What side would you have taken in the Irish civil war?

SafeSurfer

Modern Irish politics has been defined by either support or opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.
Do you know much about the treaty and the debates about it at the time? What side would you have taken if you had been alive at the time?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Modern Irish politics has been defined by either support or opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.
Do you know much about the treaty and the debates about it at the time? What side would you have taken if you had been alive at the time?

Is it? I mean, I know it led to the establishment of both the main political parties currently operating, but "modern" politics has been shaped by far more modern influences.

Being a pacifist and hating nationalism, I'd probably have been with the pro-treaty side, but had I live back then I'm not sure I'd have had the same influences.

Roger_007

My late grandfather was a young man when the civil war happened. When I was a kid I used to quiz him about it. He told me that most people just got on with their lives as best they could and didn't get involved, regardless of their political opinion. He didn't regard it as a war at all, just a series of brutal murders by psychopaths. He said the whole episode made him ashamed of being Irish.

BoatMad

Roger_007 wrote: »

My late grandfather was a young man when the civil war happened. When I was a kid I used to quiz him about it. He told me that most people just got on with their lives as best they could and didn't get involved, regardless of their political opinion. He didn't regard it as a war at all, just a series of brutal murders by psychopaths. He said the whole episode made him ashamed of being Irish.

I dont think however from reading the newspapers of the day, that this was a typical opinion. the vast majority of the population supported the free state Government, which in the end triumphed. The population had no stomach for continued IRA activity and wanted the give the treaty a chance . by and large public sympathies were with the " organs of the state " , i.e. the free state army etc

Riddle101

While I tend to lean towards the Pro Treaty side, I don't think I could officially take a side in the war. Imagine fighting in the Civil War against the same guys you fought alongside during the War for Independence, Friends, family, comrades, it was just messed up.

SafeSurfer

Riddle101 wrote: »

While I tend to lean towards the Pro Treaty side, I don't think I could officially take a side in the war. Imagine fighting in the Civil War against the same guys you fought alongside during the War for Independence, Friends, family, comrades, it was just messed up.

Yes the Irish civil war was even more bitter than most because it resulted in comrades who had fought a common enemy turning their guns on each other.
Incidents such as the unarmed anti Treaty Harry Boland, who had been a close friend of pro Treaty leader Michael Collins being killed. The burning to death of the seven year old son of pro Treaty TD Sean Mc Garry in an arson attack by anti Treaty forces. The killing of anti Treaty soldier Brian Mc Neill by pro Treaty forces in Sligo after his surrender while his brothers served as pro Treaty officers and his father served as minister for education in the free state government.
The civil war literally not figuratively pitted brother against brother, father against son, groomsman against bestman.
It was so bitter and divisive that it is rarely discussed today.

greencap

It could be said that it would depend on your family/community/background as to which side any given person would probably take.

But my present day brain without any undue influence from either side would go with Dev.

Its the sensible option, its a knife wielding thug twice your size letting you go so long as he gets your wallet.

So 1 wallet, and good day to you sir.

myshirt

The Rubberbandits have a song about Eamon Develera double dropping yokes which is worth checking out.

Remember, this was a very tall, imposing, and able man. Snake skin boots. Big cane. Wore the finest suits. The man got results out of people. Balls as big as oranges. He was the kind of man who would f#ck your wife, look you straight in the eye, tell you that, and not back up.

Would you blame people for having been on his side? Irish people are either driven by debilitating fear in their lives, or greed and self interest. Sociology will tell you that is our makeup from years of British tyranny and Irish struggle.

Roger_007

Roger_007 wrote: »

He didn't regard it as a war at all, just a series of brutal murders by psychopaths. He said the whole episode made him ashamed of being Irish.

Yeah, in my experience the people with this view of people who fought for Irish independence tend to be the very first to put on their poppies and glorify the bloodlust of people who fought for British imperialism across the planet for centuries as "heroic". Watch them in After Hours over the next two months.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Being a pacifist and hating nationalism, I'd probably have been with the pro-treaty side, but had I live back then I'm not sure I'd have had the same influences.

You are joking, right? The Free State/British Empire side "hated nationalism" and were "pacifists"? Seriously?

Time for some people to do some reading. The Ballyseedy Massacre in March 1923 might be a very good place to start.

