Michael Collins Politics

Nuravictus

I am wondering what Michael Collins ideas were on general government, like finance, civil liberties, etc. Did he put anything on paper before he died. I've searched the net a few times but just found war related stuff which I already had a far idea about.

Also what would Ireland be like if he had survived the civil war.

Byron85

It's fairly certain that he was planning a war on the North once things calmed down after the Civil War. As far as I know he was already making sure weapons and money was being sent to dissidents in the North.

Nuravictus

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

It's fairly certain that he was planning a war on the North once things calmed down after the Civil War. As far as I know he was already making sure weapons and money was being sent to dissidents in the North.

Yea seen that on wiki but i really want know non war related stuff. How he planned to shape and develop ireland.

galwayrush

I always felt he wouldn't have caved in to the Archbishop Mc Quaid of Dublin like De Valera which led to our church dominated way of life which in my opinion kept the country stagnant / backwards for many decades.

dvpower

He could only have disappointed. From the point of view of his legacy, he died at the right time.

Riddle101

He was planning on creating the greatest country in the world, where money is not an issue, people are happier, everything is great and no problems whatsoever including a 32 county Ireland.

Only joking

seriously though, i'm not sure. Nobody really is, it's just one of those what if questions, to which people can speculate all they want but come out with nothing.

Dannyboy83

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E900001-001/index.html

http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/pages/Michael%20Collins%20Articles.htm


He had loads of ideas.
Pretty sure some bits were implemented by Cosgrave etc.

If Collins had lived, it's likely that we would be closer to Holland than Tunisia.
Not only because he was capable of getting things done, but the fracture that has divided Irish politics and contributed to so much intertia, may have been healed.

If there had been someone to tackle Dev the dictator, Ireland would not have sunk (or at least not as deeply) into the abyss.
We would definitely have had a less authoritarian dictatorship either way.

Basically, once Dev got in, he dismantled everything that had been there before, such as the Senate and the Constitution and recast everything is his own flavour.

Nuravictus

What area of politics would collins fall under, he was pro co-operative but against State Socialism.

rightwingdub

In Tim Pat Coogan's biography of Michael Collins it stated that Michael Collins had anti clerical tendancies, I do think however he would have been defenential to the Catholic church.

Did Collins support laissez faire free market economics?

trapsagenius

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If there had been someone to tackle Dev the dictator, Ireland would not have sunk (or at least not as deeply) into the abyss.
We would definitely have had a less authoritarian dictatorship either way.

Always have to laugh at the way Dev supporters nearly always accept that Collins was an Irish patriot who contributed a lot to the freedom of the country, whereas Collins supporters can never resist having a cut at Dev.

Dev wasn't a dictator, he was just immensely popular and he certainly didn't lead Ireland into the abyss.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Basically, once Dev got in, he dismantled everything that had been there before, such as the Senate and the Constitution and recast everything is his own flavour.

You say it like it's a bad thing.I am almost certain Collins would have done the same thing (re dismantling the treaty) as Dev-wasn't he an advocate of the "stepping stone" argument (which he was correct about, don't get me wrong)?Dev just gave the Irish people what they wanted as he took apart the treaty.Surely you don't contest he made a massive contribution to the full independence in the south.

rightwingdub wrote: »

In Tim Pat Coogan's biography of Michael Collins it stated that Michael Collins had anti clerical tendancies, I do think however he would have been defenential to the Catholic church.

Did Collins support laissez faire free market economics?

I wouldn't really take that biography too seriously-TP Coogan is completely slanted towards Collins (interestingly, he also did a hatchet job on Dev in his biog) and the book is practically a eulogy.

Anyway, Coogan essentially argues that Ireland lost its ablest politician when Collins died.I am fairly sure this is nonsense-didn't Collins himself describe himself as a gunman?Coogan uses quotes from Collins (they could be real or imaginary, no-one really knows with Coogan) when he tries to advance this theory-e.g(and this is a quote from the book-I have it in front of me) he said Collins said that "agriculture must be improved and developed".Coogan takes this as proof of Collins economic wizardry.I take it as a simple policy that a 10 year old could come up with.

rightwingdub

I thought TP Coogan was a staunch Fianna Failer, wasn't he editor of the Irish Press for years?

