Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

contradictions between allies in the war of independence

  • 23-07-2010 12:02am
    #1
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭


    One thing that I can never understand is how the how you can have a juxtaposition of religious sectarianism & marxism ideology co-existing.

    It does not seem rational.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »
    One thing that I can never understand is how the how you can have a juxtaposition of religious sectarianism & marxism ideology co-existing.

    It does not seem rational.

    The IRA are officially non sectarian. Just like many Cuban communists are officially atheists but in reality devout Catholics. Many commies will never be able to accept the 'religion is the opiate of the masses' line...


  • #3
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Denerick wrote: »
    The IRA are officially non sectarian. Just like many Cuban communists are officially atheists but in reality devout Catholics. Many commies will never be able to accept the 'religion is the opiate of the masses' line...

    So whats the deal on their ideology. Its like they have two opposite ideas in your mind at the same time.

    I just wonder if there was a rift somewhere within the repubican movement at that time which may explain some of the issues.


  • #4
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    One thing that I can never understand is how the how you can have a juxtaposition of religious sectarianism & marxism ideology co-existing.

    It does not seem rational.

    Do you mean the IRA? You have to remember that although we/historians divide the people into Protestant and Catholics for simplicity it is not necessarily a fight about religious tolerance or intolerance, but coercion by one side on another, sides which happen to be defined in part but not exclusively by religion. One could easily view the problem in class terms and come up with basically the same divisions, which accounts for the Marxist ideology and the lack of conflict between the two principles you mentioned.


  • #5
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Do you mean the IRA? You have to remember that although we/historians divide the people into Protestant and Catholics for simplicity it is not necessarily a fight about religious tolerance or intolerance, but coercion by one side on another, sides which happen to be defined in part but not exclusively by religion. One could easily view the problem in class terms and come up with basically the same divisions, which accounts for the Marxist ideology and the lack of conflict between the two principles you mentioned.

    Thats an interesting insight. The IRA are officially non sectarian and I always find it interesting to read or hear when senior Republicans of either the mainstream or dissident bent praise men like Henry Joy McCracken (Presbyterian) or Wolfe Tone (Anglican) for wishing to united 'Catholic, Protestant and dissenter and make an Irishman' (Or something to that effect, a direct quote from Tone's speech from the dock) The origins of Irish Republicanism can mainly be attributed to Protestants and Presbyterians and it emerged in the context of American and European Republicanism which was officially secular and non religious.


  • #6
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Do you mean the IRA? You have to remember that although we/historians divide the people into Protestant and Catholics for simplicity it is not necessarily a fight about religious tolerance or intolerance, but coercion by one side on another, sides which happen to be defined in part but not exclusively by religion. One could easily view the problem in class terms and come up with basically the same divisions, which accounts for the Marxist ideology and the lack of conflict between the two principles you mentioned.

    Certainly my grandfather had huge differences with former comrades locally in Cork until he died.

    Religion wasn't so much an issue in West Cork (between republicans) but sectarianism but it became a huge issue,Sam Maguire etc.

    I have always wondered how the labour activists/marxists fitted in. My grandfather was not Marxist. He was a Republican but his outlook would have been free market and democratic.

    You seem to have different struggles in different areas.

    So when you look at Belfast and West Cork - Smyths assasination caused retailiation/repercussions as would Dunmanway subsequently.

    Add that to the Trade Union Movement/ Marxist wing and you have a very loose coalition rather than a unified ideology.

    There was more than a free democratic Ireland at play -you had agrarian politics, industrial society politics, sectarian politics and guns. A bit more tribal than a cohesive unified movement.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »

    So when you look at Belfast and West Cork - Smyths assasination caused retailiation/repercussions as would Dunmanway subsequently.

    Add that to the Trade Union Movement/ Marxist wing and you have a very loose coalition rather than a unified ideology.

    There was more than a free democratic Ireland at play -you had agrarian politics, industrial society politics, sectarian politics and guns. A bit more tribal than a cohesive unified movement.

    Issues of class are often overlooked when it comes to studying the war of Independence. We had the Limerick Soviet, rural land grabs and the mass of the soldiers were from poor, often labouring families.

    In contrast, the political leadership at both high military and Dáil level were almost exclusively middle class. In many ways the much acclaimed Dáil courts were useful in reaffirming property rights, and punishing land grabbers in the west.


  • #8
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    You seem to have different struggles in different areas.

    You have to remember that when historians write they think in grand narratives generally speaking, and often tie together loose ends to make it appear as if a unified whole existed. The war of independence was much more roughshod than that. However I agree with Morlar that we should go back on topic, I might split this stuff off in a minute.


