What did the Irish War of Independence achieve for the people of Ireland?

trench foot

I was just wondering what the War of Independence achieved for the people of Ireland apart from an Irish state, were the people actually better off?

Grudaire

trench foot wrote: »

I was just wondering what the War of Independence achieved for the people of Ireland apart from an Irish state, were the people actually better off?

A Civil War was the first thing

sceptre

Well, after the independence. If it had been successful it would have been the "long unsuccessful rebellion".

The bright eyed youth would say the possibility of shaping our own destiny, forging a slot in the pantheon of world democracy on our own and taking our rightful place among the nations.

The cynic would say it gave us the ability to screw everything up.

The mod is moving it to History & Heritage:)

The truth is probably somewhere between the first two. And Shannon/Ardnacrusha electrified the country. Without it, people outside the cities (and inside some) would have been burning oil lamps well into the 50s. That's the first big thing we did for ourselves after the war of independence was over (well, as soon as we were done shooting at each other in the civil war)

Spiritoftheseventies

sceptre wrote: »

Well, after the independence. If it had been successful it would have been the "long unsuccessful rebellion".

The bright eyed youth would say the possibility of shaping our own destiny, forging a slot in the pantheon of world democracy on our own and taking our rightful place among the nations.

The cynic would say it gave us the ability to screw everything up.

The mod is moving it to History & Heritage:)

The truth is probably somewhere between the first two. And Shannon/Ardnacrusha electrified the country. Without it, people outside the cities (and inside some) would have been burning oil lamps well into the 50s. That's the first big thing we did for ourselves after the war of independence was over (well, as soon as we were done shooting at each other in the civil war)

Well it gave the irish the chance to self govern. Before it was at the behest of an outside government. Go back to the 1880's in terms of how landlords treated their tenants and you will see why this struggle was so important.

Kev_ps3

trench foot wrote: »

I was just wondering what the War of Independence achieved for the people of Ireland apart from an Irish state, were the people actually better off?

Freedom from the evil Empire?

Arnold Layne

It was successful for a lot of descendants that fought in the War Of Independence, just look at our current political parties and their TDs.

sold

trench foot wrote: »

I was just wondering what the War of Independence achieved for the people of Ireland

It achieved a divided Ireland. Had they waited 20 years today Ireland would be an Island soverign country 32 counties.

Spiritoftheseventies

Best of luck in the exam by the way

ejmaztec

Arnold Layne wrote: »

It was successful for a lot of descendants that fought in the War Of Independence, just look at our current political parties and their TDs.

If their freedom-fighting ancestors were exhumed, the skeletons would all be face-palming and spinning.:(

Grudaire

ejmaztec wrote: »

If their freedom-fighting ancestors were exhumed, the skeletons would all be face-palming and spinning.:(

Only at 94% of the country!

Of course I'd like to see trenchfoot say where he thinks the country would be now without independence?

garbanzo

. . . . eh . . independance ?

pablomakaveli

sold wrote: »

It achieved a divided Ireland. Had they waited 20 years today Ireland would be an Island soverign country 32 counties.

More than likely we would have been given freedom under worse terms (i.e British bases on Irish soil like in Cyprus etc) and probably would have been dragged into WWII.

Also i doubt 20 years extra would have mellowed Unionist opposition to being part of an independent Ireland.

dsmythy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

More than likely we would have been given freedom under worse terms (i.e British bases on Irish soil like in Cyprus etc) and probably would have been dragged into WWII.

Also i doubt 20 years extra would have mellowed Unionist opposition to being part of an independent Ireland.

Indeed i'd imagine the Northern Ireland troubles would have been the Ireland troubles.

Spiritoftheseventies

sold wrote: »

It achieved a divided Ireland. Had they waited 20 years today Ireland would be an Island soverign country 32 counties.

