Register to Comment
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 110
Like Tree46Likes
  1. #91
    asterix asterix is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    382

    Quote Originally Posted by Fr. Hank Tree View Post
    Some would say it's rewriting history to treat a general election like 1922 as a straight referendum.
    It's certainly an oversimplification to treat it as such. However, worse oversimplifications have been applied to the 1918 and 1921 elections.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #92
    TommyO'Brien TommyO'Brien is offline
    TommyO'Brien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    19,377

    Quote Originally Posted by SeamusNapoleon View Post
    1916 marked the point of de jure independence.
    No it didn't. It marked a failed attempt at independence.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #93
    Mackers Mackers is offline
    Mackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,894

    It is without doubt one of the most emotive times that Ireland as a country went through. Culminating in the killing of Collins and it is this action that is the key to what happened subsequently. I have no doubt in my mind that the Civil War would not have been as devastating to the country but for Collins being killed. This action lead to the Pro-treaty forces unleashing actions that Collins if he had been alive would not have stood by. As for the North you have to remember that the IRA in the North was Pro-treaty for the most part and this was down largely to Collins as well. Indeed it was no secret that Collins was arming the IRA in the North to counter act against the British/Unionist forces that were hell bent on attacking Nationalists.

    I recommend that anyone interested in this period in the North read Jim McDermott's excellent book on the time Northern Divisions: The Old IRA and the Belfast Pogroms 1920-22. As for celebrating the Treaty I hardly think that the people on both sides of the conflict that occurred would find little to celebrate in the deaths of their loved ones, or forebears.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #94
    Fr. Hank Tree Fr. Hank Tree is offline
    Fr. Hank Tree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    7,582

    Quote Originally Posted by asterix View Post
    It's certainly an oversimplification to treat it as such. However, worse oversimplifications have been applied to the 1918 and 1921 elections.
    Worse? Come on now, you're pushing it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #95
    SeamusNapoleon SeamusNapoleon is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    11,039

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien View Post
    No it didn't. It marked a failed attempt at independence.
    It marked the declaration of an Irish Republic [that's Ireland, not twenty-six counties of it despite some posters application of the terms 'Ireland', 'republic' and 'independence'].
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #96
    edifice. edifice. is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13,019

    Quote Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien View Post
    No it didn't. It marked a failed attempt at independence.
    No, 1916 was a defence of sovereignty, a very potent defence.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #97
    DrNightdub DrNightdub is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    328
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackers View Post
    I have no doubt in my mind that the Civil War would not have been as devastating to the country but for Collins being killed. This action lead to the Pro-treaty forces unleashing actions that Collins if he had been alive would not have stood by.
    Not so sure about that. The decision of the PG to adopt an explicitly peaceful stance to the north, largely on the urgings of Blythe, himself a northern protestant, was taken a couple of days before Collins' death. You could view it as the first sign of the civilians in the governement asserting themselves against the military troika of Collins, Mulcahy and O'Duffy. Bear in mind that going back to the WoI, Mulcahy always wanted the politicians to lead and the army to be subservient to them. Collins' death may have accelerated a process that was already in motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mackers View Post
    As for the North you have to remember that the IRA in the North was Pro-treaty for the most part and this was down largely to Collins as well. Indeed it was no secret that Collins was arming the IRA in the North to counter act against the British/Unionist forces that were hell bent on attacking Nationalists.

