De Valera and 1921

jos28

Inspired by Denericks thread, can I just ask you history buffs exactly why Dev did not go to London in 1921. My knowledge is not great, I thought that he went to the preliminary talks in July but send Collins and Co to the main event. Did he give any real reasons ? Did he just shaft Collins because he knew we did not stand a chance against Lloyd George and his team or were there other reasons.

walrusgumble

some historians state that collins was furious that dev did not bring him to the july conference, tp coogan does not believe this to be the case.


dev stated that he wanted to stay at home to "control" the dail and the people when news from london came pipping through. he knew surely, what the britian were going to give, he needed to control people like brugha and stack. moreover, dev was, even in the opinion of llyod george, a person who is impossible to bet in an argument.

the more interesting questions should be

1. why was dev outside dublin and uncontactable on the morning and night before the treaty?
2. why did dev not properly brief men who, unlike himself had some skills in debating etc.?
3. why did he allow erskine childers who on paper had little power, seem to control some of the going ons?

Denerick

Dev had a great political mind and knew exactly what he was doing. He picked, in my opinion, a well balanced group of plenipentories and sent Erskine Childers over as his eyes and ears. Collins went very reluctantly and quite rightly felt a little sold down the river. 'I signed my death warrant' and all that jazz. He didn't go himself because he knew that he wouldn't be able to get external association and perhaps he felt if the plenipentories could come back with something like it he would have more influence to persude people in Dublin if he hadn't been at the negotiations. Thats giving him a lot of credit, the other view is that he was machiavellian and he manipulated events to make Collins into the villain. The real tragedy is that he was our best statesman by a long shot, the only man with a genuine bit of 'elder statesman' quality about him. Griffith was OK, but he had too checquered a past and an overly eccentric personality. De Valera may have been somewhat... 'odd' (And there are plenty of contemporary sources which verify this, including Collins) but he knew politics. Whether he lived in a real world in relation to what was achievable is another matter.

Frankly, I don't know. Unfortunately we are unable to read his mind - if only de Valera's mind could have left some documents behind in the UCD archives! That would have made the historians job a lot easier.:pac:

Denerick

As for his infamous 'document no.2', which Griffith rightly called a mere 'quibble of words', I think this is a good example of de Valera's tendancy for being obtuse. I invite anyone to read both doc. no.2 and the articles of agreement and see how ludicrous Dev's position really was. To go to civil war over his proposed document is still an historical outrage.

McArmalite

Denerick wrote: »

As for his infamous 'document no.2', which Griffith rightly called a mere 'quibble of words', I think this is a good example of de Valera's tendancy for being obtuse. I invite anyone to read both doc. no.2 and the articles of agreement and see how ludicrous Dev's position really was. To go to civil war over his proposed document is still an historical outrage.

I'd agree, Dev just playing politics. Listen last Sunday to the History programme Talking History on News Talk radio, a historian drew attention to the fact that Dev's Document no. 2 verbatim accepts the six counties position as in the treaty. But that didn't stop Dev or the rest of the Soldiers of Destiny doing the honest republican bit for decades right up until August 1969 with the usual slogans " together we'll carry on the fight of our fathers, I'm with you all the way men, etc, etc "

Denerick

McArmalite wrote: »

I'd agree, Dev just playing politics. Listen last Sunday to the History programme Talking History on News Talk radio, a historian drew attention to the fact that Dev's Document no. 2 verbatim accepts the six counties position as in the treaty. But that didn't stop Dev or the rest of the Soldiers of Destiny doing the honest republican bit for decades right up until August 1969 with the usual slogans " together we'll carry on the fight of our fathers, I'm with you all the way men, etc, etc "

Last year I used to work in a shop in Dublin by myself on the evening 'Talking HIstory' was on. Unfortunately I don't listen to the radio much but would love to hear it on podcast. Do you know if it can be gotten online?

McArmalite

Denerick wrote: »

Last year I used to work in a shop in Dublin by myself on the evening 'Talking HIstory' was on. Unfortunately I don't listen to the radio much but would love to hear it on podcast. Do you know if it can be gotten online?

Just check out newstalk, I'm sure it is. The programm is usually on 7.00pm to 9.00 on Sundays and it's often very good, only thing is you never know what subjects will be discussed so it's important to hear the introduction at 7.05.

jos28

Thank you all for your very informative replies. As I said earlier, my knowledge of this area is limited. From what I have read, I had come to the conclusion that Dev was indeed machiavellian. I just felt he was playing a shrewd game and knew what the plenipentories were going to be up against. Lambs to the slaughter and all that. I'm finding it difficult to change my original view of Dev, will just have to keep reading. Maybe its the memory of my Granny threatening to wash our mouths out with soap if we mentioned that b****rd Dev in her house that has blurred my vision

TheKells

I remember being told that the reason he didnt go, was that he saw himself as a head of state and argued that the Queen was head of state in Britain and wouldnt be attending so why should he. Pity though seeing as he was the only one capable of out-thinking Lloyd George.

Denerick

TheKells wrote: »

I remember being told that the reason he didnt go, was that he saw himself as a head of state and argued that the Queen was head of state in Britain and wouldnt be attending so why should he. Pity though seeing as he was the only one capable of out-thinking Lloyd George.

I'm not sure anyone was capable of outthinking the Welsh Wizard. Certainly the greatest political mind in British politics of the 20th century was George.

TheKells

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone was capable of outthinking the Welsh Wizard. Certainly the greatest political mind in British politics of the 20th century was George.

Maybe not, but he was more up to the task than any of the others. Didnt Llyod George say something along the lines of "its like trying to lift mercury with a fork" when describing his dealings with de Valera?

Denerick

TheKells wrote: »

Maybe not, but he was more up to the task than any of the others. Didnt Llyod George say something along the lines of "its like trying to lift mercury with a fork" when describing his dealings with de Valera?

Yes he did, but he was referring to how obtuse the man is! There is a good quote of Collins when he tried to understand de valera's position before he went to London. He drew Collins a load of diagrams explaining how external association would work. It was more befitting a political scientists library than a serious diplomatic engagement!

McArmalite

TheKells wrote: »

I remember being told that the reason he didnt go, was that he saw himself as a head of state and argued that the Queen was head of state in Britain and wouldnt be attending so why should he. Pity though seeing as he was the only one capable of out-thinking Lloyd George.

I'd say it was old Machevilian Dev just using another excuse not to go. He was quite aware what was in the treaty, when telegrammed asking what to do he remained as vague as possible and just threw it back to them to get on with it.
I think England was under a king back then (?), but I reckon old Dev was a bit of a ' queen ' anyway behind that auster image

Snickers Man

Best bit of movie casting in cinema history: Alan Rickman as De Valera in Michael Collins.

Nobody does a slimy sleazeball better......

Shane-1

great thread thus far here! talk about opening a can of worms though, I used enjoy these debates more a few years back when some of the older people were around, they always were more polarised into being pro or anti Dev and had more 'colourful' opinions, used be gas!

meganj

I heard recently that there was a theory (conspiracy??) going around that Dev had asperger syndrome and that the reason he was so incapable of dealing with the discussions on the treaty was because of this.

I have no idea if it's true or not just putting it out there.

The more conventional theories are:

1) He saw himself as head of State
2) He knew he couldn't get a 32 county republic and refused to be the bearer of bad news
3) He was jealous of Collins and wanted to bring him down a peg or two
4) The British were only really afraid of Collins who better then to get them to agree to Irish terms.