***Collins -vs- De valera***

Rozabeez

cmon lets hear the opinions,
I would have to say that Collins is a true Irish hero compared to De Valera.

PurpleFistMixer

I wouldn't have an informed view on this (having only meagre JC history not even under the belt), and should probably not be here at all as a such, but I'm interested in what you would have to say in your argument. Perhaps I could become more enlightened on the subject.

Victor

Rozabeez wrote:

Collins is a true Irish hero

Unfortunately, most heroes, by definition, are dead.

StupidLikeAFox

plus devalera has recently been shown to have swindled the state out of the ''irish press'' for his own personal gain. Although that michael collins film was v.biased against devalera, too much hollywood

Danno

Collins IMO

theCzar

Collins is the Che Guevara to Dev's Castro, nobody will ever have a picture of the long fellow on a T-shirt.

Collins had the good luck to die before he outlived his welcome, just like JFK.

Cynicism aside, Collins was the (para)military genius who fought the war of independence, whereas Dev was the inspirational leader who raised a lot money and support for the money, he was the respectable face of Irelands cause. Pre war of independence, it was Dev all the way, but his absence from the public scene and the roaring success of Collins campaign during the war meant that just pre-treaty, they were pretty even.

post-treaty, Dev instigated Civil war IMO, He walked out on the dail and democracy after the treaty was ratified against his wishes, made inflammatory speaches that plunged a fledgling state into a disastrous war, that gave the Northern unionists every excuse to point and say "you must be joking if you think we're throwing our lot in with that shower" or words to that effect.

etc. I've written enough methinks.

limerick_man

Yes, Gotta agree Collins is 'More' of a hero!

Although Bertie may have more to him

Actually, now i think of it, I am really proud of Bertie, so i guess i'd say he's more of an Irish hero! He has promoted this country like hell, got the worlds biggest countries to set up EU HQ's here in the past three years! Guided us through an econmic depression... which we barely felt (think of it, our loses were mainly US companies going bust and selling up). Was the only man to draw up a constitution all EU heads would agree with. If only he'd give up on Northen Ireland (but he got the peace process)!

Irish Hero = Bertie Ahern LOL

Cork Boy

Two very different type of fighters.
But thats a different debate!
I'd just like to point out when the Irish Voted for the 1921 Treaty and Good Friday Agreement, it was immediatly after a war so people wanted peace at any cost (I don't know how i would've voted in 1921).
My point is, lets say there was a 2 year period of rest and the Treaty wasnt voted on until say 1923...would they have accepted it? Who knows?
If the Good Friday Agreement was to only be put to the voters say around now would it receive 80% (i think thats right) support again?
The movie Michael Collins was very unfair to Dev, but they never did claim it to be a documentary now did they!
Also, Dev himself said "It is my belief the greatness of Michael Collins will be recorded in History at my expense".
Also, who knows what would've happened had the Big Fella lived and they put aside their differences! Imagine The Long Fella as taoiseach with the Big Fella by his side!!!!

LovelyHurling

limerick_man wrote:

Yes, Gotta agree Collins is 'More' of a hero!

Both of them were focking idiots who believed in the use of violence though it had become very clear that the penal laws were long gone and that the UK administration were no longer interested in Ireland as a colony or a subservient nation but rather a sister commonwealth country. If I were around at the time I would have been all for Irish independance... but it wasn't worth a single tragic death.

What did we actually gain from independence that was worth murder?

Cork Boy

LovelyHurling wrote:

Both of them were focking idiots who believed in the use of violence though it had become very clear that the penal laws were long gone and that the UK administration were no longer interested in Ireland as a colony or a subservient nation but rather a sister commonwealth country. If I were around at the time I would have been all for Irish independance... but it wasn't worth a single tragic death.

What did we actually gain from independence that was worth murder?

Better us murdering them than them murdering us

Board@Work

Always the nature of revolutionary figures when they die young that they create some kind of hero worship.

If DeV had died then and collins lived on the civil war still would have happened and maybe Dev would be seen as the hero

IMO they are both heros and the recent criticism (Last decade) of the Dev years in power is quite unfair and unbalanced. Here was a man who fought in 1916, led the country during the war of independence, rightly or wrongly stood by what he believed during the civil war, embraced democracy by creating and leading the countries largest policital party, was Taoiseach and then President. His achievements aren't recognised enough. Are there any statues to these men anywhere in the country??

LovelyHurling

Cork Boy wrote:

Better us murdering them than them murdering us

I recommend any balanced (most are) Irish History Book 1900 - 1920. In those twenty years the landlord system had virtually disappeared, most of the land was in Irish ownership and Britain had come to sense over her reponsibilties in Ireland. Organizations such as the Gaelic League enjoyed freedom of expression. There were no more unprovoked attacks on citizens, mebership of the RIC rose as the ordinary Joe came to realise that the Britain of 1910 was no longer the oppressor it had been 100 years before. Then the war happened, then 1916 and that changed Irish politics forever. 1916 brought militarism to Irish politics that most hoped had vanished. It was Britain's response (eg the long drawn out executions - militants were jeered and mocked going in and mourned coming out) that got people behind militarism once again.

In summary, if militants had not dived in headfirst, I believe that Irish nationalism would have been a closed book after 1945... total independence would have been achieved without the bloodshed and most historians that I know seem to agree with this opinion.
People with attitudes like Dev and Collins unintentionally, yet foolishly set back the propogation of our independence.

And in my opinion, Sean Lemass is actually the least appreciated of the great Irish leaders, a list in which, in my books at least, Collins and Devalera are ruefully excluded.

Board@Work

LovelyHurling wrote:

Both of them were focking idiots who believed in the use of violence though it had become very clear that the penal laws were long gone and that the UK administration were no longer interested in Ireland as a colony or a subservient nation but rather a sister commonwealth country. If I were around at the time I would have been all for Irish independance... but it wasn't worth a single tragic death.

What did we actually gain from independence that was worth murder?

Why is it then that they refused to implement the home rule laws. Unionist pressure is one excuse but typical british policy of bow to the unionist pressure rather than implement legislation that would give equal rights to nationalists. It was the inability of the british govt to implement its own laws that led to the rise of militants.
To say the britain was only interested in Ireland as a sister commonwealth country is not supported in any way by fact but merely opinion of what 'might have been'

Also sister commonwealth country. isn't that a contradiction in terms!!!

LovelyHurling

Board@Work wrote:

Why is it then that they refused to implement the home rule laws. Unionist pressure is one excuse but typical british policy of bow to the unionist pressure rather than implement legislation that would give equal rights to nationalists. It was the inability of the british govt to implement its own laws that led to the rise of militants.
To say the britain was only interested in Ireland as a sister commonwealth country is not supported in any way by fact but merely opinion of what 'might have been'

Also sister commonwealth country. isn't that a contradiction in terms!!!

You're Ireland, you're in a war with Canada, for example, and some awkward bugger called Cork is shouting for independence. Do you give the People's Republic her independence there and then or do you decide to wait a few years, use Cork for her military bases and soldiers, uniting the country until the war is over and then freeing Cork?
Thats what London was faced with. Which would you have done?

Meanwhile the militants here were wetting themselves and unable to hold their bloddy horses they pissed all over their patience and compromised any solution to the issues of home rule and independence. We are lucky to even be an independant country today despite their meddling.

And on the issue of equality in the commonwealth, I think The Statute of Westminster which came after Irish independance cleared up the danger of a misunderstanding on the term commonwealth in that no member was more important than another but all were united in their allegiance not to a political theory or religion or country but simply to the King of England. However that's a less important and slightly unrelated tangent for me to go on sorry!

Victor

Board@Work wrote:

rightly or wrongly stood by what he believed during the civil war,

I contend wrongly. Collins knew that the violence had to end soon, DeVelera wanted his way over other peoples dead bodies.

Board@Work

LovelyHurling wrote:

You're Ireland, you're in a war with Canada, for example, and some awkward bugger called Cork is shouting for independence. Do you give the People's Republic her independence there and then or do you decide to wait a few years, use Cork for her military bases and soldiers, uniting the country until the war is over and then freeing Cork?
Thats what London was faced with. Which would you have done?