Byron85

trapsagenius wrote: »

Always have to laugh at the way Dev supporters nearly always accept that Collins was an Irish patriot who contributed a lot to the freedom of the country, whereas Collins supporters can never resist having a cut at Dev.

Dev wasn't a dictator, he was just immensely popular and he certainly didn't lead Ireland into the abyss.

He was extremely short sighted in some senses especially when one considers the fact that he actively encouraged protectionism and it was only in the late 50's and 60's that this was beginning to be undone i.e Whitaker's "Programme for Economic Expansion".

trapsagenius

rightwingdub wrote: »

I thought TP Coogan was a staunch Fianna Failer, wasn't he editor of the Irish Press for years?

Yeah, I've often wondered about that myself, I don't know where the chip in his shoulder with Dev and FF originated from.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

He was extremely short sighted in some senses especially when one considers the fact that he actively encouraged protectionism and it was only in the late 50's and 60's that this was beginning to be undone i.e Whitaker's "Programme for Economic Expansion".

He was extremely far sighted when you look at his predictions for the League of Nations (re the trouble that having no army brought) and the constitution written in 1937 which is still applicable in the most part to 2010 Ireland.

Anyway with regards protectionism etc., I've made this argument several times, so just so I don't have to repeat myself-
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055862600

Dannyboy83

trapsagenius wrote: »

Always have to laugh at the way Dev supporters nearly always accept that Collins was an Irish patriot who contributed a lot to the freedom of the country, whereas Collins supporters can never resist having a cut at Dev.

I'm neither a Dev supporter nor a Collin's supporter.
I'm just interested in trying to understand why this country has been a perma-failure since independence.

The saddest thing, is that the nation would have had a good shot at achieving something if Dev and Collins had been on the same side.

Dev wasn't a dictator, he was just immensely popular and he certainly didn't lead Ireland into the abyss.

After he set up Fianna Fail, dismantled the senate and rewrote the constitution, much more power was concentrated in the Taoiseach's hands than had been previously.
Unfortunately a lot of the country's ills today still stem from this setup.

He led Ireland into the economic abyss.
Granted, it was not all his fault, Lemass himself admitted that many of the economic policies pursued were his and not Dev's failures.
But Dev hung around too long and should have stepped aside earlier.

You say it like it's a bad thing.I am almost certain Collins would have done the same thing (re dismantling the treaty) as Dev-wasn't he an advocate of the "stepping stone" argument (which he was correct about, don't get me wrong)?Dev just gave the Irish people what they wanted as he took apart the treaty.Surely you don't contest he made a massive contribution to the full independence in the south.

I don't contest Dev's contribution.
But there are other issues stemming from the changes he made, which have helped render our system slightly retarded.

It is of course not just his failure, but a failure of his successors who have failed to adapt.

I wouldn't really take that biography too seriously-TP Coogan is completely slanted towards Collins (interestingly, he also did a hatchet job on Dev in his biog) and the book is practically a eulogy.

I've read both.
I didn't particularly agree with the bias argument, and it is generally cited by Dev supporters anyway.
Dev was a complex character.
He did a lot of bad and plenty of good too.

Anyway, Coogan essentially argues that Ireland lost its ablest politician when Collins died.I am fairly sure this is nonsense-didn't Collins himself describe himself as a gunman?Coogan uses quotes from Collins (they could be real or imaginary, no-one really knows with Coogan) when he tries to advance this theory-e.g(and this is a quote from the book-I have it in front of me) he said Collins said that "agriculture must be improved and developed".Coogan takes this as proof of Collins economic wizardry.I take it as a simple policy that a 10 year old could come up with.

Was Collins the best politician of the era?
I don't think so. I think Dev was far and away the best politician and one of the best political minds of his generation.

Collins was an excellent politician tho.
Dev was a policy formulater and a talker, and Collins was an implementer/doer.

As already said, the tragedy is that Ireland needed both to succeed.
Dev was the wheel and Collins was the axle.
All imo of course.

DublinWriter

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Dev was a policy formulater and a talker, and Collins was an implementer/doer.

I disagree.

See the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General? The office that recently blew the whistle on P-PARS? That was originally set up by Collins to monitor public spending almost 100 years ago.