Again Collins got the best deal really. All De Valera really got after that was a removal of the oath of the allegiance to the queen. Boundary was in 1922 as it is now. What war of independence achieved was a 26 county republic. Quite simple really.

walrusgumble

sold wrote: »

It achieved a divided Ireland. Had they waited 20 years today Ireland would be an Island soverign country 32 counties.

really? the actions of the ulster unionists in 1912 in their fight against home rule not suggest otherwise? sadly, for the 26 counties to seek some form of separation or devolution from westminister, it was inevitable that unionists in the six counties (in particular, as oppose to unionists in 26) were going to break. history seems to under estimate unionist desire to remain with the crown. they had some genuine concerns, such as the dominance of the Roman Catholic church and of course their usual get out clause - fear of the others.

With a nationwide dominance ofpeople like Charles McQuaid ( dublin arch bishop) and the special relationship of the RC in the Constitution of 1937, it hardly removed many fears of the protestant flock.

to say this is very lazy

walrusgumble

trench foot wrote: »

I was just wondering what the War of Independence achieved for the people of Ireland apart from an Irish state, were the people actually better off?

dublin castle, with lord lieutant, chief secetary and under secetary was the government of ireland. it was unaccountable to the people of ireland and even at times westminister.as seen during the land league and during the tan war it was becoming outdated and stuffed. one of the major blunders by the british (in some ways their actions alone helped themselves loose ireland and the turned many moderates in ireland to sinn fein and the ira) was that westminister gave complete control to the "irish government" without any direction or guidelines. many members of the "government of ireland" were not qualified, protestant (mainly, for those staff members who were catholic a deep distrust was experienced by the protestants), had little or no understanding of the irish and cared very little, it was a step up for the office holder to "better things" or a golden handsake for many years service eg hamar greenwood.

Home Rule as it was in 1914 and later Government of Ireland Act were just sops to the Home Rule movement, it gave very little control compared to what was given during the Treaty and the Free State Constitution. (eg members still required to attend westminister, completely no right to have an army of any sort, lack of financial autonomy)

during the early part of ww1, many towns in ireland, which had a big and traditional presence of army barracks did prosper, many inhabitiants did have family members fighting in the british army long before ww1. in a town like Athlone, shops, grocieries etc were busy with soliders spending their wages freely. the local wollen mill enjoyed huged contractual boots during the war eg, contract to make the uniforms etc of Russian army. hence, hostility towards the rebels of 1916, (along with being a home rule town and birthplace of TP O'Connor)

however,like the property boom of late, wars, thankfully don't last too long, and the booms will burst. as we all know, the black and tans and auxies destroyed whatever good will their may have being towards britian from peace loving people through raids and arrests and destruction of homes and business.

from 1919 to independence, this country had suffered huge economic difficulites, like mainland britain, the war effort in europe nearly bankrupt the "empire". this country, particularily in the very poor parts like west galway, parts of cork and kerry, and donegal suffered near starvation. wasn't there was dangerous flu epidemic cursing europe around this time? with or without the harsheness of the tan war, the country may have remained the static same come independence in 1921/1922 (if it was achieved peacefully) , of course the destruction of tan war and civil war worsened the already economic and social poverty experienced in ireland at the time.

Independence gave Ireland a chance to rule its own affairs (economically, at least) by the people. There was reasonable independence on that front, bar the continuation of paying the crown for its war efforts and pensions for police etc. it allowed the state establish its own police force and rid itself of the dreaded RIC (ie from land league days), which subsequently became an unarmed force. unfortunately, it took nearly 10-20 years before De Valera to realise that Collins was correct that it was truely a stepping stone to achieve greater things (see what he says when he swore allegiance when returning to the dail, and subsequent events)

blinding

It would have been interesting if there had been two home rule parliaments with some constitutional ties (i.e. some sort of federal Ireland under home rule) between both parliaments.

An evolved independence for Ireland would have been a better way to go. If this had happened on good terms then Britain would have been much more of an assistance rather than a hindrance to Ireland.

Certainly absolute partition has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Ireland.

I suppose these are all historical debating points but there must be lessons to be learned and hopefully not repeated.

walrusgumble

Arnold Layne wrote: »

It was successful for a lot of descendants that fought in the War Of Independence, just look at our current political parties and their TDs.

true enough, i think brendan behan, during one interview made a very similar comment like that.

but in fairness to them, many of the familiy dynasty "were out in 1916" and were actually active during the tan war and were founders of the subsequent parties. eg Lemass & Haughey, Andrews, Colley, De Valera, Cosgrave, Fitzgerald and many more - how many families can say with accuracy and honesty that their decendants were the same? weren't they voted by the people?

Strange how the labour party and the labour movement got pushed aside after their efforts in the struggle for independence.

walrusgumble

blinding wrote: »

It would have been interesting if there had been two home rule parliaments with some constitutional ties (i.e. some sort of federal Ireland under home rule) between both parliaments.

An evolved independence for Ireland would have been a better way to go. If this had happened on good terms then Britain would have been much more of an assistance rather than a hindrance to Ireland.

Certainly absolute partition has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Ireland.

I suppose these are all historical debating points but there must be lessons to be learned and hopefully not repeated.

there was a council of ireland under the government of ireland act and similar to free state constitution, but they were talking shops, like as seen under sunnigdale etc. sure look now at Peter Robinsons efforts to get rid of certain boards due to "economic reasons"

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again Collins got the best deal really. All De Valera really got after that was a removal of the oath of the allegiance to the queen. Boundary was in 1922 as it is now. What war of independence achieved was a 26 county republic. Quite simple really.

and the treaty ports and removal of the governor general (which was an politically embarrasing and very expensive office), and refusal to join with other commonwealth countires into ww2 all with the help of Cumann na nGaedheal's work during the Imperial Conferences which lead to Statue of Westminister 1932/3. But I see what you are sayimg. I would argue though, and sorry for being pedantic, it was the boundary as of 1920 - government of ireland act.

Spiritoftheseventies

walrusgumble wrote: »

and the treaty ports and removal of the governor general (which was an politically embarrasing and very expensive office), and refusal to join with other commonwealth countires into ww2 all with the help of Cumann na nGaedheal's work during the Imperial Conferences which lead to Statue of Westminister 1932/3. But I see what you are sayimg. I would argue though, and sorry for being pedantic, it was the boundary as of 1920 - government of ireland act.

Agreed but in general there was no real seismic shift between what Collins negotiated and what Dev got incremently in the passing years after Collins untimely death. Collins knew that by not signing up to Lloyd Georges terms the country would just have returned to war with British forces.
Again what we got from Anglo Irish Treaty was peace (albeit at an initial cost) and the 26 county republic.

ejmaztec

walrusgumble wrote: »

true enough, i think brendan behan, during one interview made a very similar comment like that.

but in fairness to them, many of the familiy dynasty "were out in 1916" and were actually active during the tan war and were founders of the subsequent parties. eg Lemass & Haughey, Andrews, Colley, De Valera, Cosgrave, Fitzgerald and many more - how many families can say with accuracy and honesty that their decendants were the same? weren't they voted by the people?

An unfortunate habit of voting for the name, allowing many inferior family members the reins of power, when better people couldn't get a look in (like the present time).

walrusgumble wrote: »

Strange how the labour party and the labour movement got pushed aside after their efforts in the struggle for independence.

Wasn't this due to pressure from the Catholic Church, which seemed to consider that all socialists were communists?

KingKiller

Cliste wrote: »

A Civil War was the first thing

It was the demands of the British govt that started the Civil War. They even loaned the pro Treatyites canon, armoured cars, weapons etc to attack the IRA in Dublin. And what's supposed to be funny about a war that killeed thousands ?

KingKiller

Arnold Layne wrote: »

It was successful for a lot of descendants that fought in the War Of Independence, just look at our current political parties and their TDs.

A vastly lot more of descendants that fought in the War Of Independence did not get anything whatsoever out of it.

sold wrote: »

It achieved a divided Ireland. Had they waited 20 years today Ireland would be an Island soverign country 32 counties.