  • #9
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Denerick wrote: »
    Issues of class are often overlooked when it comes to studying the war of Independence. We had the Limerick Soviet, rural land grabs and the mass of the soldiers were from poor, often labouring families.

    Yes indeed.

    The vision of what would happen was different & there was a huge disparity between the aspirations of the participants.

    I often think that the reprisals/repercussions on other groups were ignored.


    In contrast, the political leadership at both high military and Dáil level were almost exclusively middle class. In many ways the much acclaimed Dáil courts were useful in reaffirming property rights, and punishing land grabbers in the west.

    And didnt you have various political groupings surfacing continually.

    The remnants of the Home Rule Party and even farners candidates all with differing agenda's/

    Pre 1918 Parties

    All-for-Ireland League · Catholic Union · Home Government Association · Home Rule League · Independent Irish Party · Irish Conservative Party · Irish Liberal Party · Irish Metropolitan Conservative Society · Irish National Federation · Irish National League · Irish Parliamentary Party · Irish Patriot Party · Irish Socialist Republican Party · Irish Unionist Alliance · National Association · Repeal Association · United Irish League

    Post 1918 Parties

    Post 1918Ailtirí na hAiséirghe · Aontacht Éireann · British and Irish Communist Organisation · Business and Professional Group · Christian Centrist Party · Clann Éireann · Clann na Poblachta · Clann na Talmhan · Córas na Poblachta · Cumann na nGaedhael · Cumann na Poblachta · Cumann Poblachta na hÉireann · Democratic Left · Democratic Socialist Party · Donegal Progressive Party · Farmers' Party · Independent Fianna Fáil · Irish Anti-Partition League · Irish Independence Party · Irish Workers' Group · Irish Worker League · League for a Workers Republic · Libertas · Monetary Reform Party · Muintir na hÉireann · National Centre Party · National Corporate Party · National Labour Party · National League Party · National Party (1924) · National Party (1995) · National Progressive Democrats · Poblacht Chríostúil · Progressive Democrats · Republican Congress · Saor Éire · Socialist Labour Party · Socialist Party of Ireland · Workers League





    Some political Stats 1922 to mid 1940's

    This references a 1922 Collins/DeValera Electoral Pact too. A bit cosy.

    http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/IrEls2244SamplePages1.pdf


  • #10
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    brianthebard wrote: »
    You have to remember that when historians write they think in grand narratives generally speaking, and often tie together loose ends to make it appear as if a unified whole existed. The war of independence was much more roughshod than that. However I agree with Morlar that we should go back on topic, I might split this stuff off in a minute.

    Grand narratives is a great turn of phrase. Lets set the tone.

    The 1916 Rising used the Irish Volunteers and wasn't Eoin NcNeill shown a forged letter by IRB people concerning the supposed arrest of him and other nationalist leaders to gain his co-operation. He recinded his order for "manoeures" only following Casements arrest.

    As it happens the IRB were also in league with James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army. How Marxist was their ideology.

    So at the very begining it was a looser group with the IRB faction wrestling away control of the volunteers. Were there other dissenters ?

    Were there regional/local groups too or how did these alliances work ? You had a Soviet declared in Limerick ,for instsnce, where did you have the concentration of activists geographically.


  • #11
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »

    So at the very begining it was a looser group with the IRB faction wrestling away control of the volunteers. Were there other dissenters ?

    Were there regional/local groups too or how did these alliances work ? You had a Soviet declared in Limerick ,for instsnce, where did you have the concentration of activists geographically.

    The war was fought on a regional/local basis. Its the only way the war can be understood and its the main reason there have been so few satisfactory narrative accounts of the war in total. The volunteers swore allegiance to the centre (ie, the Dáil) but only after much prevarication. I'd struggle to call the war of independence a national war. It relied for the most part on good local leaders. For example the only reason longford was a hotspot was because of Seán MacEoin - After his arrest Collins exclaimed that only Cork was left in the struggle.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    Grand narratives is a great turn of phrase. Lets set the tone.

    The 1916 Rising used the Irish Volunteers and wasn't Eoin NcNeill shown a forged letter by IRB people concerning the supposed arrest of him and other nationalist leaders to gain his co-operation. He recinded his order for "manoeures" only following Casements arrest.

    As it happens the IRB were also in league with James Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army. How Marxist was their ideology.

    So at the very begining it was a looser group with the IRB faction wrestling away control of the volunteers. Were there other dissenters ?