People forget that Collins worked for several US investment banks in London and knew how finance worked. He also knew how financial governance worked at a very high level.

Mythology still reigns supreme with Dev - people are still believe he signed the book of condolence at the German embassy when Hitler died and that he escaped a death sentence for his part in the 1916 rising because of American parentage. The truth is far more complex.

Pride Fighter

I would have thought Collins would have made Ireland a stronger nation economically than Dev. Collins managed to raise 350k in 1919 during the first Dail at a time when there was no money in the country. An accountant by trade, Collins would have made an excellent Prime Minister in terms of economics. Ireland would still probably be the backward catholic country it was under Dev, but probably a wealthier backward country.

Thats my 2 cents.

Byron85

trapsagenius wrote: »

Yeah, I've often wondered about that myself, I don't know where the chip in his shoulder with Dev and FF originated from.



He was extremely far sighted when you look at his predictions for the League of Nations (re the trouble that having no army brought) and the constitution written in 1937 which is still applicable in the most part to 2010 Ireland.

Anyway with regards protectionism etc., I've made this argument several times, so just so I don't have to repeat myself-
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055862600

Interesting point but Ireland remained protectionist for many years while other countries were opening up and trading amongst themselves. We were isolated economically and politically after WW2 and De Valera didn't help matters all that much either.

Dannyboy83

DublinWriter wrote: »

I disagree.

See the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General? The office that recently blew the whistle on P-PARS? That was originally set up by Collins to monitor public spending almost 100 years ago.

People forget that Collins worked for several US investment banks in London and knew how finance worked. He also knew how financial governance worked at a very high level.

Good points.

On the links I posted above, there are listed the scripts from some of the Dail debates when Collin's was MoF.

Aside from appearing to be massively competent, he also seemed very concerned with doing things correctly. He is always referring to receipts and procedure etc.
Many of the other politicians appear more concerned with theory and sounding like a bigshot, whereas Collin's always comes across as the pragmatist.

I guess one of the things that always stands out in my mind when comparing Dev and Collins, is that Dev always thought he knew what was best for the Irish people even if they disagreed themselves - which is the type of governance we now expect from Fianna Fail.
Whereas Collin's generally seems more concerned with allowing the people to decide themselves - which is the kind of governance we wish we had.

Its not hard to extrapolate from things all the dirty business we've seen with the Catholic Church and how things may have been different.

Dannyboy83

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I would have thought Collins would have made Ireland a stronger nation economically than Dev. Collins managed to raise 350k in 1919 during the first Dail at a time when there was no money in the country. An accountant by trade, Collins would have made an excellent Prime Minister in terms of economics. Ireland would still probably be the backward catholic country it was under Dev, but probably a wealthier backward country.

Thats my 2 cents.

If memory serves - that money had to be returned.
Dev contested that the National Loan money, which Collins had raised for an Irish Republic - could not be used for an Irish Free State.

I may be mistaken but its in the dail debates anyway.

patmar

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I would have thought Collins would have made Ireland a stronger nation economically than Dev. Collins managed to raise 350k in 1919 during the first Dail at a time when there was no money in the country. An accountant by trade, Collins would have made an excellent Prime Minister in terms of economics. Ireland would still probably be the backward catholic country it was under Dev, but probably a wealthier backward country.

Thats my 2 cents.

I never argue about the Civil War as a rule as I firmly believe it was never meant to happen, was a terrible tragedy and Collins was eliminated on the agreement of both sides as he was a potential threat to the future of the State. What would have happened if he had not died is idle speculation and serves no useful purpose

gizmo555

DublinWriter wrote: »

Mythology still reigns supreme with Dev - people are still believe he signed the book of condolence at the German embassy when Hitler died

De Valera did go to the German embassy in Dublin on the death of Hitler to formally offer his government's condolences to Hempel, the German ambassador. That's not mythology, it's a historical fact.

Pride Fighter

patmar wrote: »

I never argue about the Civil War as a rule as I firmly believe it was never meant to happen, was a terrible tragedy and Collins was eliminated on the agreement of both sides as he was a potential threat to the future of the State. What would have happened if he had not died is idle speculation and serves no useful purpose

I am 100% sure Collins would have never engaged in an economic war with Britain that did nothing but bankrupt the state, ruin the lives of the rural poor and farmers in this country. Fianna Fail and Dev did. So its not speculation but a statement of facts.

trapsagenius

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm neither a Dev supporter nor a Collin's supporter.
I'm just interested in trying to understand why this country has been a perma-failure since independence.

Perma failure?Bit harsh, imo.The 60s were fairly good, as were much of the 90s and 2000s.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The saddest thing, is that the nation would have had a good shot at achieving something if Dev and Collins had been on the same side.

Probably.I agree with you on this.I still think Dev achieved a lot.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

He led Ireland into the economic abyss.
Granted, it was not all his fault, Lemass himself admitted that many of the economic policies pursued were his and not Dev's failures.
But Dev hung around too long and should have stepped aside earlier.

I think "abyss" is a bit harsh.And I'm of the opinion that there's is more to politics than economics.

Agree he hung around too long.But I still think his achievements overshadowed his failures.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I've read both.
I didn't particularly agree with the bias argument, and it is generally cited by Dev supporters anyway.
Dev was a complex character.
He did a lot of bad and plenty of good too.

Disagree-it was biased.Coogan states in the summing up of Dev that he did little that was good and much that was harmful.This is complete nonsense.A proper historian, like Diarmaid Ferriter, can actually acknowledge that Dev did a lot of good.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't contest Dev's contribution.
But there are other issues stemming from the changes he made, which have helped render our system slightly retarded.

It is of course not just his failure, but a failure of his successors who have failed to adapt.

Again, disagree.I think Dev actually resisted temptation to give himself more power when writing the constitution.And PR was ahead of its time(ok, he regretted it later, but the point is, he put it in place).

trapsagenius

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Interesting point but Ireland remained protectionist for many years while other countries were opening up and trading amongst themselves. We were isolated economically and politically after WW2 and De Valera didn't help matters all that much either.

Agree with you on the most part.Dev should have probably stepped down in 1948-he didn't really contribute an awful lot after that.But I still think his achievements overshadowed his failures.

BTW, I just realised that this is all completely off-topic, so I apologise to the OP.

walrusgumble

rightwingdub wrote: »

I thought TP Coogan was a staunch Fianna Failer, wasn't he editor of the Irish Press for years?

I have a lot of time for coogan, but his books were unfair on dev, but, good in the bigger picture when read with other work.

He was a strange one considering that his father was a founding member and TD of Cumann na Ngeadheal and member of the gardaí (when you consider his apparent sysmpathy/fairness towards the ira in the north)

It sounds though he could be justified in his attitude towards the De Valera family and their disasterous running of the paper,but it shouldn't have got in the way when recording history.

But he clearly has an axe to bear, read his memoir

walrusgumble

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I am 100% sure Collins would have never engaged in an economic war with Britain that did nothing but bankrupt the state, ruin the lives of the rural poor and farmers in this country. Fianna Fail and Dev did. So its not speculation but a statement of facts.

right. so standing up to a bigger power and ultimately come out the other side (battered) not enough? Britain did not cover itself in glory here either. what about getting back the treaty ports (which proved vital a few years later) and finally end land annuity payments/funds to the war chest (huge political embarrasment from the treaty) to britain once and for all (in a lump sum). the state was already banjaxed, no thanks to the civil war and its effects on social and political life.

how can you be 100% certain collins would not have done similar? you not remember his support for the belfast boycott during the tan war? of course maybe he would have dealt with the economic problems with britian better

I would have hoped Collins would not have heeded the church as much, considering their damaging attitude and role during the tan war. but, considering he was pragmatic he would have known that the majority of the country were god fearing people, just like his colleagues in CnG and the Free State Army. Once the war was over, wouldn't he have potentially have lost votes if the church or opposition took a notion that he was a moscow man? During the drafting of the Free State Constitution he over ruled any "socialist clauses" akin to the Proclamation, because they were too socialist. (in fairness that would be down to knowing the people would not vote it)

He defintely would have being a better finance minister or prime minister than william cosgrove (i am not saying he was bad, considering the people in his cabinet (O'Higgins and Bylthe) and the state of the country, he did this country a great service)