Ballyseedy Massacre, March 1923

Jawgap

Probably have sided with Collins and agreed with his notion that the Treaty was the first step, not the final outcome......"the freedom to achieve freedom."

silverharp

the civil war never made sense to me , a lot of civil wars are either ethnic or based on political outlook. Having one because you didnt get everything you wanted at the table seems bizarre. The anti treaty side were traitors and vandals, they damaged the Irish economy when there wasnt a lot to play with

Creative83

Batman

LordSutch

FG.

Wibbs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Being a pacifist and hating nationalism, I'd probably have been with the pro-treaty side, but had I live back then I'm not sure I'd have had the same influences.

You almost certainly wouldn't P. It's easy to be a pacifist who hates nationalism when you don't have to fight to have the right to hold those opinions.

myshirt wrote: »

The Rubberbandits have a song .... which is worth checking out.

Those two statements don't belong in the same sentence.

Jawgap wrote: »

Probably have sided with Collins and agreed with his notion that the Treaty was the first step, not the final outcome......"the freedom to achieve freedom."

This pretty much. Though again hard to say if I were living in those times. Of the members of my family involved in the fight for independence some held the anti treaty view.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, in my experience the people with this view of people who fought for Irish independence tend to be the very first to put on their poppies and glorify the bloodlust of people who fought for British imperialism across the planet for centuries as "heroic". Watch them in After Hours over the next two months.

I wear a poppy each year......the Irish commemorative one......for two reasons. To remember a man who served in various far flung corners of the world before getting an arm shot off in WW1 - there was no blood lust, it was simply a decision made so an unemployed labourer could look after his family better.

And to say thank you to an organisation that helped another relative die with dignity, at home, surrounded by his family instead of in some hospital.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

the civil war never made sense to me , a lot of civil wars are either ethnic or based on political outlook. Having one because you didnt get everything you wanted at the table seems bizarre.

Eh, the underlined?

The anti treaty side were traitors and vandals, they damaged the Irish economy when there wasnt a lot to play with

The same "traitors and vandals" who were part of the resistance that gave us our independence in the first place, many of whom paid with their lives. Retrospect makes wise men of us all.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, the underlined?

I had the Spanish civil war in mind. That kind of political difference wasnt the reason for the Irish civil war

Wibbs wrote: »

The same "traitors and vandals" who were part of the resistance that gave us our independence in the first place, many of whom paid with their lives. Retrospect makes wise men of us all.

all the more reason they should have taken the fight to the ballot box. it just comes across as a sh1tting the bed and pointless civil war. what was the plan invade NI?

AudreyHepburn

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Modern Irish politics has been defined by either support or opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.
Do you know much about the treaty and the debates about it at the time? What side would you have taken if you had been alive at the time?

Interesting question OP and a difficult one to answer.

Realistically and with the benefit of hindsight I think we can all acknowledge that the Pro Treaty side got it right. I watched The Wind That Shakes The Barley again recently ( great film by the way) and one of the characters makes the point that the British were never going to give us complete independence just like that not least because of the precedent it would have set in its other colonies. It was the best we could have hoped for at the time.

Having said that if I had lived during that time and suffered at the hands of the Black and Tans as so many did I can’t imagine I’d have been thrilled at the prospect of still being a British dominion and having to swear allegiance to the crown.

So I suppose I would be Pro Treaty but I can understand the Anti Treaty side absolutely.

silverharp

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So I suppose I would be Pro Treaty but I can understand the Anti Treaty side absolutely.

I can get why they werent happy but it would be like a bunch of remainers in the UK deciding they were going to take up arms against the state against the will of the people.
In that movie the anti treaty seemed to be made up of socialists, was that reflective of the split?

AudreyHepburn

silverharp wrote: »

I can get why they werent happy but it would be like a bunch of remainers in the UK deciding they were going to take up arms against the state against the will of the people.
In that movie the anti treaty seemed to be made up of socialists, was that reflective of the split?

I’d imagine that had something to do with it alright. But I think most of the objecting had to do with the fact that after all the fighting and suffering they went through to get the British out and despite the fact that the British were no longer physically there they were still forced to accept British control of the country and to show allegiance to the Crown.

