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

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