    Connolly and the ICA were very Marxist, although Connolly had a unique way of writing/talking that was Marxist without ever referencing the terms and phrases you might find in an academic paper on the topic.

    A number of the 1916 leaders were left leaning (eg Mellowes) but how close they were to Connolly is up for debate. Connolly often lectured the IVF on warfare, and was in contact with members of the IRB for years before the Rising, so although they were each distinct factions, the 1916 rising is possibly the movement where they were closest together.


  • #13
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    And afterwards?


    West Cork seems to have been the only place that had its act together.
    :D

    Votes cast
    Out of a valid poll of 620,283 votes, the pro-Treaty part of the Sinn Féin party won 239,193 votes and their anti-Treaty rivals secured 133,864 votes. The other parties and independents (see above) all supported the Treaty and secured a further 247,226 votes.[3]
    The vote was seen as significant in several ways:
    • The pro-Treaty parties had secured support from over 75% of the electorate on the eve of the Irish Civil War.
    • The non-Sinn Féin parties had support from over 40% of the electorate, showing that a significant part disapproved of the military and political events since the election in 1921, where the Sinn Féin candidates had swept the board unopposed.
    Further, the anti-Treaty candidates had taken part in an election that was required under the articles of the Treaty, even though they had argued that it was completely flawed. Their opponents argued that this revealed that their anti-Treaty stance was opportunist, and not principled.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#0645ad]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I
    In that the anti-Treaty forces wanted to establish an all-Ireland republic, this election result when considered with the 1921 result in Northern Ireland shows that the anti-Treaty party had an enormous uphill struggle to achieve their constitutional aim.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_1922#Votes_cast

    The 1921 Northern Ireland Result
    <H2>General Election Results

    1921: Electorate 582,464; Turnout 88.0%

    Sinn Fein 20.5%




    http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont/totals.html
    </H2>
    So there was less than an enthusiastic national support and on an Island level the Anti Treaty side definately did not have anything like an elecoral mandate.

    Add to this the Collins/DeValera Pact they seem as representative as Gaelic High Kings.Without the pact you could have seen a substantially different political landscape.

    Now my bunch as rural farmers and the like were stuck in the Middle of the Republican side.


  • #14
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    CDfm wrote: »
    And afterwards?

    A lot of the leaders died....


  • #15
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    brianthebard wrote: »
    A lot of the leaders died....

    Some great narrative there :p


  • #16
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Denerick wrote: »
    The war was fought on a regional/local basis. Its the only way the war can be understood and its the main reason there have been so few satisfactory narrative accounts of the war in total. The volunteers swore allegiance to the centre (ie, the Dáil) but only after much prevarication. I'd struggle to call the war of independence a national war. It relied for the most part on good local leaders. For example the only reason longford was a hotspot was because of Seán MacEoin - After his arrest Collins exclaimed that only Cork was left in the struggle.
    I'd doubt very much if Micheal Collins ever said the above, and if he did he was talking a load of bollox. It's implying that only Longford and Cork were putting any real pressure on the Brits :) If you have the link to prove he said so, well post it. Thanks.

    Dublin, Tipperary, Galway, Mayo and Clare off the top of my head were as active as Cork any day.


  • #17
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    I'd doubt very much if Micheal Collins ever said the above, and if he did he was talking a load of bollox. It's implying that only Longford and Cork were putting any real pressure on the Brits :) If you have the link to prove he said so, well post it. Thanks.

    Dublin, Tipperary, Galway, Mayo and Clare off the top of my head were as active as Cork any day.

    I imagine what it refers to is West Cork being the only region where the British did not have effective military control and in that sense it was the polar opposite of Derry for instance.

    So it is concieveable that he expressed that point of view from a military perspective and I am sure I have read something similar. At the time of the Treaty he gave the Republicans around 2 weeks against any sustained British pressure -so he was occassionally prudent if not downright pessimistic.


  • #18
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Activity in different areas differed greatly, Take Waterford as an example. The West Waterford brigade was relativly active, but not as active as East Cork. East Waterford on the other hand was about as active as Llyod George's back garden.

    Brigades were extreamily independant and rarely worked together on operations and friction could often be caused when a column from one brigade area strayed into another brigades area.

    Iv heared that a slogan at the time was 'Labour must wait'
    ie the labour qustion would only be looked at after freedom was achieved.
    Never said how long the wait would be though:rolleyes:


  • #19
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    CDfm wrote: »
    I imagine what it refers to is West Cork being the only region where the British did not have effective military control and in that sense it was the polar opposite of Derry for instance.