That anger and frustration I can completely understand.

optogirl

I'd have been anti-treaty but only because my entire family was and I think this would have had a huge influence on me. Grandad & great-uncles all fought in the civil war. Now though, I see that nationalism is based on imaginary lines drawn by dead men at a time in history & shooting each other because of them is pointless. Doesn't stop the welling of pride when the national football team wins a match mind you

Roger_007

silverharp wrote: »

I can get why they werent happy but it would be like a bunch of remainers in the UK deciding they were going to take up arms against the state against the will of the people.
In that movie the anti treaty seemed to be made up of socialists, was that reflective of the split?

One thing that is often overlooked about the civil war is that it followed on a general election where the anti-treaty parties got about one third of the votes. Also, it is a common misconception that the war was all about partition. It wasn't, it was mainly about taking the oath of allegiance to the British king.

Widdershins

Its very hard to know. I suspect anti treaty at heart but maybe pro treaty with a pinched nose.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

You almost certainly wouldn't P. It's easy to be a pacifist who hates nationalism when you don't have to fight to have the right to hold those opinions.

Indeed, it's very easy to say, "Let's all sit down and talk about this, and discuss how we can all be treated equally", when everyone understands what equality is.

When the other side consider themselves superior and nothing can shake that faith, then you're wasting your breath. As much as I too abhor nationalism, it's really only something we've come to properly critically examine in recent decades. For most of human history it's been a given that you fight under your born banner and you believe your nation superior to all others.

So to be afforded respect and dignity, your only choice was to declare independence - and usually fight for it.

My great grandfather was a prison officer in Mountjoy who was sympathetic to the IRB/IVA/IRA prisoners being held there and acted as an informant/information smuggler to those prisoners. The British authorities were aware of what he was doing and wanted to transfer him to Limerick, so he conspired to have my grandfather admitted to Temple Street - if an officer had a sick child requiring treatment, he couldn't be transferred. And there my grandfather stayed for six months, not a thing wrong with him.

So being willing to make those sacrifices, you can be damn sure that my ancestors were strongly on the anti-treaty side . My father was a staunch FF supporter until they ****ed the economy.

Whereas I too would be very much in the "let's just work this stuff out and find a path that works best for everyone" camp, and have no time for people who try to apply civil war thinking to modern politics. I still acknowledge that such thinking is a luxury of the times we live in as opposed to something which would have gotten much traction back then.

Grandaunt was imprisoned in Kilmainham during the Civil War and went on hunger strike - her husband had been shot by the Black and Tans during the War of Independence. She was the last SF TD in Limerick city before the last General Election. So that side of the family were pretty steeped in it - they were originally from near Bandon in Cork. My father grew up in Tralee, and Kerry was the county that saw the most incidents during the Civil War, including the infamous massacres at Ballyseedy, Countess Road Killarney and Cahersiveen.

So...anti Treaty.

sjb25

Jawgap wrote: »

Probably have sided with Collins and agreed with his notion that the Treaty was the first step, not the final outcome......"the freedom to achieve freedom."

I would have been the Same as this I think as well but easy to sit here now and say that
My grandad who lived through it would have been on the otherside

silverharp

Roger_007 wrote: »

One thing that is often overlooked about the civil war is that it followed on a general election where the anti-treaty parties got about one third of the votes. Also, it is a common misconception that the war was all about partition. It wasn't, it was mainly about taking the oath of allegiance to the British king.

with my late 20th C brain I wouldn't see that as a good enough reason to blow Irelands railways apart. Its not like the treaty side were pro oath of allegiance, it was get a State and move away as soon as possible

SEPT 23 1989

as a working class Dubliner I don't think i would have been too keen to get involved in another war

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’d imagine that had something to do with it alright. But I think most of the objecting had to do with the fact that after all the fighting and suffering they went through to get the British out and despite the fact that the British were no longer physically there they were still forced to accept British control of the country and to show allegiance to the Crown.

That anger and frustration I can completely understand.

I can understand it too, but it was a temper tantrum.

What did they really expect to achieve? A unified Ireland against Britains wishes? Using only part of the support they had during the War of Independence? And in the end, after families were split and people died, they marched back in feeling proud that they stood up for what they believed in... achieving nothing except hurting other Irish people.

