the day betrayed Republican principles by following their mandate, but the minority who resisted that mandate with force of arms are true Republicans. It's a tad confusing, but par for the course for the type of Republican mentioned above.

Should we have a memorial to O'Higgins? It's not something I get particularly exercised about. But if we have memorials and commemorations to the likes of DeValera and Sean Russell, then I fail to see how people can object to one for O'Higgins. Anyway, the plaque doesn't appear to be a celebration of O'Higgins, but rather a marker of a singificant historical event. I don't see why, in that case, it shouldn't be let stand. Unless we're to remove all markers of historical "baddies"

Delancey

Agree that memorial plaque is an important marker of an historical event and love or loathe historical figures they and events surrounding them should be remembered.

I would not like to see a monument commemorating and honouring O'Higgins specifically though.

As an aside I read an account of his assassination some time time ago , this account said his killing was quite unplanned - apparently a group of IRA men were travelling to / from Wexford in a stolen car and they recognised him walking to mass without escort and decided there and then to shoot him - apparently it was a ' spur of the moment ' thing.

thecommietommy

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't see how that could be the case, given that it was signed by representatives of an elected assembly (the Dail) and further mandated by the populace as a whole in a general election shortly afterwards.

By what right, legal moral or otherwise should the presumed aims of the "men of 1916" continue to have a veto down through all the years on what the Irish electorate can decide for itself in its own time and place? That point has always mystified me when made by "supposed" republicans.

The Irish electorate wasn't allowed to decide for itself unfortunately as the terms of the Treaty, a 26 county semi independent state, were dictated by the British govt with the threat of force if it wasn't accepted, a bit like a man signing a confession with the threat of getting the crap beaten out of him if he doesn't.

Einhard wrote: »

It seems that, for some, republicanism isn't so much about the will of the people, but rather abouyt the will of a self-selected, narrow band of Republicans. Thus, the elected government of the day betrayed Republican principles by following their mandate, but the minority who resisted that mandate with force of arms are true Republicans. It's a tad confusing, but par for the course for the type of Republican mentioned above.

Should we have a memorial to O'Higgins? It's not something I get particularly exercised about. But if we have memorials and commemorations to the likes of DeValera and Sean Russell, then I fail to see how people can object to one for O'Higgins. Anyway, the plaque doesn't appear to be a celebration of O'Higgins, but rather a marker of a singificant historical event. I don't see why, in that case, it shouldn't be let stand. Unless we're to remove all markers of historical "baddies"

Not making a political point but just stating some facts, the Free Sate army kicked things off first by attacking the IRA in the Four Courts with British supplied artillery etc. Ernie O'Malley's the Singing Flame is an excellent account of it. And a large majority of the IRA including Cumm na mBan were against the treaty.

Snickers Man

No

Fenian Army wrote: »

Unarmed police force is hardly that impressive when you look at the reasons why:
1). The incompetence of members (I think a recruit was killed or injured early on)
2). Having ex ric members who joined the garda armed caused much unease for the public but also the ex IRA men in the force.

thus he didn't really have a choice.

What sort of bizarre cognitive dissonance is this?

Since when did incompetence with firearms dissuade a government from arming its police force? If it wanted a properly trained and armed police force it would have brought in suitable instruction regimes.

Do you think a Minister for Justice (or Home Affairs ) ever thought "Most of our recruits are country lads who can drive a pony and trap but can't drive a car. Therefore we can't possibly have police cars. Ever." ?

I don't think so.

The rank and file RIC were recruited from the plain people of Ireland, for the most part. They weren't the demonised monsters some would like to think they were. Some of them joined the GS. Many didn't. The idea that the disarming of the Gardai was really only the disarming of the RIC is simply nonsense.

All Irish Republican parties, and their offshoots, proved themselves to be increasingly vicious in putting down their erstwhile colleagues who refused to toe the new democratic line. Whether it was Cosgrave and O'Higgins in the 1920s or De Valera and Boland in the 1940s, or the feuding Provos/Stickies/INLA of the 1970s and beyond.

O'Higgins had plenty of choice whether or not to have an unarmed police force. He chose right.

donaghs

No

Fenian Army wrote: »

Great contribution, A+.

Accepting the treaty and a "free state" was as clear cut a betrayal of the Irish republic declared in 1916 as you can get.

I can see you have resorted to your usual bullsh!t however "<< Ironic" Really stellar stuff. Conductive for good discussion all right.

I think you should redefine "Republican", as it seems it can't include anyone who disagrees you, or the long dead "men of 1916" (will we ever be able to get their opinions on post-1916 events?)

Einhard

No

thecommietommy wrote: »

Not making a political point but just stating some facts, the Free Sate army kicked things off first by attacking the IRA in the Four Courts with British supplied artillery etc.

As far as I know, they attacked the IRA who had illegally occupied the Four Courts. Surely the actions of the state were correct in that context? I mean, were an organisation of any description to seize, through force of arms, the Four Courts nowadays, would you not expect the democratically elected government to take action against such a unilateral usurption? Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so I'd be happy to be proven in error, but I don't understand how anyone could claim that the Free State, in responding to the occupation of the Four Courts, kicked things off. I think that's a remarkably blinkered view to take tbh.

And a large majority of the IRA including Cumm na mBan were against the treaty.

So what?

A large majority of the electorate voted for a pro-Treaty party. I mean, are you a democrat? If so, then you have to respect the will of the people, and not seek to place the views and opinions of the IRA and Cumann na mBan above that will.

Dannyboy83

No

Not making a political point but just stating some facts, the Free Sate army kicked things off first by attacking the IRA in the Four Courts with British supplied artillery etc.

interesting interpretation of history...would that not by extension invalidate 1916 and the entire war of independence tho?

i suppose this is why democracy is so vital to western civilsation - either we agree to be bound by the democratic will or we'd have no shortage of reasons to oppose any who disagree with our personal, nuanced interpretations.

personally i would consider the march ira convention as the indisputable start of the civil war, given the stated aims, conclusions and consequences/actions.

The bottom line is that this was the point at which it was decided to refute the irish democratic will and establish a violent opposition force to their paliament and organs.
At this point, the only way to avert war would have been to revoke their democraric freedom/rights and impose the will of a military dictatorship headed by the ira -> an obscenely hypocritical outcome for anyone espousing a republic!

thecommietommy

Einhard wrote: »

As far as I know, they attacked the IRA who had illegally occupied the Four Courts. Surely the actions of the state were correct in that context? I mean, were an organisation of any description to seize, through force of arms, the Four Courts nowadays, would you not expect the democratically elected government to take action against such a unilateral usurption? Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so I'd be happy to be proven in error, but I don't understand how anyone could claim that the Free State, in responding to the occupation of the Four Courts, kicked things off. I think that's a remarkably blinkered view to take tbh.

Fine, I can see how you might interpret the circunstances that led up to the Free State firing on the IRA in the Four Courts, doesn't change the fact that the Free State fired the first shots.

And a large majority of the IRA including Cumm na mBan were against the treaty.

So what?

A large majority of the electorate voted for a pro-Treaty party. I mean, are you a democrat? If so, then you have to respect the will of the people, and not seek to place the views and opinions of the IRA and Cumann na mBan above that will.

Your correct, the pro Treaty side won the election, doesn't change the fact that the majority of the IRA and Cumman na mBan were against the treaty.