    So it is concieveable that he expressed that point of view from a military perspective and I am sure I have read something similar. At the time of the Treaty he gave the Republicans around 2 weeks against any sustained British pressure -so he was occassionally prudent if not downright pessimistic.
    Collins quote about the alleged pressure and possible collapse of the IRA was stated after his signing of the Treaty and in Dublin. Probably just politicking, just trying to sell the Treaty. Should you read the writings of Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc, they all express the exact opposite. All three affirmed the IRA was growing in strength far from declining and expected the war to gather momentum in much greater strength.


  • #20
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Collins quote about the alleged pressure and possible collapse of the IRA was stated after his signing of the Treaty and in Dublin. Probably just politicking, just trying to sell the Treaty. Should you read the writings of Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc, they all express the exact opposite. All three affirmed the IRA was growing in strength far from declining and expected the war to gather momentum in much greater strength.

    I accept that.

    But he was reflecting on its capacity to survive a sustained military campaign. He was facing the real possibilty of achieving his political objective and in military terms hadnt a snowballs of an actual military victory in the conventional sense.


  • #21
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    I think thats a good point, anything i'v read from the field comanders suggests that they were suprised when the truce came, most believed that it would only last a week or two. George Lennon the west waterford column comander felt that just before the truce things had been going well and that the IRA had never been stronger.

    I have even read some extracts from the the Chief of the imperial staff that said that he felt that if the British sident break the IRA in the summer of 21 then it would prove almoast impossible to do so.
    Llyod George threatened instant and terrible war and to flood Ireland with troops. I think Collins feard that everything that had been achieved so far would be lost and felt that Freedom could still be achieved through the treaty and that it was therefore the safer bet.

    However from what I have seen from the comander of the British forces writings it seams that it would have been very dificult for them to have deployed that many troops to Ireland concidering their world wide commitments.

    Hmm I seamed to have wandered a bit off topic:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Collins quote about the alleged pressure and possible collapse of the IRA was stated after his signing of the Treaty and in Dublin. Probably just politicking, just trying to sell the Treaty. Should you read the writings of Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc, they all express the exact opposite. All three affirmed the IRA was growing in strength far from declining and expected the war to gather momentum in much greater strength.

    I have read the memoirs of the above three and they suffered badly from selective memory disorder.

    Tom Barry oversaw one of the strongest IRA units of the war while Dan Breen wasn't nearly as influential as he portrayed himself in his memoir. Besides, Seán MacEoin and Michael Brennan among others were arguing the case that the IRA couldn't survive a sustained assault from the British army, especially not 100,000 troops when they had 50 men per bullet across the country.

    Michael Collins did say something like the above. He wasn't speaking literally, but it is a good example of how important local leaders were to a national struggle.


  • #23
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    I'd doubt very much if Micheal Collins ever said the above, and if he did he was talking a load of bollox. It's implying that only Longford and Cork were putting any real pressure on the Brits :) If you have the link to prove he said so, well post it. Thanks.

    Dublin, Tipperary, Galway, Mayo and Clare off the top of my head were as active as Cork any day.

    These two counties were almost non existant during the war.


  • #24
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Well fair enough The odds were bad alright but I think the figure I saw for the number of British troops in Ireland at the time of the truce was around 80,000 and at this time the IRA were stil able to function.

    Its true the British had started to implement new tactics such as the deployment of their own columns and large area round ups but the war ended before the effictiveness of these could be seen.

    As for the arms suition there was evedience that this would have improved if the war had continued as there was an arms shipment planned, in the event this was brought in dureing the truce.


  • #25
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Well fair enough The odds were bad alright but I think the figure I saw for the number of British troops in Ireland at the time of the truce was around 80,000 and at this time the IRA were stil able to function.

    Now imagine those numbers were more than doubled. There is significant statistical evidence that suggests that while 1920 saw the most amount of succesful IRA engagements (ie, the IRA ended up killing somebody) 1921 saw the biggest amount of engagements without any casualties - ie, the number of manoeuvres increased without a concurrent increase in casualties inflicted.

    What the IRA achieved was remarkable. (and there is good reason why Tom Barry's 'Guerrila Days in Ireland' is required reading at Westpoint) They maintained de facto control of large parts of Munster and were King at night time in many rural areas. They forced a retreat of the RIC from rural police outposts. They made it practically impossible for the British Empire to function in large parts of the country due to sabotage of telgraphs, post etc. The Dáil courts destroyed the fundamental power of the law and hence stripped British authority down to its marrow. But I highly doubt they could have continued for much longer. Certainly not to the same extent.
    As for the arms suition there was evedience that this would have improved if the war had continued as there was an arms shipment planned, in the event this was brought in dureing the truce.