I would have been pro-treaty obviously.

AnneFrank

Mick Collins and the free state army for me, it was the best possible outcome at the time,
I could never follow a man like Dev,

Jawgap

sjb25 wrote: »

I would have been the Same as this I think as well but easy to sit here now and say that
My grandad who lived through it would have been on the otherside

Apparently, we'd a three-way split in our family.....a couple of brothers (one of whom was ex-Citizen Army) and a sister went the anti-treaty route, another brother joined the National Army when he turned 18 (fair to say he was pro-Treaty).....then my great-grandfather who, having been wounded in Flanders, decided the working class was fecked whoever was in charge and plumped for the O'Brien faction in the Labour Party and ITGWU, before sticking with them and dropping his support for O'Brien in the 1940s split.

All very complicated.......I like to think I'd have had my great-grandfather's insight, but realistically I probably would've seen it in more binary terms and plumped for one side or t'other.

elperello

No disrespect to the OP or other posters but I think it's an unanswerable question.

Given the passing of almost a century it is not possible to place yourself in your forbears time.

There have been unprecedented changes throughout the 20th century and up to the present which provide the context for our current view of the past.

The past is a foreign country.

Claude Wilton

Pro-treaty all the way for me, but let's not forget the impact that a commander would have had on his men. In many ways there wasn't much between Dan Breen and Sean MacEoin, for example, except for who they chose to follow. I had a close family member who grieved over the murder of Collins, but went anti-treaty because he served under Breen.

AudreyHepburn

Deleted User wrote: »

I can understand it too, but it was a temper tantrum.

What did they really expect to achieve? A unified Ireland against Britains wishes? Using only part of the support they had during the War of Independence? And in the end, after families were split and people died, they marched back in feeling proud that they stood up for what they believed in... achieving nothing except hurting other Irish people.

I would have been pro-treaty obviously.

I agree with you 100% - the Treaty was undoubtedly the best we could have hoped for at the time and the only thing the Anti Treaty side really achieved was more suffering.

I should also add that I don’t think I would have been actively involved either way - I couldn’t in good conscience take up arms against my own people.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Roger_007 wrote: »

My late grandfather was a young man when the civil war happened. When I was a kid I used to quiz him about it. He told me that most people just got on with their lives as best they could and didn't get involved, regardless of their political opinion. He didn't regard it as a war at all, just a series of brutal murders by psychopaths. He said the whole episode made him ashamed of being Irish.

And then history repeated itself, as it tends to do

AudreyHepburn

elperello wrote: »

No disrespect to the OP or other posters but I think it's an unanswerable question.

Given the passing of almost a century it is not possible to place yourself in your forbears time.

There have been unprecedented changes throughout the 20th century and up to the present which provide the context for our current view of the past.

The past is a foreign country.

I disagree - I think the passing of time makes it easier to look at both sides objectively and to come to a reasonable conclusion.

We have the benefit of not being directly affected by the presence of the British, we have never suffered at the hands of the Black and Tans so we can take a more reasoned view of the whole instead of letting our emotions take over.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Logically, pro-treaty makes more sense but the majority of people in Mayo were anti-treaty, so I probably would have gone that way at the time.

elperello

I'm not sure that we disagree.
The op's question was what side would you have taken in the civil war.
Your post does a good job of explaining how different our perspective is to that of our forebears.

tomwaterford

Given the conduct of the British during war of independence,stories of which are still told around here


Couldn't see how anyone could contenance swearing oath of alligence to them?

AudreyHepburn

elperello wrote: »

I'm not sure that we disagree.
The op's question was what side would you have taken in the civil war.
Your post does a good job of explaining how different our perspective is to that of our forebears.

You said it was unanswerable, that’s what I was disagreeing with for the reasons I have above.

Our perspective makes it easier to see the Treaty for what it was - a stepping stone - and so it’s easier to see it was only way to go.

branie2

I'd take the treaty side, because, as Michael Collins said, it was a stepping stone to achieving our freedom

elperello

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You said it was unanswerable, that’s what I was disagreeing with for the reasons I have above.

Our perspective makes it easier to see the Treaty for what it was - a stepping stone - and so it’s easier to see it was only way to go.