Theirs nothing whatsoever to conclude this, in fact the opposite is the truth. Just look what they contrived to do to India in 1947 regardless of the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

KingKiller

ejmaztec wrote: »

An unfortunate habit of voting for the name, allowing many inferior family members the reins of power, when better people couldn't get a look in (like the present time).

The Fianna Fail Party of today bears no real relationship to that of the Party which governed from 1932 to 1966 however it's faults were (with two brief breaks).Public housing for the poor not the builders, self-sufficiency, limiting the government!s own power, fostering a nationalist outlook and no scandal after scandal with bribes in brown paper bags.

walrusgumble

ejmaztec wrote: »

An unfortunate habit of voting for the name, allowing many inferior family members the reins of power, when better people couldn't get a look in (like the present time).



Wasn't this due to pressure from the Catholic Church, which seemed to consider that all socialists were communists?

1. True. It's just as a bad or worse when you think of how and why a person becomes the party candidate for upcoming elections. look how at the bad reception CJ Haughey got when he beat his party colleague Colley (George's father), who had fought in 1916. It was a small bit too early then for others in Fianna Fail to be suspicious of him.

2. Ah the Catholic Church. Sure even they had feared DeV was a commie.

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

Strange how the labour party and the labour movement got pushed aside after their efforts in the struggle for independence.

Well it was their own fault in fairness, along with the obvious loss of Connolly and Larkin's emigration before that. Tbh I think the majority of the party were always only left of centre rather than radicals like the aforementioned Jim's, and after the Rising those left in charge just didn't know how to handle things.

Spiritoftheseventies

KingKiller wrote: »

It was the demands of the British govt that started the Civil War. They even loaned the pro Treatyites canon, armoured cars, weapons etc to attack the IRA in Dublin. And what's supposed to be funny about a war that killeed thousands ?

Thats putting it a bit simply. Anti treatyites were holed up in the four courts. They would have stayed there forever otherwise.

Fratton Fred

KingKiller wrote: »

Theirs nothing whatsoever to conclude this, in fact the opposite is the truth. Just look what they contrived to do to India in 1947 regardless of the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

You can't compare India with Ireland. For starters the two countries held completely different positions within the Empire. The best comparison would be Scotland.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

Thats putting it a bit simply. Anti treatyites were holed up in the four courts. They would have stayed there forever otherwise.

Not to mention the tussle throughout the country between the free staters and republicans/irregulars (hate that word irregulars) over who controlled excavated RIC barracks and other garrisons.

The lead up to the attack on the four courts, made the notion of civil war a scary possibility. the following to a few examples

A few Free state solider had all ready been killed in fighting (whether accidental or otherwise) before the take over of the four courts. One example was in Athlone in 29 April, 1922, when the popular Brigadier General George Adamson (former of Athlone IRA Brigade) was shot dead outside the local hotel, which was occupied by the IRA (of course, who or which side was responsible remains a bit of a mystery)

On the 2nd of April the anti-Treaty faction of the Irish Republican Army held a big parade in Dublin and it soon became clear that they were endeavouring to prevent the Irish Free State from coming into existence, as speeches were made by persons who claimed to represent a majority of the Irish Republican Army virtually declaring war on the prospective Free State.

In that month in Mayo Michael Collins was prevented from speaking.(how times had changed) Whilst in Dundalk Eamon de Valera denied the legitimacy of both the provisional government and the Northern government, and ridiculed the London agreement.

On April 6, five former policemen were shot dead in Clare and Kerry. On the same day police in Ulster suffered four casualties in a border ambush, and the trade boycott of Belfast, carried on by the rebels, was enforced by the burning of goods seized from trains.

An attempt was made to prevent Griffith, president of Dáil Éireann, from carrying out his intention to make a speech at Sligo on April 16. He was warned by the mayor of that town that all public meetings had been "proclaimed" by the ira. He replied that the Dáil had not authorized any interference with the rights of public meeting and free speech, and in defiance of the proclamation he succeeded in addressing a crowd without interruption, though guarded by armoured cars and Free State troops.

On the 16th Collins was attacked by armed men in Dublin, but escaped injury

Grudaire

KingKiller wrote: »

It was the demands of the British govt that started the Civil War. They even loaned the pro Treatyites canon, armoured cars, weapons etc to attack the IRA in Dublin. And what's supposed to be funny about a war that killeed thousands ?

Firstly cheer up, or should I crack out some dead baby jokes to set the tone?

Secondly, to agree with walrusgrumble and bayviewclose, that is a massive simplification of the whole event. The loan of ammunitions didn't cause the civil war at all, in a sense it helped finish it.

In fact a more interesting title for a thread would be: ' What did the Irish Civil War achieve for the people of Ireland?'

brianthebard

Cliste wrote: »

Firstly cheer up, or should I crack out some dead baby jokes to set the tone?

No.

McArmalite

Cliste wrote: »

Secondly, to agree with walrusgrumble and bayviewclose, that is a massive simplification of the whole event. The loan of ammunitions didn't cause the civil war at all, in a sense it helped finish it.

walrusgrumble in his post #30 points out there were a few incidents before the attack on the Four Courts. Another one I can think of was in Limerick over the taking of the two british barracks there, so they compromised with the Free State taking one and the IRA taking the other. Most credible historians would agree that it was the attack on the IRA in the Four Courts which was the real opening shots of the Civil War.

Without the 'loan' of ammunitions it could be questioned if the FS would have attacked the battle hardened IRA, it didn't cause the civil war, though it was ofcourse one of the main factors to determine it's outcome.

Grudaire

Ps: Nobody gets my humour, sorry Brian,I should emphasise that that was sarcasm, and I wasn't going to (Although I must admit this is a whole new level of pre-emptive modding - Minority Report stuff )

Back to the thread:

Yes, it was inevitable, clearly the situation of two opposing armies in the state was unsustainable.

I don't know if I accept the battle hardened IRA bit, both sides came through the same war of independence, it could be argued that the free staters were the more War weary side (ie accepting the Treaty because the War of Independence itself was unsustainable).

One or two questions while I'm here though:
* Did the anti-treaty side reject (boycott) the Dáil?
* The anti treaty casualties on wikipedia seem very high ("~2000–3000 killed"), was it that high?

Spiritoftheseventies

After the treaty was passed by dail in what was a divided debate, the nay sayers headed by Dev walked out of the Dail and civil war ultimately followed.
As for casualties, the pro treatyites due to the fact that they were backed by British had less of them. There was also summary executions including that of Sean Lemass's brother, Noel, who was abucted and then executed. Anyone wishing to read about it should read the Singing Flame by Ernie O' Malley who fought for the anti treatyite's.
The Civil war still continues to cause a lot of division and was a tragic era in our history and most chose not to talk about it in the years that followed.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

After the treaty was passed by dail in what was a divided debate, the nay sayers headed by Dev walked out of the Dail and civil war ultimately followed.
As for casualties, the pro treatyites due to the fact that they were backed by British had less of them. There was also summary executions including that of Sean Lemass's brother, Noel, who was abucted and then executed. Anyone wishing to read about it should read the Singing Flame by Ernie O' Malley who fought for the anti treatyite's.
The Civil war still continues to cause a lot of division and was a tragic era in our history and most chose not to talk about it in the years that followed.

also check out Michael Hopskinson's Green Against Green for an all county summary. Naturally Earnie's book is the one to check, particuraly his comments/observations/views on people like Liam Lynch.

is there any substance to the rumour that the late noel lemass may have been involved in the intelligence division of the IRA leading up to Collins' death. I can't think off hand the source who suggested the possibility but the rumour/hearsay was the Noel was killed as revenge by some of Collins' associates.

Spiritoftheseventies

walrusgumble wrote: »

also check out Michael Hopskinson's Green Against Green for an all county summary. Naturally Earnie's book is the one to check, particuraly his comments/observations/views on people like Liam Lynch.

is there any substance to the rumour that the late noel lemass may have been involved in the intelligence division of the IRA leading up to Collins' death. I can't think off hand the source who suggested the possibility but the rumour/hearsay was the Noel was killed as revenge by some of Collins' associates.

yes saw a good doc on him recently. If i was to pick out one book from that era it was be Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. A terrific read.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

yes saw a good doc on him recently. If i was to pick out one book from that era it was be Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. A terrific read.

on who O'Malley? Lynch? who did it? RTE or TG4?

Grudaire

bayviewclose wrote: »

yes saw a good doc on him recently. If i was to pick out one book from that era it was be Michael Collins by Tim Pat Coogan. A terrific read.

Reading Michael Collins by Rex Taylor ATM, must find the Coogan one, I've seen it around the house.. Singing Flame, and Green against Green are in the library - Christ I better begin reading

It's one bit of Irish history that is overlooked far too much

Spiritoftheseventies

walrusgumble wrote: »

on who O'Malley? Lynch? who did it? RTE or TG4?

Sorry. The doc on O Malley was on either RTE on TG4 last year. He didn't make much off his memoirs as he libelled someone in the book. But a very interesting character.

blinding

Cliste wrote: »

Reading Michael Collins by Rex Taylor ATM, must find the Coogan one, I've seen it around the house.. Singing Flame, and Green against Green are in the library - Christ I better begin reading

It's one bit of Irish history that is overlooked far too much

It should'nt have happened for so many reasons and the wounds live on even today.

Tragic that it was not avoided but with people at that time used to resorting to violence maybe it was unavoidable.

Still a tragic time in our history.

InTheTrees

blinding wrote: »

Tragic that it was not avoided but with people at that time used to resorting to violence maybe it was unavoidable.

Agreed. It seems like its a postrequisite (is that a word?) to a country gaining its freedom that the various factions once allied against an occupier, then jockey for power amongst themselves.

Although in our case it was more about the conditions attached to Freedom.

Fratton Fred

InTheTrees wrote: »

Agreed. It seems like its a postrequisite (is that a word?) to a country gaining its freedom that the various factions once allied against an occupier, then jockey for power amongst themselves.

Although in our case it was more about the conditions attached to Freedom.

Was it? Or was it about power?

blinding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was it? Or was it about power?

Certainly I do not think it was about power from the anti-treaty side. Though I think the anti-treaty side were wrong (with the benefit of hindsight and time to think about it and the aftermath) to go to war I certainly do not think it was about power from their point of view.

Probably that they had put so much in and sacrificed so many people that they did not think the deal was good enough for all of their efforts.

Spiritoftheseventies

blinding wrote: »

Certainly I do not think it was about power from the anti-treaty side. Though I think the anti-treaty side were wrong (with the benefit of hindsight and time to think about it and the aftermath) to go to war I certainly do not think it was about power from their point of view.

Probably that they had put so much in and sacrificed so many people that they did not think the deal was good enough for all of their efforts.

True in a way but the impression was that while Dev was away in American raising funds, Collins had taken over the operation in his absence.
There did seem to be that bit of rivalry between Dev and Collins and the suspicion is that Dev only sent Collins to negotiate the treaty because he knew he could not deliver anything better himself.
The burning question is why Collins never consulted De Valera before signing the treaty but at that stage negotiations were so exhausted that Collins was unlikely to have got any more out of Lloyd George.
Had he lived longer Collins could have achieved a whole lot more and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
His work load was astonishing for someone so young and while he could be ruthless there is no doubt he was the key figure in securing independence for the country.

Bog Butter

Partial independence, partition of the island and death.

I don't think partition, partial independance and our subsequent economic growth was worth the suffering the people in Northern Ireland endured.

The Catholics were descriminated against and forced to live in a 'Protestant state' - voting discrimination, job discrimination, housing discrimination etc. The Protestants (and Catholics) then suffered the wrath of the IRA.