    I don't know where you are getting this from. There was little over 3,000 rifles in Ireland at the time and as I have already said, 1 bullet per 50 volunteers (Which suggests that the vast majority of units had absolutely no ammunition - even the best armed, such as Tom Barry's, had only 40 or 50 rounds at any time) The IRA were far from being well armed and there is little evidence to suggest they were capable of a large scale arms import. By God, they did try though.


  • #26
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Several sources, Of course the arms issue was critical, I am not denying that. In tom barrys book he says that there was a meeting between the 1st sotherens brigade comanders. one of the tings discuessed was plans to import arms. This was carried out during the truce. In dunmore east as far as I can remember. I read about the actual event in Rebel hart by terence o'reilly about George Lennon.

    Tom barry said that there was 50 rounds per man in the column which would add up to about 5000 for the west cork brigade.
    I thing we can assume that most other brigades would have had less.


  • #27
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »

    However from what I have seen from the comander of the British forces writings it seams that it would have been very dificult for them to have deployed that many troops to Ireland concidering their world wide commitments.

    Hmm I seamed to have wandered a bit off topic:eek:

    Wander away deise - I usually muse on things that do not make sense to me. It put things in context and gives us a feel for the period.

    It also gives us an idea of the type of men we were dealing with.

    I didnt know that Connolly lectured to the IVF and that his technique was not to mention Marxism.

    One of the planks of Unionism at that time was economic ties with the empire and shipbuilding etc.

    There does not seem to have been much thought going on into the economics of the free state.What were we talking about in terrms economic policy that may have aggravated unionists?

    Were there any guarantees on private property etc given as part of the treaty.

    The Unionists were unified.


  • #28
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    CDfm wrote: »

    There does not seem to have been much thought going on into the economics of the free state.What were we talking about in terrms economic policy that may have aggravated unionists?

    Were there any guarantees on private property etc given as part of the treaty.

    The Unionists were unified.

    Outside of the left, there was minimal economic understanding in Republican ranks. Pearse never really thought about economic policy and even our more adept minds (Like Arthur Griffith) believed that Ireland could be an industrial power and sustain 20 million people. he didn't really outline how. Its safe to say the young men involved in the revolutionary project didn't exactly have economics on mind.

    Age itself is an important contrast. Whereas most members of the first Free State cabinet were under 40 most members (If not all) of the first Northern cabinet were over 40. Don't underestimate the relevance of this.


  • #29
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    that was a hallmark of the time, think of the jarrow march, goverments dident really see that they had a big role to play in economics other than tarrifs and taxes.:rolleyes:


  • #30
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    that was a hallmark of the time, think of the jarrow march, goverments dident really see that they had a big role to play in economics other than tarrifs and taxes.:rolleyes:

    Aha,but the Northern Unionists did appreciate where the money came from and I imagine this bit is underestimated.

    The Home Rule Party may also have been more business friendly as you were talking about a small agrarian economy with no natural resourses.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    There were plans. You can read Michael Collins' economic plans for the new Irish state in "A Path to Freedom" which outlines how he saw the Irish economy developing and his suggestions on what structural and economic developments ought to the priorities of the new Irish government.


  • #32
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    But Marchdub what do you understand them to be and were they enacted.

    We can summarize Unionism in 3 simple ideals

    - self determination by unionists in ulster
    - economic ties with Britain and its empire
    - political independence from "Rome" ie Protestant Positive Discrimination.

    Those policies were pursued

    We cant summarise Nationalism that way or even say if Collins plans were adoopted

    - we can say the 30's economic war with Britain was a major event
    - the Marshall Plan & Lemasses leadership the second event

    So what was the deal.

    EDIT-its an observation and probably a weakness we as a country have inherited of no clear economic ideology & this is cross parties. So I am not picking on it. We also have criticism of SF now for not having clear economic policies -but other parties didn't "get" the risks of joining the euro.Whoever is in power we get a bumpy ride and it is a legacy.

    Here is an interesting paper on Collins as Minister of Finance and the parts of the Treaty concerning debt to thr British and financial obligations under the Treaty.

    You also have the National Loan issue of 1919

    http://www.ucc.ie/en/economics/research/workingpaperseries/downloads/DocumentFile,20726,en.pdf

    Some nice detail like and Collins grasp of finance & organisation.
    On 23rd September 1920, less than 2 months before ‘Bloody
    Sunday’, many of the British officers that were to be killed on ‘Bloody Sunday’ shot
    John Lynch from Kilmallock, County Limerick in the Exchange Hotel in Dublin.
    Lynch was the local Sinn Fein organiser of a loan and was in Dublin to hand over
    £23,000 in subscriptions to Collins (Coogan 1991:157-8).

    A nice e book link here by Tim Pat Coogan here on his ideology start 421- 433 and also how he saw links with Britain & NI and his relationship building. It is very anecdotal like what happened his bed etc after assasination. ( coogan is a collins groupie-so see collins good dev bad for what it is)

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=xscRAhBt2JgC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=michael+collins+economic+plans&source=bl&ots=8p66s9mS1T&sig=FTDLGitwZXaFcTQIPqaGixFy3Yw&hl=en&ei=YLdKTIrFIYui0gTPkayFCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=michael%20collins%20economic%20plans&f=false


  • #33
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    It's historically incorrect to say there were no economic plans among the nationalists. This is what I was directly answering. The title I mentioned is a collection of essays BY Michale Collins in which he outlines his economic plans. It's a primary source, not a secondary source.


    Its also historically incorrect to say that there was no economic ideology in the early state. De Valera was a Keynesian. We have already discussed the economy under De Valera in a previous thread.


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62941918&postcount=57


  • #34
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    I didn't say there was no economic nous amongst the leaders, but instead that economics was hardly on the mind. There is a big difference. For men like Séan Lemass, independence was important mainly in the sense that Ireland could set her own economic policy. But he was the exception.


  • #35
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    It's historically incorrect to say there were no economic plans among the nationalists. This is what I was directly answering. The title I mentioned is a collection of essays BY Michale Collins in which he outlines his economic plans. It's a primary source, not a secondary source.

    Ah yes but Collins was probably the only one who had a vision of it and a grasp of it. Having worked in London including in a stockbrokers,post office, and labour exchange he had an appreciation of it. Still only 31 when he died.

    Its also historically incorrect to say that there was no economic ideology in the early state. De Valera was a Keynesian. We have already discussed the economy under De Valera in a previous thread.


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62941918&postcount=57

    But Keynes didn't publish his major opus until 1936 in response to the Great Depression. And, with the Economic War with Britain after doing its additional damage.His heart ruled his head.

    So Dev was Keynsian after the fact.


  • #36
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Denerick wrote: »
    I didn't say there was no economic nous amongst the leaders, but instead that economics was hardly on the mind. There is a big difference. For men like Séan Lemass, independence was important mainly in the sense that Ireland could set her own economic policy. But he was the exception.

    Yes, and Lemass was not the chief .


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Another example is Arthur Griffith, an avowed protectionist. The first free State Cosgrave government was in favour of free trade, with the exception of the first minister for agriculture, who was a sworn protectionist (Patrick Hogan)

    Before Keynes, the major economic division was between protectionism and free trade. Socialism was another kettle of fish. It is perfectly fair to say that Irish rebels cared little for economic issues.


  • #38
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Denerick wrote: »
    These two counties were almost non existant during the war.
    :D But according to him only two men were respondcible for 1919 - 1921, Collins and McEoin :D


  • #39
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Ah yes but Collins was probably the only one who had a vision of it and a grasp of it. Having worked in London including in a stockbrokers,post office, and labour exchange he had an appreciation of it. Still only 31 when he died.




    But Keynes didn't publish his major opus until 1936 in response to the Great Depression. And, with the Economic War with Britain after doing its additional damage.His heart ruled his head.

    So Dev was Keynsian after the fact.

    Keynes was an established economist well before the date you give. In fact he was one of the saner voices on economics in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. His theories were well known for years. He gave a lecture in Dublin in April 1933 in which he praised De Valera and the Irish State's attempts at self sufficiency.


  • #40
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Or course unionist leaders argued that an Independant Ireland would lead to economic devestation in ulster. They wanted to play on the fears of the working prodstents, The republicians made the argument that the link with Britain was responciple for the economic backwardness of the south.

    Yes leading republicans did have some plans for the economic future of the country, However economics was not a central issue then as it is now. More support could be won by quoting Tone than economic policy.


  • #41
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Wouldn't some such as Liam Mellowes and Peader O'Donnell* have had left wing views ? Liam Mellowes in particuliar would have believed in carrying the aims of Connolly ?