I see what you mean.
You are sort of time traveling and reckon with the knowledge you have now you would have taken a certain course of action.
Whereas I thought I was supposed to depend on historical context.

AudreyHepburn

elperello wrote: »

I see what you mean.
You are sort of time traveling and reckon with the knowledge you have now you would have taken a certain course of action.
Whereas I thought I was supposed to depend on historical context.

I didn’t realise there was set way of answering the question.

I’m not time traveling as you put it, I’m thinking logically and yes probably using my modern perspective to certain extent but I don’t think that precludes me from voicing my opinion.

If I was alive back then I think my heart would Anti but my head would say Pro and that’s what I’d follow.

Auldloon

My family were staunchly anti treaty so I'm sure I would have been also. Our area was massively anti treaty with one brave family in the local village pro. Growing up in the 70's and 80's my dad still wasn't happy about me being friends with that family. Us children would have been grandchildren of the actual men who fought though our grandfathers/grand uncles apparently made friends after the dust settled and my lot returned from internment.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

all the more reason they should have taken the fight to the ballot box. it just comes across as a sh1tting the bed and pointless civil war. what was the plan invade NI?

You mean like the ballot box that was used in the general election immediately prior to the Civil War - you know, the one where 73 of the 105 elected representatives on the island of Ireland were Sinn Féin TDs? Yes, the same election result which the British state overthrew to partition Ireland against the wishes of the same vast majority of elected TDs? The same ballot box which Sinn Féin used so successfully in 1918 that in 1919 the British state changed the entire electoral system in Ireland to PR-STV entirely to undermine Sinn Féin and benefit unionists? (a fact regarding the origins of our current electoral system which most Irish people would be ignorant of)

That one? Expecting to be able to overthrow democratic elections in Ireland in 1918 because you don't like the result and then demanding respect for new results after you've rigged the constituency and voting system to ensure that you have a more suitable result is, well, just the sort of arrogance I fully expect from the British Empire and its defenders in Ireland and all their other colonies.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

I wear a poppy each year......the Irish commemorative one......for two reasons. To remember a man who served in various far flung corners of the world before getting an arm shot off in WW1 - there was no blood lust, it was simply a decision made so an unemployed labourer could look after his family better.

And to say thank you to an organisation that helped another relative die with dignity, at home, surrounded by his family instead of in some hospital.

In fairness, if you want to believe that the British Empire was created and sustained across 25% of planet earth by some sort of lovebombing of the natives, and that when the natives responded to the occupation with its own violence it was suddenly a "bloodlust", well nobody here will be able to help you with your need to believe that.

WW I was nothing but the latest of a long series of British imperial wars staffed by relatively well-paid opportunists and mercenaries. They were paid. Paid. Heroism? That they hadn't factored in the technological changes into their gamble when they joined the side of the biggest empire in world history, and thus lost, is not something for which they should be admired. Trying to pass them off as "heroic" is comical no matter how much propaganda is spouted by modern-day British nationalists using past deaths to justify their current political campaigns.

Morally speaking, the British Empire remains an ineffably ignominious blot on the history of humanity, and to attempt to absolve its footsoldiers from those crimes because they have a relationship to you is beneath contempt. It never represented a "greater good" for anybody but the aristocrats, parasites, sycophants and dullards of Britain. Committing a moral wrong in a British uniform does not make it a moral right or a moral "greater good" just because it's your crowd doing it. That is tyranny you're defending.

I'm really looking forward to Brexit bringing this entire British "my country right or wrong" mentality of conceit to its knees and ultimate repentance. Nothing like powerlessness to bring truth, humility and honesty to a society. And, unlike the defeated Germans after WW2, the Brits haven't even started on that road.

razorblunt

Liam Neeson's. Fúck you Hans Gruber!

storker

On the understanding that it indeed represented "stepping stones" to independence, and given that a majority had voted in favour, I would have been on the Free State side. I would have taken the view that the anti-treaty forces had no mandate.

elperello

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn’t realise there was set way of answering the question.

I’m not time traveling as you put it, I’m thinking logically and yes probably using my modern perspective to certain extent but I don’t think that precludes me from voicing my opinion.

If I was alive back then I think my heart would Anti but my head would say Pro and that’s what I’d follow.

Yes ok no bother, we are just on different pages so to speak.