    I recommend that anyone interested in this period in the North read Jim McDermott's excellent book on the time Northern Divisions: The Old IRA and the Belfast Pogroms 1920-22.
    Agree re McDermott's book, but I'm pretty sure Robert Lynch's equally good "The Northern IRA & The Early Years of Partition" has a lengthy quote from Roger McCorley where he makes it clear that the adherence of the northern IRA to Beggars Bush rather than the Four Courts was not down to ideological leanings, but was the end product of a crude bidding war that took place around the time of the first Army Convention between O'Duffy and the Executive as to who could supply the most "stuff" to the north.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #98
    harry_w harry_w is offline
    harry_w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,829

    Quote Originally Posted by TheRealityOnTheGround View Post
    Diarmaid Ferriter has an interesting article on the 90th anniversary on the Anglo Irish Treaty.
    Birth of a nation: the treaty that transformed Ireland - The Irish Times - Sat, Dec 03, 2011

    The state has not bothered to commemorate officially it in the past, largely because FF has been in power on the 25th and 50 anniversary. This strikes me as odd that a country ignores the treaty that gave it independence and yet will lavishly celebrate the doomed 1916 sacrifice. With the centennial one coming soon it is not time for the state to give it due recognition
    How should a state commemorate signing such a 'treaty'? The article describes it as "creating a Free State dominion of the British empire rather than a republic, the divisions the treaty caused within Irish republicanism were to have fatal and enduring consequences, involving civil war, the poisoning of the body politic and the premature death of talented people".

    Perhaps a national day of mourning? A ceremonial lowering of the flag? What would you have in mind?

    In contrast to the declaration of the Republic in 1916, the 'treaty' circumscribed a dominion state's independence rather than giving it. Rather than freely given, the terms were determined by what could be established by force of arms, or the threat and it was subsequently enforced by the same means.

    Enda Kenny referred to the signing of the treaty in his national address last night, he was interesting in his language on the nation and the state:

    Published on Sunday 4th December 2011
    Taoiseach Enda Kenny – Address to the nation
    merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2011/12/taoiseach-enda-kenny-state-of-the-nation-address/

    In Ireland, an island nation – we cannot operate in isolation. We are part of the European Union.

    [...]

    Next Tuesday December 6th is the 90th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty in 1921.

    Just as our fledgling state made its way to becoming a Republic then – I believe with all my heart, that we the Irish people can now make our way to recovery, to prosperity and to the fulfilment of the dreams of our children and the founding fathers of our nation.
    It's rather ambiguous, necessarily I suppose, because to be more specific could be quite contentious. How should one commemorate the founding of a state that ''made its way to becoming" something else, still far short of what it was originally declared to be?

    This seems to identify the 'island nation' with a state founded by signatories to treaty, and perhaps those who subsequently made that state become 'a Republic'.

    [Adds: To commemorate the treaty? Have Enda walk the National Stepping Stones -- a Takeshi's Castle style memorial]
    Last edited by harry_w; 5th December 2011 at 03:18 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #99
    toconn toconn is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,651

    I will probably get hammered for simplification here but what in the end were the delegates sent to London meant to do ? the IRA was on its last legs , the people of the Ireland were tired of war and the suffering it was causing . There was simply no desire to take on Britain who lets be honest could have flattened the country with impunity if it so desired, remember they had just fought a war that cost millions of lives and a few thousand more in Ireland would not have worried them. Also there was no way the majority in the NE would have joined a 32 county State without bloodshed to both sides. The obvious answer was to get a deal with the least number of concessions you can and move on from there once further positions of strength have been gained , its the way most conflicts end !
    Fact is that there were many complications and no way was every interest going to be satisfied , the Independance movement was a mixture of politicians , pragmatists and military , some of the military leaders seeming hell bent on Junta style military rule despite any democratic objections. There may have been a different way looking back at it now but I believe they did the best they could in most aspects from a position that on reflection was incredibly weak.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #100
    JohnD66 JohnD66 is offline

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,199

    Today in Irish History, 6 December 1921, the Anglo-Irish Treaty is Signed | The Irish Story

    In my opinion, and it is no more than that, there was probably a bit more give left in the British on the question of 26 co sovereignty (if not on partitition).

    Lloyd George successfully bullied the Irish delegation with his talk about 'immediate war', but the British public wouldn't have had the stomach for it. Collins and Griffith should have called his bluff and held out for some concession on the Oath of Allegiance. Some sort of face-saving spin could have been put on it and civil war avoided.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment