To my knowledge Collins is viewed from misguided, traitor, hero, and pragmatist. Some idolize him, some berate him, some would like to see his memory thrown and left in the dustbin of history...

But have attitudes really changed. Is Collins now accepted, do FF and SF now regard Collins as a real patriot, have they lost their hatred for Collins achievements, was Collins right?

__________________
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

How can there be anyone left in the country who isn't bored with Michael Collins by now?

Collins said the treaty was a stepping stone to Irish freedom which proves he was misguided.

Collins was a very unusual individual because he held so many strings together.
He was a TD and member of the Dail which he barely recognised, a minister of the Irish cabinet which he loathed and worked to undermine, a signitary of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which he openly flouted, commander of the Irish Free State Army he was working to sabotage and commanded the loyalty of many anti-treaty IRA leaders he was tasked with going to war with.

Collins's loyalty was to himself and the network of accolytes he surrounded himself with.

Had he lived there is not clear what type of leader he would have been.

Would he have ultimately become the leader of Fine Gael and served as Taoiseach and as a rival to De Valera and Fianna Fail?
Would an Ireland dominated by Collins have moved to make peace with the Unionists, have been more economically liberal and less conservative?
Would he have launched a military coup and made himself an authoritarian Generalissimo of a right wing Catholic Fascist regime like Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Józef Piłsudski's Poland?
Would General Collins have joined the Allies during World War 2 or would he have remained neutral or would he have sided with Nazi Germany?

We will never know.

Collins died before his time but other leaders of the period have been overlooked - Liam Lynch, Kevin O' Higgins, Arthur Griffith and many more who died before they could play a part in the post-Civil War Ireland and would have checked the power of Collins or De Valera who are simplistically protrayed as the giants of the revolutionary period in Ireland.
If Pearse, Connally, Clarke and other leaders had not been executed after 1916 the alternative history of Ireland would have been remarkably different.

When Collins died at Beal Na Blath, the leadership of the British Government, the Free State Government, the IRA and the Unionists all breathed a collective sigh of relief.

with the huge exception to the north ( i dont say that in a dismissive attitude towards the north or what has happened in the past), but


how in god's named do you make that one out. even dev acknolwedged this in one of his speeches in dail eireann years later (naturally not explicitly referring to collin's name) look what dev said when he entered the dail in 1926 about how the oath of allegiance was an empty formula. couldn't that have being that attitude have being taken instead of forcing the state firing on republicans in the four courts, and still not surrender republican principles as seen by dev in 1932 onwards (again with exception to the north)

with the risk as coming across condescending to you or anyone who knows the path taken by this part of the island in becoming a republic, i aint going to spell it out

however, i will say,

people like o'higgis, fitzgerald and cosgrave DID take advantage of the annual westiminster conferences along with other leaders of the new commonwealth and of course the changing ability etc of britain after ww1 by bringing in the statue of westminister of 1932, which for the first time allowed dominions to implement domestic legislation without the need to refer to westiminister.

dev took advantage of this when he came to power and gradually dismantled the terms of the treaty and effectively rescinding it by bunreacht na heireann. all of which came about with no effective interference by the british (bar economic war)

collins referred to the treaty as a means of finally getting a parliament which would be recongised by britain (unlike dail of 1919) and thus getting the rest of the world to recongising some form of status for ireland. the treaty gave the irish more than what the 1914 home rule act was willing to give (albeit the north).. collins was saying what else would britain conceed to in the future.

who else would have got ireland better than the treaty? dev? no chance, he knew or was on very clear notice of what was on offer since july of 1921. his document no 2, although a bit before its time regarding the commonwealth, did not really distinguish itself from the treaty text.. and basically accepted the situation in the north


who knows what would have occurred if collins had lived, if dev and collins and their people had reconcilled. one thing that is clear is that civil war should not have occurred. it broke this country for years, isolated nationalists in the north and made unionists harden their attitude towards the union. dev's entrance to dail eireann in 1926 is a fine example of being at least seen to acknowledge the free state without surrendering his moderate republican princple. the dail, established under the treaty terms was his motor for laying the foundations for irelands (26) eventualy seperation from the union.. (whatever name you wish to call it of course)

jesus christ i sound like a fine gaeler (no i am not one of them by the way

Michael Collins was a Soldier and Military Tactician............................. He was not a master negotiator and was fooled by the Brits into Signing the Treaty not just because they threatened to wipe us off the face of the earth.

Eamon Devalera Should have gone instead because he could've have rattled sabres with the likes of Churchill and that A**hole Lloyd George.

Ireland was paritioned solely to keep the wealth of the North in British Possession......................

Paul Foote, Ireland: Why Britain must pullout

Explains this in great accurate detail


Britain forcing the Treaty on Ireland are responsible for the bloodshed of Civil War and the Northern Troubles, not Dev or Collins.

yes dev should have gone, but what would he have done? llyod george in july 1921 also pulled the wool over dev's eyes when he noted that the dail's reference to the republic being saorstat na heireann - was literally free state and noted that their was no "gaelic word" for republic (small thing i know). but llyod george who noted that it was impossible to argue with dev (not a bad thing to have for the irish) made it very clear in the headnote invitation for the conference that october that the republic was out of the question.

secondly, in some fairness to the people who went over to london in october, they were not prepared or properly briefed by what dev wanted them to do. none of them were able to understand what dev's policy of external association was about. dev gave them powers to sign on the dail's behalf yet demanded them to report back to the dail. where was dev on the morning of the signing of the treaty? in bloody limerick (no offence to limerick but, in a time when phones and other communications were not about, he should have at least being in dublin or at least contactable)

maybe you are right about the north and britain's attitude. but even if you were wrong with regard to llyod george (this is for argument's sake- i am very happy to debate this with you) you do realise that llyod george and his party where in a coalitation with the conversatives. the conversatives who relying on ulster unionists to bring them back into power on their own (carson as you will recall being in the war cabinet) do you honestly believe a prime minister would risk loosing power and give the opposition and opponents in his own party a sniff of a chance to knock him off on the grounds of ireland?, considering as far as pm was concerned ireland being a small but extremely sore thorn in the side and diversion from other loftier issues regarding the empire?

One of the best synopsis of Collins you could read. Well said.

-He remained Commander In Chief of the IRB unbeknownst to Griffith and continued to organise and launch terror attacks after having signed the treaty.

__________________
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK

Good point.