Both communities grew further apart as a result of killing and bombing. It's a great pity Sean McStiofan's men saw no other solution.

If only we could have waited though. The people in the north eastern part of Ireland paid a heavy price for our freedom. I don't think it was worth it. We should have waited until the end of WW1. Home Rule and subsequent independance was inevidible.

ejmaztec

KingKiller wrote: »

The Fianna Fail Party of today bears no real relationship to that of the Party which governed from 1932 to 1966 however it's faults were (with two brief breaks).Public housing for the poor not the builders, self-sufficiency, limiting the government!s own power, fostering a nationalist outlook and no scandal after scandal with bribes in brown paper bags.

It was a lot easier to keep scandals and corruption under wraps in the good old days. For example, I wonder which builders got their hands on the contracts for public housing construction, and how.

As my ancestors (and countless others) would testify, were they still alive from that period, Ireland was self-sufficient in poverty. Are we all supposed to consider that it was the golden era of an Irish Utopia?

blinding

malman wrote: »

Partial independence, partition of the island and death.

I don't think partition, partial independance and our subsequent economic growth was worth the suffering the people in Northern Ireland endured.

The Catholics were descriminated against and forced to live in a 'Protestant state' - voting discrimination, job discrimination, housing discrimination etc. The Protestants (and Catholics) then suffered the wrath of the IRA.

Both communities grew further apart as a result of killing and bombing. It's a great pity Sean McStiofan's men saw no other solution.

If only we could have waited though. The people in the north eastern part of Ireland paid a heavy price for our freedom. I don't think it was worth it. We should have waited until the end of WW1. Home Rule and subsequent independance was inevidible.

Partition turned out to be a bigger disaster that could have been realised at the time.
Two home rule parliaments with some federal tie would have been the best option in hindsight (its mighty sight). If the Southern parliament evolved to independence then I do not believe that the British goverments would have been such a hindrance as they were to the new Irish entity.

Absolute partition has been an absolute disaster.

Spiritoftheseventies

blinding wrote: »

Partition turned out to be a bigger disaster that could have been realised at the time.
Two home rule parliaments with some federal tie would have been the best option in hindsight (its mighty sight). If the Southern parliament evolved to independence then I do not believe that the British goverments would have been such a hindrance as they were to the new Irish entity.

Absolute partition has been an absolute disaster.

Partition was unfortunate but how it became so unmanageable was down more to neglect of the catholic minority by successive governments throughout the decades

brianthebard

blinding wrote: »

Partition turned out to be a bigger disaster that could have been realised at the time.
Two home rule parliaments with some federal tie would have been the best option in hindsight (its mighty sight). If the Southern parliament evolved to independence then I do not believe that the British goverments would have been such a hindrance as they were to the new Irish entity.

Absolute partition has been an absolute disaster.

Ulster Unionists did not want Home Rule, either for themselves or the rest of the country, so I don't think this was a possibility. I also firmly believe that there would have been no evolution towards independence if Ireland had been granted home rule.

walrusgumble

bayviewclose wrote: »

True in a way but the impression was that while Dev was away in American raising funds, Collins had taken over the operation in his absence.
There did seem to be that bit of rivalry between Dev and Collins and the suspicion is that Dev only sent Collins to negotiate the treaty because he knew he could not deliver anything better himself.
The burning question is why Collins never consulted De Valera before signing the treaty but at that stage negotiations were so exhausted that Collins was unlikely to have got any more out of Lloyd George.
Had he lived longer Collins could have achieved a whole lot more and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
His work load was astonishing for someone so young and while he could be ruthless there is no doubt he was the key figure in securing independence for the country.

I would be far more interested to know why De Valera was NOT in Dublin during those dates (in Limerick) how could he be contacted?

Dev gave the party in London powers to sign on their behalf of the State, but somehow manage to limit it, confuse delegates and give contradictory statements prior to their arrival in London and during the short break in October