Your forgetting that 'cork' had a democratic right to be independent. The vast majority of the people had voted that way and the national parliament had voted it through even after the lords repeatedly blocked it. your analogy just doesn't hold. if all democratic avenues have been used up and people feel disenfranchised or in ireland case never enfranchised than militancy enevitably follows. Also militancy has a history in ireland through successive generations rebelling against an occupying nation of oppressors since 1798.

also on the side note... how can zimbabweans or australians feel equal to the UK when they can never be head of state of their own country because the were conquered or created by an imperialist state hundreds of years ago. They maybe equal in law but not in reality when the primacy of the organisation is based in London and not delhi or canberra!!

Also the commonwealth is an organisation like the UK unwritten constitution that is embedded with inequality. Can a catholic, muslim or pagan become head of the commonwealth. these people aren't citizens remember they are subjects and therefore aren't going to be equal to HRH

LovelyHurling

Board@Work wrote:

Your forgetting that 'cork' had a democratic right to be independent.

You are forgetting that people police had a right not to be murdered and that Irish police, for example, working in the RIC were, under a democracy, entitled to freedom of association.

You didn't say what you would do. Maybe you would give Cork total independence?! And sign away the entire country just for that relatively small (urgent???) ideal. Of course home rule was coming and of course independence would inevitably have followed after WWII.

On the other issue, I didn't write the Statute of Westminster but we have to accept what the law says until it is democratically changed. In the eyes of democracy, the written law is the working law no ifs and no buts can be considered on the basis of general opinion, however valid, until democratically altered and that hasn't happened yet.

And the point of this thread is the question who is the greater hero. I am just reiterating the argument that neither are heroic, you want a real hero talk about Lemass in terms of his political years. DeV's political years were too clouded by his revolutionary crimes to be considered heroic despite a sketchily strong leadership and stabilizing the economy - sometimes.

Victor

Board@Work wrote:

also on the side note... how can zimbabweans or australians feel equal to the UK when they can never be head of state of their own country

chief of state: Executive President Robert Gabriel MUGABE (since 31 December 1987); Vice President Joyce MUJURU (since 6 December 2004); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
head of government: Executive President Robert Gabriel MUGABE (since 31 December 1987); Vice President Joyce MUJURU (since 6 December 2004); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government

Cork Boy

Victor wrote:

I contend wrongly. Collins knew that the violence had to end soon, DeVelera wanted his way over other peoples dead bodies.

"The British broke the Treaty of Limerick when it suited them, so we'll break this one (1921 Treaty) when it suits us". - Collins in relation to the North.

Its worth noting (as a bypoint) that Australia voted against total "independance" a few years back. Commonwealth countries are not equal as they are subjects of the king and their Supreme/Highest court is the House of Lords in London.

Also someone said Britain no longer had selfish/strategic interests in Ireland.
This is very very untrue! We are in a very strategic naval position, a position not lost on either Russia or the US in the cold war. Belfast port was of huge importance in WW2.

I think if we are to debate who is the greater hero, argumentation should be limited to the periods of 1914 up until Collins' death.

LovelyHurling

Cork Boy wrote:

Its worth noting (as a bypoint) that Australia voted against total "independance" a few years back. Commonwealth countries are not equal as they are subjects of the king and their Supreme/Highest court is the House of Lords in London.

People in Sydney, London and Toronto, Dehli, Islamabad, etc. are all subjects of the King of the Commonwealth. He's not simply the "King of England", he's the King of England, Northern Ireland, Cananda, Australia, Pakistan.... So their unity in this allegiance makes them all equal as per the law and as per common sense.

Also, your statement about the authority of the London House of Lords is blatently untrue. Australia, for example, has its own high court with its own Chief Justices. All constitutional links between Australia and England were abolished by the Australia Act in the 20 years ago, whilst not affecting the Australian's allegiance to the Queen of the Commonwealth.

They didn't kill anyone for what has peacefully evolved into their total, complete and unquestionable independence. Compare that to Ireland and the mess we're still finding ourselves in with the North because of the blind lunacy and bloodstained legacy of some halfwits from 90 odd years ago

For all of his bravery when he had a gun in his hand, Dev wasn't man enough or wasnt arsed enough to legally bring Ireland out of the Commonwealth when he had the constitutional power to do it, and it took Costello and others to bring us out that Union.

Board@Work

LovelyHurling wrote:

For all of his bravery when he had a gun in his hand, Dev wasn't man enough or wasnt arsed enough to legally bring Ireland out of the Commonwealth when he had the constitutional power to do it, and it took Costello and others to bring us out that Union.

In his defence he was waiting for the unification of the island before declaring it a replublic as created on the steps of the GPO in 1916 and ratified by the overwhelming public vote for Sinn Fein which he was president of in 1918. Should we ignore that act of democracy? or ignore it like the british government did which then led inevitably to the war of independence. You forget that Ireland voted for independence and wasn't given it nor was it given home rule which was also voted for.

T.J.

Lovelyhurling, I'm just wondering what your answer to Corkboys statement about Austrailian citizens not being equal to UK citizens because an austrailian cannot be the head of state in their country also what is the highest court in Canada or other British colonies? Is Australia the exception?

In democracy, which you seem to be advocating so strongly, is the head of state not equal to the citizen and only temporarily appointed leader? He is not legally above the common citizen as he is one. Not true in the commonwealth. So how could Collins, DeValera or anyone else for that matter free Ireland true democracy when they weren't in one to start with. America, France nor anywhere else gained freedom and democracy through peaceful means So why must you turn on the people who fought and gained YOUR freedom?

LovelyHurling

Board@Work wrote:

In his defence he was waiting for the unification of the island before declaring it a replublic as created on the steps of the GPO in 1916 and ratified by the overwhelming public vote for Sinn Fein which he was president of in 1918. Should we ignore that act of democracy? or ignore it like the british government did which then led inevitably to the war of independence. You forget that Ireland voted for independence

That's not even correct. In the 1918 all-Ireland election you're talking about, people voted for public representatives, it wasn't actually a referendum for independance. That's a bit like saying it would have been acceptable if the FF-PDs made Ireland into a monarchy after the 2002 GE because 'the people voted for it'.
Legally, you cant (just ast the British gove could not) bend the law to allow for individual interpretations of a democratic vote. It would have been a valid interpretation of course, but you can never relax the principles of democracy no matter what the cause. That is anarchy defined.

Furthermore, I can't stand on the steps of the GPO in the morning and declare The Republic of Zog then start shooting, even if most people want that republic. You have to have a specific referendum first, and then you have to wait for a response from the opposition administration before you shoot them.

Lovelyhurling, I'm just wondering what your answer to Corkboys statement about Austrailian citizens not being equal to UK citizens because an austrailian cannot be the head of state in their country also what is the highest court in Canada or other British colonies? Is Australia the exception?

Whats to stop any member of the monarchy packing their bags getting hitched in Oz moving to Pakistan, marrying a Canadian and having loads of children? Nothing! He stays in England not because it's the leader of the cw - it isnt - because he just happens to have a 2nd part time job as head of state there. Could leave any time he/she wanted though.
The few commonwealth countries who have not yet abolished constitutional links with Britain as opposed to the CW are perfectly free to do so. The handful of countries that do keep up contact only do so out of formality and appreciation, neither houses of the British parliament never interfere anymore. Invariably.

In a democracy is the head of state not equal to the citizen and only temporarily appointed leader? He is not legally above the common citizen as he is one. Not true in the commonwealth.

Thats up to the CW countries to leave so, tell them that - personally I dont see why they want to stay in it, cept maybe trade reasons, nor am I advocating a monarchy I think it's waste of $$ more than anything. UK is a democracy in all of the ways that matter you know that i know that.

So how could Collins, DeValera or anyone else for that matter free Ireland true democracy when they weren't in one to start with.

Its a constitutional monarchy. You dont need to make democracy from democracy....

America, France nor anywhere else gained freedom and democracy through peaceful means So why must you turn on the people who fought and gained YOUR freedom?

Australia did. Hong Kong did. Canada did. There's quite a long list actually.
And I consider myself a democrat and Dev and Collins did nothing in my name nor did they do anything I am proud of. My freedom isnt the freedom that they fought for.
It was a different time and there's a strange romanticism about their crimes. Murder is always murder and is wrong when committed by a govt or a band of militia unless every other road has been thoroughly and completely exhaused. As educated and realistic as we here are, I think there are very few people who understand history who would have time for Dev and Collins could they be transported back to 1916 - 1922.

Victor

There was no king of Pakistan, but an Emporer of India.

Cork Boy wrote:

Its worth noting (as a bypoint) that Australia voted against total "independance" a few years back. Commonwealth countries are not equal as they are subjects of the king and their Supreme/Highest court is the House of Lords in London.

That they were able to vote in that referendum does prove them as equal. Australia had the power to decide.

Also someone said Britain no longer had selfish/strategic interests in Ireland.

Northern Secretary of State, Peter Brooke said it - 9 November 1990.

This is very very untrue! We are in a very strategic naval position, a position not lost on either Russia or the US in the cold war. Belfast port was of huge importance in WW2.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall - 9th of November, 1989 - exactly one year earlier. :rolleyes:

Board@Work wrote:

In his defence he was waiting for the unification of the island before declaring it a replublic as created on the steps of the GPO in 1916 and ratified by the overwhelming public vote for Sinn Fein which he was president of in 1918. Should we ignore that act of democracy?

Maybe, maybe not, but they should have moved on.

T.J. wrote:

Lovelyhurling, I'm just wondering what your answer to Corkboys statement about Austrailian citizens not being equal to UK citizens because an austrailian cannot be the head of state in their country also what is the highest court in Canada or other British colonies? Is Australia the exception?

Canada

Judicial branch: Supreme Court of Canada (judges are appointed by the prime minister through the governor general); Federal Court of Canada; Federal Court of Appeal; Provincial Courts (these are named variously Court of Appeal, Court of Queens Bench, Superior Court, Supreme Court, and Court of Justice)

How about you go off and find out which countries do still use the House of Lords?

T.J. wrote:

In democracy, which you seem to be advocating so strongly, is the head of state not equal to the citizen and only temporarily appointed leader? He is not legally above the common citizen as he is one. Not true in the commonwealth. So how could Collins, DeValera or anyone else for that matter free Ireland true democracy when they weren't in one to start with. America, France nor anywhere else gained freedom and democracy through peaceful means So why must you turn on the people who fought and gained YOUR freedom?

Have you heard of relative democracy? For many decades the USA and France denied rights to women, immigrants and minorities, but were patently not monarchies. Can they be said to have been democracies? Also an American citizen can't automaticly become President, only native-born citizens can.

Cork Boy

Hong Kong did not "win" independance, Britain actually had a lease on the Island which expired.

Someone said you should only use the gun when all other avenues are exhausted. All other avenues were exhausted! Home Rule was never granted in order to appease the Unionists and conservatives in Britain.

Whoever said Britain pre 1916 viewed Ireland as an equal sister state is wrong. Only after the war with us reached a stalemate were they willing to give us Dominion Status.

Only during the Good Friday negotiations (over seventy years later) were Britain willing to say they had "no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland". They never ever ever said it about Ireland as far as I know.

For those who say Dev incited Civil War you should check historical documents and not the Michael Collins movie. London correctly viewed Dev as a moderate who had a realistic approach to the North. It is HISTORICAL FACT (source, John Bowman's ACADEMIC research "Develara and the Ulster question") that Dev did not have the command of the irregulars as the movie portrayed.

Who would object if the people of Zimbabwe rose to arms against Mugabe? War/uprisings are not an ideal situation but more often than not, the only way to be heard.

LovelyHurling

Cork Boy wrote:

Someone said you should only use the gun when all other avenues are exhausted. All other avenues were exhausted! Home Rule was never granted in order to appease the Unionists and conservatives in Britain.

We're going around in circles the events leading up to 1916 when the course of history was upset, have been argued here already.

Do you honestly think, that if we stuck to the constitutional route, we would would hold UK membership? After WW2? You think that the commonwealth countries would have satisfied their independence peacefully but Ireland could not? Why not?

There's an awful bigneadedness about our past, I really hate this boasting of how heroic past republican terrorists were. I just hope people aren't building statues of P. O'Neill in 100 years for heroically achieving Ulster's "Freedom".

By the way, who here thinks James Joyce was born a prisoner of the British state? Yeats? Davitt? Griffeth? These was born Free Irishmen and would have died as such Collins or no Collins. DeValera or no DeValera

Cork Boy

And pray tell how would we achieve independance constitutionally without a parliament????

LovelyHurling

If Westminster was good enough for a truly great Irishman like O'Connell what was so special about Dev?

My answer to the question is that we had a legitimate parliament in London. That was where our battle ought to have been won, and if it is ever won, that is where Irish unity will be concluded.

Cork Boy

They tried in Westminster and were repeatedly fobbed off.
Secondly, if Irish Unity were to happen it would be in the polling boots of the republic and the north. Westminster would have no say in it whatsoever bar being facilitators of talks perhaps.

O'Connell tried to hold a mass demonstration rally and was threatened with violence from the RIC so he called it off. (O'connell was in France for the revolution so never wanted to see blood again).

Lovely hurling, not even Ian Pailsey would agree with your points.

And no, "WE" did not have a perfectly legitimate parliament in Westminster. Ever hear of the Penal Laws?

Board@Work

LovelyHurling wrote:

There's an awful bigneadedness about our past, I really hate this boasting of how heroic past republican terrorists were. I just hope people aren't building statues of P. O'Neill in 100 years for heroically achieving Ulster's "Freedom".

Tell me is George Washington a terrorist, Nelson Mandela. Perhaps political freedom/independence could have been brought to their respective countries if both of these individuals had stuck to a purely non-violent constitutional path. However in the real world and with retrospect it often isn't as easy as that. Remember Gandhi had to wait till 1948 after trying from the 1900s to get Indian Independence through non-violent means and this was only because the British knew that there was no way that they could fight an armed revolt so far from home and so outnumbered. You are forgeting that the vast majority of the country supported Sinn Fein through out the war of independence as shown by the in the elections of 1918 onwards.

I know the election of 1918 was prior to the war of independence however Sinn Fein were elected on there ONE main premise of creating a 32 county REPUBLIC which tin turn led the first Dáil as the truely representive parliament of Ireland at that time. Elected Irish people in an elected irish parliament.

T.J.

LovelyHurling wrote:

Whats to stop any member of the monarchy packing their bags getting hitched in Oz moving to Pakistan, marrying a Canadian and having loads of children? Nothing! He stays in England not because it's the leader of the cw - it isnt - because he just happens to have a 2nd part time job as head of state there. Could leave any time he/she wanted though.

Actually the monarch they don't have 2 jobs they are the head of the empire there is no destinction. Commonwealth is just a politically correct name for empire and they stay in London because it is the imperial capital.

LovelyHurling wrote:

Thats up to the CW countries to leave so, tell them that - personally I dont see why they want to stay in it, cept maybe trade reasons, nor am I advocating a monarchy I think it's waste of $$ more than anything. UK is a democracy in all of the ways that matter you know that i know that.

It can't be a democracy because they cannot elect a head of state. It might function like one on a daily basis but tecniquely the Queen could take their property because they are only subject not citizens and therefore don't have the same rights

LovelyHurling wrote:

Australia did. Hong Kong did. Canada did.

No they didn't. They're not independant because they still have a British monarch as head of state and Hong Kong was on a lease.

LovelyHurling wrote:

There's quite a long list actually.
And I consider myself a democrat and Dev and Collins did nothing in my name nor did they do anything I am proud of. My freedom isnt the freedom that they fought for.

Then what freedom is yours? The right to elect representatives? To practice your own religion? To an education? To own land? All these rights were won by the brave people who fought against English rule. Many who gave their lives. Heros....just like Dev and Collins.

LovelyHurling

They tried in Westminster and were repeatedly fobbed off.

Yeah there was a war on, then there was an attempt at war over here, then there was an Irish boycott of Westminster then there was a war. Westminster were in war and when they were finished they actually ended up being fobbed off. Please just answer this - do you really think they were interested in irish land -exclude the ports - anymore?! It was costing them a fortune! still is up North

Secondly, if Irish Unity were to happen it would be in the polling boots of the republic and the north. Westminster would have no say in it whatsoever bar being facilitators of talks perhaps.

Perhaps?! "Hi Tony/ Gordon just taking the North off your hands, thanks very much byeeee" It's the British parliament of course they would have a role to play by bringing about a referendum and implementing constitutional changes!

O'Connell tried to hold a mass demonstration rally and was threatened with violence from the RIC so he called it off. (O'connell was in France for the revolution so never wanted to see blood again).

I agree, what's the point? My point was that faced with all of the real strife and the real racism look at what O'Connell, the most outstanding Irishman of his generation, was still able to achieve through a legitimate London parliament. O'Connels greatest gift was his gob Dev's greatest gift was his gun

not even Ian Pailsey would agree with your points.

No I don't think he would I'm a Tyrone nationalist

WE" did not have a perfectly legitimate parliament in Westminster. Ever hear of the Penal Laws?

Yes I remeber hearing about those alright, awful buggers, I didn't think they were around in 1918 though unless you can prove me wrong....

Sinn Fein were elected on there ONE main premise of creating a 32 county REPUBLIC which tin turn led the first Dáil as the truely representive parliament

We've already argued that point. In relation to individual interpretation of a representative election result to allow for constitutional change... it's a non starter really!

LovelyHurling

TJ - above points were already argued dont get confused between independant and member of the CW. Ireland is independant though a member of the EU for example. Jose Manuel Barrosso is not the Irish President though we are allied to his Commission...

Victor

Cork Boy wrote:

Whoever said Britain pre 1916 viewed Ireland as an equal sister state is wrong.

Um, they were part of the same state - the UK.

Only during the Good Friday negotiations (over seventy years later) were Britain willing to say they had "no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland".

Statement 1990, Good Friday Agreement 1998. If you bothered to look for the exact quote, why didn't you check you dates and/or context?

Blackjack

Regarding the comments on Australia and their voting no to Independence, I don't think the version of what was on offer was ever really true independence.
The motion was (source):
"To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

Not quite true Independance, and any Australian I've ever spoken to on the subject rejected it on the basis that they would not be able to elect their own head of state, and will continue to reject any referenda of this kind until it offers full and true Independence.

Regarding the delays in giving Ireland Home Rule, it would appear that O'Connell had warned the British Establishment that doing so would end up in Violence. Given that O'Connell died in 1847 they clearly ignored if for a long enough time before it came to fruition. You can't really excuse ignoring something like that for over 60 years, and claim it's because of distractions of wars elsewhere.

What happened, happened, and the fact of the matter is that Independence was achieved. We can surmise all we want that Britain would have gleefully handed independence to Ireland at some stage in the last 90 years without any rebellion being the catalyst, however I somehow doubt it would ever have come about without bloodshed.

Cork Boy

LH,
I can understand how you can be totally opposed from violence coming from the North (I'm not saying I know what its like up there cos I haven't a clue)
but unfortunately its sometimes necessary.

"Peace in our time" - PM Chamberlain....see where that got Britain!

Civil Rights March, Derry, Bloody Sunday...a peaceful protest, they were shot at (and some were killed).

Dublin "Lock Outs", RIC baton charged striking workers.

Peace can also work sometimes, as in India (though with a substantial military threat behind it), Civil Rights movement in America....etc.

You talk about Home Rule being postponed due to WWI, Home Rule was demanded long before and after WWI.
And btw, Britain's purpose of entering WWI was to protect their empirical interests and that was their recruiting motivation!!! They didn't even try to hide it!

Oh, Victor, Good Friday didn't happen over night, it was being hammered out since before 1988!!! And that quote was an Irish (IRA, Dail, SF, SDLP) requirement for negotiations/cease fire. (source, interview with Albert Reynolds, former Taoiseach).

However, I will never ever defend the IRA after 1974 (when they stopped becomming defenders of nationalist areas from Loyalist mobs and turned into bank robbing/drug dealing/bombing/civilian murdering scumbags.

The British however, created the IRA (Official and Provisional) and must be held responsible for that.

Pitseleh

Just some points.

De Valera was fundamentally a politican and not a soldier - he possessed no influence over the anti-treaty IRA who only spoke of "respecting him". It's unfair to deem him as the cause of the civil war's outbreak (you could put it down to die-hards such as Brugha and Liam Lynch). On the other hand, he did little to prevent it. From the Treaty until the founding of Fianna Fail in 1926 he was effectively in the background.

Somebody mentioned the British refusal to enact home rule so as to "appease" unionists. The Constitutional Crisis of 1911 led, in the end to the "inevitable" enaction of Home Rule in 1914. This led to the UVF which were supported by the Conservatives (who were imperialist and essentially unionist since 1885). Their leader Andrew Bonar Law declared "I can imagine no length of resistance... in which I would not support them". It wasn't that the Liberal government would not enforce Home Rule, it was that they could not.

cal29

Westminister was never a legitimate parliament for Ireland the people elected to it from Ireland were not representative of the Irish People before 1918
the Irish Parliamentary party only recieved 33,000 votes in 1906 and returned
84 MPs it received 120,000 votes in 1910
SF received 476,000 votes in 1918 and 25 of its 73 seats were uncontested

The IPP had been trying to achieve Home Rule for 50 years and had been denied at every turn WW1 being the last excuse in a long line

As for 1918 being a referendum on a republic that is exactly how the election was fought so much so that the Irish Labour party did not contest the election as they wanted the constitutional question answered first and it was
Ireland voted for a Republic


As to the question Collins vs Dev

The answer is that they are Both most definitely Irish heroes

pcwares

considering most of europe and the soap bloc went in for the olde dicatorship model in that time i would say Dev was remarkably enlightened to allow democracy to win through even if he set up a few dodgy rules for himself when thinking about his future role as president.

The bunreacht has a preamble that harks of that era. Has anyone read it. And nobody has ever lobbyed for it to be changed.

Does anyone remember Ireland trying to take back Northern Ireland by force?
Maybe not -- it was one of the most humiliating days in the history of the republic. What a farce. They ran out of fuel to cap it all off.

PcWares

Victor

pcwares wrote:

The bunreacht has a preamble that harks of that era. Has anyone read it. And nobody has ever lobbyed for it to be changed.

Actually people have thought about changing it, but you can't. You would need to adopt a new constitution.

gerrycollins

dev sent condolences to germany at the death of hitler enough said really collins the hero

largerthanlife

Dev left us in the dark ages...collins is the type of person who was killed before his prime!!!

SpittingImage

Dev was a fraud, a Machiavellian spinster who cheated the nation into ecenomic depression. Only good thing he ever did was keep us out of the war.
Collins was the architect of the War of Independence who sacrificed his life for Ireland's future. Signing the treaty was a brave thing, that would be remember heroically if it wasn't for De Valera's treachory.

theCzar

SpittingImage wrote:

Dev was a fraud, a Machiavellian spinster who cheated the nation into ecenomic depression. Only good thing he ever did was keep us out of the war.
Collins was the architect of the War of Independence who sacrificed his life for Ireland's future. Signing the treaty was a brave thing, that would be remember heroically if it wasn't for De Valera's treachory.

That's more blood and thunder than fact I think, I mean, I'm pretty sure DeV was male AND married... Still a "Machiavellian spinster" would be a sight to behold.

DeV has done a lot of bad things post-treaty but I don't think it's fair to dismiss all his efforts in the buildup. Until the war of independence it was all DeV.

And though DeV's ill-advised economic war with England, and his much publicised Irish Press swindling did much to trigger a depression, the depression was also related to the fact we were a backward country with no (well, little) industry and inefffecient smallhold farming. Hard to see how anybody could have turned us into an economic dynamo.

All that aside, I hate Dev. :rolleyes:

K4t

Collins was the hero.

The anti-treaty side were too emotionally involved with the Easter Rising and the executed rebels. They were not thinking rationally and they were not thinking in the interests of the general Irish public.

Collins on the other hand, even though he had fought in the 1916 rising, remained calm and saw the bigger picture. He was a realist and did not let his emotions get the better of him at a time of incredible intensity. This is the sign of a truly great leader.

The IRA were severely weakened after the War of Independence. We had lost the element of surprise, we had very little arms. It would have been ludicrous to continue fighting for a Republic Ireland (26 counties). A 32 county Republic of Ireland was never or will never happen so that was a no go completely.

DeValera knew all of this yet he still sided with the Anti Treaty side. Why?
Was he jealous of Collins? Probably. Did he believe that Ireland could keep on fighting the British? I think not.

Collins fought the English for years, he carried on the work of the 1916 rebels and got us to a situation where we were negotiating with Britain. Collins went to London and negotiated with Llyod George when DeValera stayed at home. He achieved a 26 county Irish Free State, which would in time have become a republic. And indeed it did. Look at us today.

Collins and DeValera, while they were both alive. Collins was the hero.

conchubhar1

my heart says collins

my head says dev - he achieved more and has a better legacy but that may only be because he lived longer as he wasnt murdered

his constitution is still in efect - 70 years on