    But it's probably the norm that individuals in a national liberation movement would have different views, not just on economics but laws on morality ( the hard drinking stud Collins verses Dev been a fine example !! ), education etc.

    For that matter the allies in WW2 are protrayed as a " we're all in this equally together " but the bitching between the American army and the British such as Mountgommery's comments on the American defence of Bastogne often caused quite a lot of friction between the two.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peadar_O'Donnell


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    :D But according to him only two men were respondcible for 1919 - 1921, Collins and McEoin :D

    You have completely misunderstood my post.

    Originally I merely repeated what Collins exclaimed in exasperation after learning of MacEoins arrest. This was in the context of MacEoin being summoned to Dublin by Cathal Brugha for some ridiculous plot to murder the British cabinet. Collins sent him back saying that 'I will deal with Brugha'. Collins was not speaking literally, I was only using it is an example of how important local leadership was to the war. Following Mac Eoins arrest, Longford did absolutely nothing for the rest of the war.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the activities of the IRA in Mayo and Galway were comparable with Cork and Clare? You'd be the first person, historian or otherwise, to make that claim.


  • #43
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Wouldn't some such as Liam Mellowes and Peader O'Donnell* have had left wing views ? Liam Mellowes in particuliar would have believed in carrying the aims of Connolly ?

    Mellows is an interesting case and he is the subject of a biography by Desmond Greaves (Who also wrote a book on Connolly, I'd recommend both) Greaves was the President of the Irish Communist party so that should tell you all you need to know.

    Mellows was the only visible socialist during the war of independence and civil war. At the beginning of the civil war, he pleaded for a clear left wing policy from the anti treatyites, only to be met with ambiguity from Liam Lynch.


  • #44
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Keynes was an established economist well before the date you give. In fact he was one of the saner voices on economics in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. His theories were well known for years. He gave a lecture in Dublin in April 1933 in which he praised De Valera and the Irish State's attempts at self sufficiency.

    Yes he was.

    That is not really the point that I am making. Collins ( & I am not a fan of Cumann na nGaedhael's in that period) was unique and had a vision on what should come after and the bones if a strategy on how it could be realised which was saner (lovely word so I will borrow it) then those around him.

    By the time others arrived at that stage they were catching up. Just take this exchange in a letter between Winston Churchill and Hazel Lavery at the time of the Treaty.
    In one of several letters she received from Winston Churchill he confided in her his thoughts about the creation of Northern Ireland
    ...I have practically always repeated what I said again & again in the House during the passage of the Bill, namely that we never contemplated the "mutilation" of Ulster. I think the Free State are making a frightful mistake in forcing this partition of their country. But of course, if they insist, the Treaty must be executed even though it be to the lasting injury of Irish unity...[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Lavery#cite_note-8

    ( now it is a bit politicky but it gives an insight to the Boundary Commission thats different to the Brits lied to us)

    Now Collins forged relationships with Birkenhead and Churchill during the treaty negotiations and his appreciation of Irelands position as a small open economy was different.

    Dev's relationships & actions were more fraught & analysed whereas Collins was more instinctive and friendly.Collins had a different, sophisticated in a street wise way, view of the world and how it worked to Dev & those who came after him in CnG.

    Other than independence other did not think of what to do next - Collins did.


  • #45
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Or course unionist leaders argued that an Independant Ireland would lead to economic devestation in ulster. They wanted to play on the fears of the working prodstents

    Similar to the deep South US states in the 1950's
    The republicians made the argument that the link with Britain was responciple for the economic backwardness of the south.

    It was in some ways but it was not the only reason

    I reckon that if the British had put the same thought into doing business with the south as it did with the north you would have had greater socio-economic ties
    Yes leading republicans did have some plans for the economic future of the country, However economics was not a central issue then as it is now. More support could be won by quoting Tone than economic policy.

    You have to remember you had mas emigration from the south - I mean in the previous century the same number of people that lived on the island left it. Close to 5 million.

    The country had no real capital base for investment

    So you can see the reason why Unionists did not want to be tied to it. Economically - you would be right in saying it would cut them off froom their key market for their products.

    So while we can use lots of rhetoric on both sides for Ulster Protestants -it was the best option.


  • #46
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    CDfm wrote: »
    So while we can use lots of rhetoric on both sides for Ulster Protestants -it was the best option.


    I'm not so sure, The north had a market in the south too, hence the belfast boycott during the boycott.

    I dont know but I dont think tarifs were brought in between Ireland and Britain after the treaty untill the economic war. As for how the north has faired economically since partition I think with the exception of WWII it has been a downward trend overall.


  • #47
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    I'm not so sure, The north had a market in the south too, hence the belfast boycott during the boycott.

    I am saying at that time. I am not pro-partition but understands their reasoning. In the same way that I can appreciate that given the inability of Sinn Fein to engage in dialogue with the Unionists made the outcome inevitable.


    I dont know but I dont think tarifs were brought in between Ireland and Britain after the treaty untill the economic war. As for how the north has faired economically since partition I think with the exception of WWII it has been a downward trend overall.

    No the tarrifs didnt start until then in 1932. Comparitively the northern protestants were better off than the southern state.

    They were put in place as part of Dev's trade policy. Ireland was to make a contribution to Britain of around a quarter of a million a year.There was a formula workked out in the London Agreement was a notional payment for land purchased during the Land Acts but in turn the Government collected £ 4 million from farmers. The £4 m was collected but the £ 1/4 m was not passed on.

    There had been an agreement to make a contribution to Britains national debt which ceased with the London Agreement in 1925.

    The Economic War lasted between 1932 and 1938 and it was devastating for Ireland.

    Now I can get Dev's logic - the Germans had stopped paying War Reparations in 1931 so he was stopping too. Except that the way the British saw it Dev was pulling a fast one & he was.

    Along with this came a flight of foreign capital from Ireland,& as a consequence of this foreign investment was affected. This continued till 1938 until the cattle for coal agreement. Then WWII
    and Ireland became a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan in 1948.

    So really the first 30 years of Independence were not great economically.

    So really, there was a bit of cute hoorism about Dev and thats why I say he was learning what Collins already knew.In fact, his negotiations around 1938 were done in Treaty fashion with Lemass in tow.

    This is why you should never ever elect a teacher because they are always teachers and can never understand why people and things dont behave how they are supposed to.


  • #48
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Well my posts about that subject were in responce to one posters assertation that devs policies were driven by his desier to see maidens dancing at the crossroads.

    Yes the economic war did devstate the south, but it hurt Britan to and did eventually achieve DeVs aims. Wether or not it was worthwhile overall is debatable.

    As for Protestants being better off due to partition, I would contend that the average protestant in the south has been better off than the average protestant in the north in terms of quality of life since partition.


  • #49
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    deise go deo wrote: »
    but it hurt Britan

    How?


  • #50
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Well my posts about that subject were in responce to one posters assertation that devs policies were driven by his desier to see maidens dancing at the crossroads.

    And he did , except the crossroads were outside the Irish Club Ruislip, North London.:p
    Yes the economic war did devstate the south, but it hurt Britan to and did eventually achieve DeVs aims. Wether or not it was worthwhile overall is debatable.

    I imagine the British were not really that hurt by the economic war at all.

    Very costly and if you factor in emigratiion and public health issues such as TB in Ireland.
    [ As for Protestants being better off due to partition, I would contend that the average protestant in the south has been better off than the average protestant in the north in terms of quality of life since partition.

    Maybe now but it depends what measure you use.


    SPECTACULAR FALL IN DEATHS FROM TUBERCULOSIS
    THE REPORT of the Department of Health for 1953-55 says that as in former years, diseases of the heart caused more deaths than any other. Of the 34,585 deaths (11.8 per 1,000) cancer caused 119 out of each 1,000 and tuberculosis 45. In the age group 15-24, just under 40 per cent of deaths were caused by tuberculosis; cancer and heart diseases between them caused over 50 per cent of deaths.
    The report says that in recent years there has been a spectacular fall in the deaths from tuberculosis. Deaths from this disease in 1953 were 1,190 compared with 1,579 in 1952. The 1953 figure represents a rate of 40 per 100,000 population, about one-third of the 1947 figure. That there is still considerable room for improvement in the Irish death-rate for this disease is shown by the figures for certain other countries given, adds the report. The figure for England and Wales is 20 per 100,000 in 1953; for Northern Ireland 23..

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0505/1224245943263.html


  • #51
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Right time for my secret weapon. This is the best argument I have ever heard for anything.

    'Well.... you can prove anything with facts:rolleyes:'
    :D:D:D:D




    I would suggest that in the south protestants would have been generaly sheilded to the poorer economic conditions due to their generaly higher position in the social order, also there was very little sectairinism in the south by comparision to the north.

    As for the economic war. yes there was no comparrision in the relative effect or it, but it did hurt britain. they got a substantial ammount of their food from here, they also exported a conciderable amount here.
    Coupled with the fact that it was an international embarresment and that there was trouble on the horizon in europe.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement