DeValera Megathread

brianthebard

A lot of anger and opinions relating to DeValera on these boards. Thought a thread specifically on that topic would be a good idea, and might keep others on topic.

Personally I feel the way most of us are presented with the first 20-30 years of this state is very two dimensional, a long line of progressive events with little analysis (eg Cumann na Gaedhael created the Guards, then they created a currency, then they built a dam[...] Then Dev changed the GG, then he had an economic war, then he made a constitution, etc, etc). This holds true imo at both 2nd and 3rd level studies by and large. Its only when you start to look at the subtleties of the period that you start to get a sense of the material difficulties and movements within the state.

For instance, I didn't know until this week that FF had tried to use popular referendum to remove the King from the Irish Constitution, but this was blocked by CnaG. Obviously if FF had succeeded they could've entered parliament without ever taking the oath, as it turned out they were forced to. I have seen many however point to this change in policy as a reason to dismiss or hate DeValera, since it seemed to make the reasons for the civil war even more pointless. Clearly the reality as always was more complex.


So I've harped on enough hopefully this will make sense to people and we can get a discussion going.

Judgement Day

Dev may have had some good qualities but what about his 'creative accounting' and personal fiefdom at the Irish Press which, as I understand it, was established with donations for FF but which his family ended up owning.

Also he was genetically responsible, in part, for producing two of the most useless politicians to ever enter the Dail, namely Sile De Valera and Eamonn O'Cuiv. My two cents worth.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of anger and opinions relating to DeValera on these boards. Thought a thread specifically on that topic would be a good idea, and might keep others on topic.

Personally I feel the way most of us are presented with the first 20-30 years of this state is very two dimensional, a long line of progressive events with little analysis (eg Cumann na Gaedhael created the Guards, then they created a currency, then they built a dam[...] Then Dev changed the GG, then he had an economic war, then he made a constitution, etc, etc). This holds true imo at both 2nd and 3rd level studies by and large. Its only when you start to look at the subtleties of the period that you start to get a sense of the material difficulties and movements within the state.

For instance, I didn't know until this week that FF had tried to use popular referendum to remove the King from the Irish Constitution, but this was blocked by CnaG. Obviously if FF had succeeded they could've entered parliament without ever taking the oath, as it turned out they were forced to. I have seen many however point to this change in policy as a reason to dismiss or hate DeValera, since it seemed to make the reasons for the civil war even more pointless. Clearly the reality as always was more complex.


.

Great thread. I couldn't agree more with this part that I have highlighted - There is a vast amount of popular myth created around De Valera and his time and most of it is not based on the actual historical record. The contemporary secondary school books that I have come across are woeful. Someone suggested that much popular opinion on Dev is based on the slant in the Michael Collins movie where Dev is depicted the bête noire of the tragedy. Maybe. But an ill informed press also plays into the myth IMO. On another forum during a discussion about a journalist who plays with historical facts was challenged the replies came in that journalists do not have to know about history - well, quite a lot of people read these journalists and think they are reading actual facts.

For instance, I keep reading on boards statements that Dev "sold us to the Catholic Church" as if the Church had no standing or no power prior to the reference to them in the 1937 Constitution - as if their power came only and solely from De Valera. Most of the "egregious" laws that people point to were established prior to Dev's period and prior to the Constitution. And IMO their part in the downfall of Parnell was probably the lowest point in modern Irish history.

Dev by the way, probably played more of a game with the Catholic Church than anything else. He knew the new state had to reply on them for a cheap to free educational system - revenues were low - but on the other hand he refused to give the Catholic Church the constitutional position of an established church, which would have meant official state funding.

SlabMurphy

I heard that when Douglas Hyde died and the funeral was been held in Christchurch Dev the snake oil salesman stood outside the church as he didn't want to offend the Catholic bishops by attending a Protestant service.
Also, didn't Dev blot his copybook by offering condolences to the German ambassador on Hitler's death ( Ok, I know that's international protocol but surely he could have left it out ofr once ).

brianthebard

I don't mean to be rude but can we please keep this thread away from 'I heard' and 'I was told'...the point is to actually examine the historical facts, not repeat old anecdotes and put downs.

MarchDub

Well to address this issue anyway - this is the problem with half truths and partial truths and out of context references. The whole truth is that De Valera was certainly not alone in this at the funeral service for Douglas Hyde. All Catholics, both members of the government and the public stood outside of St Patrick's cathedral including the then President of Ireland Sean T O'Kelly and the cabinet. Catholics were restricted under Canon Law from attending a Protestant service and it was accepted protocol to stand outside in silence and respect. Protestants did the same outside of Catholic churches for funerals and weddings. However it may seem to us today - it was not considered to be extraordinary or disrespectful behaviour back in 1949. It was the norm for the day.

To put this further in perspective in 1994 Queen Elizabeth II became the first British Monarch to attend a Catholic service since the 17th Century.

who the fug

brianthebard wrote: »

For instance, I didn't know until this week that FF had tried to use popular referendum to remove the King from the Irish Constitution, but this was blocked by CnaG. Obviously if FF had succeeded they could've entered parliament without ever taking the oath, as it turned out they were forced to. I have seen many however point to this change in policy as a reason to dismiss or hate DeValera, since it seemed to make the reasons for the civil war even more pointless. Clearly the reality as always was more complex.

.

Sorry do you have a link to more of this story as I have never heard that one before.


Never been anti Dev, just think he should have gone to the Park, when he lost in 1948, instead of presiding over most of that dreadful decade .


Respect him for keeping us out the WW2 because I believe we would have decended back into the mire of the civil war if we had not


In summary the problem with Dev was he did not die a young man

brianthebard

who the fug wrote: »

Sorry do you have a link to more of this story as I have never heard that one before.

Sorry but it was just something a friend doing a history postgrad on that period told me. I imagine he found this out from a primary source he was using, since it doesn't seem to be something often mentioned in secondary works.

MarchDub

who the fug wrote: »

Sorry do you have a link to more of this story as I have never heard that one before.

brianthebard wrote: »

Sorry but it was just something a friend doing a history postgrad on that period told me. I imagine he found this out from a primary source he was using, since it doesn't seem to be something often mentioned in secondary works.

I can't put my hands on the original source but from memory I recall reading that Fianna Fail attempted to put in a plea in 1926 to the courts that the Oath to the British Monarch was unconstitutional/in violation of the 1919 Dail Declaration of Independence. CnaG blocked this somehow. Maybe someone with access to court records could confirm or elaborate on this?

It was after the court procedure was blocked that Dev and others in FF decided that the only way forward was to take the oath - Dev declared it an "empty formula" and entered the Dail. One of his first acts as Taoiseach in 1932 was to abolish the Oath.

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

It was after the court procedure was blocked that Dev and others in FF decided that the only way forward was to take the oath - Dev declared it an "empty formula" and entered the Dail. One of his first acts as Taoiseach in 1932 was to abolish the Oath.

Weren't FF also under pressure from a new law banning people from running for parliament again if they refused to take their seats?

edit; those records are probably here if you know what you're looking for; http://www.nationalarchives.ie/search/index.php

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Weren't FF also under pressure from a new law banning people from running for parliament again if they refused to take their seats?

Yes, after the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins there was an law enacted by CnaG that candidates must pledge to take their seats or they would be ineligible to run for the Dail. This also tipped the scales in the direction pushing FF into entering the Dail - or political nothingness.

Edit - Thanks for the link. I have used it previously but I do get lost in it though, I must say. I suppose the court records are somewhere there.

walrusgumble

Judgement Day wrote: »

Dev may have had some good qualities but what about his 'creative accounting' and personal fiefdom at the Irish Press which, as I understand it, was established with donations for FF but which his family ended up owning.

Also he was genetically responsible, in part, for producing two of the most useless politicians to ever enter the Dail, namely Sile De Valera and Eamonn O'Cuiv. My two cents worth.

the most useless polticans? ya come on there were more than them that would pick that award. yeah though, it is a bit disappointing considering, as Gareth Fitz would say, their "poltical predigree". Sile gave Jack Lynch some headaches with her republican reterioc in the late 1970's


As of right now, I am just after hearing Ned O'Keefe giving a bashing to foreigners and the british national who is head of the financial regulator and how we don't want them telling us what to do. oh dear. still we don't mind taking their eu lollie. collins and pearse got a mention. sounded terrible

walrusgumble

MarchDub wrote: »

Great thread. I couldn't agree more with this part that I have highlighted - There is a vast amount of popular myth created around De Valera and his time and most of it is not based on the actual historical record. The contemporary secondary school books that I have come across are woeful. Someone suggested that much popular opinion on Dev is based on the slant in the Michael Collins movie where Dev is depicted the bête noire of the tragedy. Maybe. But an ill informed press also plays into the myth IMO. On another forum during a discussion about a journalist who plays with historical facts was challenged the replies came in that journalists do not have to know about history - well, quite a lot of people read these journalists and think they are reading actual facts.

For instance, I keep reading on boards statements that Dev "sold us to the Catholic Church" as if the Church had no standing or no power prior to the reference to them in the 1937 Constitution - as if their power came only and solely from De Valera. Most of the "egregious" laws that people point to were established prior to Dev's period and prior to the Constitution. And IMO their part in the downfall of Parnell was probably the lowest point in modern Irish history.

Dev by the way, probably played more of a game with the Catholic Church than anything else. He knew the new state had to reply on them for a cheap to free educational system - revenues were low - but on the other hand he refused to give the Catholic Church the constitutional position of an established church, which would have meant official state funding.

cumann na ngaedheal like many other Irish man and woman followed the church strongly. look at the Eucharist Congress. Were CnG as an opposition party walk way? Eoin O'Duffy as the Chief Guard was in his pomp. Even in later years, the radical Sean MacBride was said to Archbishop McQuid not to worry about any red scares.

Dev did have a good idea of what the people believed in. Sure he HAD to get the church (and people) on his side. It was not long after entering dail, when CnG and the Church belted out how the finna failers were a bunch of reds. Considering what was going on in other catholic dominated countries at the time, our consitution was no where near as bad, sure according to fearghall mcgarry on Eoin O'Duffy, he liked the idea of corporalism. Whether we liked it or not, the church, to the eyes of most people WAS the one true church, it did hold a special part of people's lives. One must remember, that the judges of this time (1940-1959 - thankfully, the judges like O'Dailigh became more infuence by america, where they trained) where heavily influenced by the church when giving their judgements. (often to the determent to the state) Not all of these lads were ffers.

People often have a go at dev, for retarded reasons because he had American citizenship, as if he had a choice of the place of his birth. Couldn't he have gone back and lived their as a maths teacher and enjoyed life (and dodge the draft he he ) I dare anyone to come out with such dredge to people like Thomas Clarke (born in Isle of Wight and an American Citizen!), James Connolly (Born in Scotland) or even, er, Erskine Childers Snr. Was Liam Mellows born in Ireland?

brianthebard

According to Wiki he was born in England.

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

According to Wiki he was born in England.

who clarke? ye isle of wight, english? His dad was a protestant who fought for britian in the colonies. Clarke himself fled/immigrated to the us and naturalised in 1905ish

or Mellows? Sorry confused.Late and in stupid mode

brianthebard

Mellows. Its a good point on the citizenship/birthplace issue, its another thing that Dev gets stick about but given the amount of emigration and also the amount of people involved in the 1916 rising that were either born outside the country, left the country, or had foreign parents, its just another strawman argument that gets tossed at Dev but not others.

who the fug

Ah now I have a go at the lot in them, including the palstic paddy himself Paddy Pearse

SlabMurphy

who the fug wrote: »

Ah now I have a go at the lot in them, including the palstic paddy himself Paddy Pearse

It's not unusual that Ireland has had important figures in it's history foreign born, every country has them. Quite a few monarchs of Britain were foreign born like King William of Orange, King George as was Prime Minister Bonar Law etc. And what part of the north was the unionists leader Carson from - Dublin of course .

trapsagenius

Good posts by MarchDub.

I've outlined by position on Dev on many different threads-I think he was a good man whose successes far outweighed his failures.I think in time,in fact it is happening already with the likes of Ferriter, historians are fairly judging Dev and are moving away from the simplistic character assassination that TP Coogan put forward.Hopefully, in time, the phrase "De Valera's Ireland" will no longer carry negative connotations.

who the fug

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Quite a few monarchs of Britain were foreign born like King William of Orange, King George as was Prime Minister Bonar Law etc.

Am well aware of the above, and love pointing out to my mates when they go OTT BNP that they have never had an english family on the throne since 1066

CDfm

I have often wondered if Devs name alone gave him a bit of mystery as an unknown quantity.

On foreign anomalies Field Marshall Wilson who was assasainated after the Treaty was signed was born in Longford and his killers Dunne and O'Sullivan in London.

http://www.executedtoday.com/category/where/ireland/

MarchDub

The RTE ten part radio series "Judging Dev" is still available on line. It was originally broadcast late in 2007. Here is the link.
The presenter is Diarmaid Ferriter.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/judgingdev/listen.html

Jim2007

MarchDub wrote: »

The RTE ten part radio series "Judging Dev" is still available on line. It was originally broadcast late in 2007. Here is the link.
The presenter is Diarmaid Ferriter.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/judgingdev/listen.html

I recently found these podcasts and one of the things that really struck me was the point made one of the speakers on how Ireland remained a democracy through the 30s, 40s and into the 50s when you consider what was going on in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Germany.

When you think about it is great credit to the people on both sides, that despite all the arguments and differences that they all stuck to the democratic process when it could have so easily gone the other way.

Jim.

CDfm

Concidering we are on the periphery of europe with precious little natural resourses I imagine it is not that surprising.

Don't forget we had a huge amount of emigration. And there was a tradition of freedom and democracy ingrained into generations.

The other aspect is that if a threat had emerged the danger was that one side or the other would have sought British support which would have been fairly instantaneous given the Treaty Ports up until 1939.

So I imagine the external threat gave internal cohesion.Nothing brings people together like an identifyable enemy.

trapsagenius

CDfm wrote: »

Concidering we are on the periphery of europe with precious little natural resourses I imagine it is not that surprising.

Well what were Portugal, if not on the periphery of Europe?They established a dictatorship, didn't they??

Consolidating democracy in Ireland was an achievement that FF contributed to, but in fairness, most of the credit has to go to W.T Cosgrave and cumann na nGaedhal for this.

CDfm wrote: »

Don't forget we had a huge amount of emigration.

And don't forget that industrial employment increased under Dev in the 30s, an even bigger achievement when you consider that there was a global economic downturn then.

CDfm wrote: »

And there was a tradition of freedom and democracy ingrained into generations.

Tradition of freedom??:eek:

You are aware of what the Brits did to us??

CDfm wrote: »

The other aspect is that if a threat had emerged the danger was that one side or the other would have sought British support which would have been fairly instantaneous given the Treaty Ports up until 1939.

So I imagine the external threat gave internal cohesion.Nothing brings people together like an identifyable enemy.

I still think guiding Ireland through WW2, in the face of such pressure from the British, and later the Americans, and also in such an unstable time globally when the whole world seemed on the brink, was one of Dev's finest achievements.

CDfm

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well what were Portugal, if not on the periphery of Europe?They established a dictatorship, didn't they??

they had a monarchy before that

Consolidating democracy in Ireland was an achievement that FF contributed to, but in fairness, most of the credit has to go to W.T Cosgrave and cumann na nGaedhal for this.

I agree

And don't forget that industrial employment increased under Dev in the 30s, an even bigger achievement when you consider that there was a global economic downturn then.

Fords in Cork etc was the descendant of an emigrant accessing european markets

Tradition of freedom??:eek:

You are aware of what the Brits did to us??

I meant domestically it had been an aspiration and it would be difficult to see what tradition/cultural belief it could have latched on to.

Heil O'Duffy was never that catchy.

I still think guiding Ireland through WW2, in the face of such pressure from the British, and later the Americans, and also in such an unstable time globally when the whole world seemed on the brink, was one of Dev's finest achievements.

It was actually but I heard from my grandfather how he and other War of Independence Veterans had gone to various polling stations around west cork in the 1932 electiion.

So you had internal threats and external threats

Jim2007

trapsagenius wrote: »

Tradition of freedom??:eek:

You are aware of what the Brits did to us??

Interestingly enough when commenting on the 1937 Constitution, Dev does make the comment that we were far to schooled in the British Constitutional system to go for an American style administration!

Jim

trapsagenius

CDfm wrote: »

they had a monarchy before that

You got me on this point, I have to admit!

CDfm wrote: »

I meant domestically it had been an aspiration and it would be difficult to see what tradition/cultural belief it could have latched on to.

Heil O'Duffy was never that catchy.

I still Dev did a good job putting down the likes of Duffy and his ilk.I remember reading once that Duffy didn't fear the use odf the word fascist or dictator.We're lucky that the blueshirts didn't a charismatic, non-bungling leader in Ireland, or I think they could have developed into a big threat.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Interestingly enough when commenting on the 1937 Constitution, Dev does make the comment that we were far to schooled in the British Constitutional system to go for an American style administration!

Jim

I'm not contesting that there wasn't democracy in Ireland( if you look back at my previous post, I didn't contest it there either).I just don't think there was a tradition of freedom under the Brits, if that makes any sense.I would view them as two fairly separate things (in this context).

jonniebgood1

Just reading this article http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/haunted-by-ghost-of-iras-bloody-legacy-1910361.html

I am interested in particular in the extract that says

de Valera let it be known through Maurice Moynihan in the 1980s that he felt deep shame in his old age when confronted with some of his speeches from the 1918-22 period, especially his speeches denouncing the RIC as a force of traitors, speeches which he knew provoked the sorts of outrages which destroyed Hazel's family.

These regrets can be found in Moynihan's editorial notes in his great book, Speeches and Statements by Eamon de Valera.

I don't have the editorial from this book- does anyone know more about this in relation to Dev and the RIC?
And what exactly happened to John Albert Chinnery?
Or any other views on the article are open for discussion.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am interested in particular in the extract that says

Quote:
de Valera let it be known through Maurice Moynihan in the 1980s that he felt deep shame in his old age when confronted with some of his speeches from the 1918-22 period, especially his speeches denouncing the RIC as a force of traitors, speeches which he knew provoked the sorts of outrages which destroyed Hazel's family.

These regrets can be found in Moynihan's editorial notes in his great book, Speeches and Statements by Eamon de Valera.


I don't have the editorial from this book- does anyone know more about this in relation to Dev and the RIC?
And what exactly happened to John Albert Chinnery?
Or any other views on the article are open for discussion.

I'd be curious too! Considering that de Valera died in 1975 it was quite a feat for him to be letting his feelings be known in the 1980s - ??

ejmaztec

http://www.studiesirishreview.ie/j/page435

Moynihan took early retirement to become Governor of the Central Bank in 1961, a position he held until 1969. He spent the following decade working on two books: Currency and Central Banking in Ireland 1922-60, published in 1975; and Speeches and Statements by Eamon de Valera 1917-73, published in 1980. He maintained an interest in politics until almost the end and was heard to say forthrightly of the Supreme Court judgment on cabinet confidentiality that it was “all nonsense”.

CDfm

It has been claimed that DeV had Aspergers and Moynihan has him showing uncharacteristic empathy.


http://books.google.ie/books?id=eMunoqn0iU8C&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=eamon+valera+and+sex+and+affairs&source=bl&ots=NmzMpYfYoU&sig=oIvkR3LR48OpurNmfaSoq2zbDos&hl=en&ei=yDe1TfnyCIO1hAe23o3kDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

DeV became the establishment & Churchill called him Devil-Eire (though when the finally met got on like a house on fire.

Dwyer and Coogan argue that the way that De Valera was treated by successive British prime ministers does not indicate any secret deal. Dwyer added that Winston Churchill believed he was the devil, and pronounced his name “Devil-Eire” to imply it.
Tom Garvin, professor of politics at University College Dublin, said the book sounded like a distorted version of Irish history and rejected its central thesis as “utter nonsense”. He said the suggestion that De Valera was never put on trial after the Rising was rubbish, dismissing Turi’s assertion that a letter written in 1964 by William Wylie, a prosecuting officer, says no hearing took place.
“Wylie did not say anything of the sort. He says exactly the opposite [in his memoir]; that de Valera was condemned,” Garvin said.
The three historians say De Valera escaped execution after the Rising because the British needed to pacify Irish public opinion, and he was not seen as being of particular importance.
Eamon Ó Cuív, his grandson and the community and rural affairs minister, also dismissed the accusation: “The theory is ridiculous and so I have no further comment.”
Turi, a retired US marine married to an Irish woman, said he had expected Irish historians to disagree, but added: “The evidence is so obvious and readily available, it’s amazing to me that Irish writers never came to this conclusion.”
He decided to write the book having set out to research a Michael Collins biography, but soon finding that “every time De Valera popped up, it was a disaster for Ireland”.
The 470-page hardback will have an initial print run of 3,000 copies and go on sale in Ireland and the UK. Publishers plan to release it in America next year.
Charles Powell, the assistant editor of Stacey International, expects the book to sell well. He said the publishers had been slightly concerned by Turi’s theory, but were reassured by his research and referencing.
“We are convinced of the integrity of the work and try to publish books that raise debate and ask questions,” he said.
“A lot of people agree that the decisions de Valera took were counterproductive to the cause he was supposed to be supporting. Whether that was because he was a British spy or because they were just the decisions he made is more difficult to prove.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6898250.ece

I don't know about the Aspergers but DeV was very focused and the Trade War wirh Britain was a disaster.

A probable explanation for his regret is that he had to use the same tactics -internment & execution and expected his" orders" carried out. He needed policemen.

The "Home Rule" Party who adopted the peace and negotiation model had achieved independence which was delayed by the Great War and universal suffrage for men over 21 on women over 30 was introduced so it is arguable that DeV wanted power. He can hardly admit that the independence deal achieved is the same that the Moderate HR Party was in the throes of securing and had been passed by Parliment after 6 or so years of fighting. He got the same deal the moderates were getting.

Of course he is going to be sympathetic to the RIC in later life as he is the Pres and all power springs from him - constitutionally and mythically as the only surviving Commandant of 1916.

Was DeV a democrat ? Reluctantly I think post Civil War. Some of his behavior was like a Mafia Don/Godfather at times but there was a bit of a Franco in him too.

So yes he is going to approve of the hangman when he is the one doing the hanging -the same hangman the RIC used. That is logical.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I'd be curious too! Considering that de Valera died in 1975 it was quite a feat for him to be letting his feelings be known in the 1980s - ??

My understanding of this is that the book refered to was published in the 1980's, as opposed to a reincarnation of de Valera! As per ejmaztec post quote. It could be argued that publishing such a view after someones death is easy as they cannot reject it.

jonniebgood1

Regarding the program which my initial post link discussed I have a list of correspondences arguing over the contents:
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/corks-bloody-secret-a-small-dispute/

It does'nt answer the initial query but is interesting.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I

A probable explanation for his regret is that he had to use the same tactics -internment & execution and expected his" orders" carried out. He needed policemen.

The "Home Rule" Party who adopted the peace and negotiation model had achieved independence which was delayed by the Great War and universal suffrage for men over 21 on women over 30 was introduced so it is arguable that DeV wanted power. He can hardly admit that the independence deal achieved is the same that the Moderate HR Party was in the throes of securing and had been passed by Parliment after 6 or so years of fighting. He got the same deal the moderates were getting.

Of course he is going to be sympathetic to the RIC in later life as he is the Pres and all power springs from him - constitutionally and mythically as the only surviving Commandant of 1916.

Was DeV a democrat ? Reluctantly I think post Civil War. Some of his behavior was like a Mafia Don/Godfather at times but there was a bit of a Franco in him too.

So yes he is going to approve of the hangman when he is the one doing the hanging -the same hangman the RIC used. That is logical.

I think you seriously need to back up these opinions with some historical facts other than your own musings -

For one the Home Rule Bill of 1912 offered very little in the way of "independence" as has been pointed out on another thread about the Home Rule bills. The first statement in the Home Rule bill claims that the parliament of Great Britain has total control over Ireland and all Irish affairs.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Regarding the program which my initial post link discussed I have a list of correspondences arguing over the contents:
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/corks-bloody-secret-a-small-dispute/

It does'nt answer the initial query but is interesting.

DeValera admitted freely himself that as a young man he fought with war of Independence with passion - and as time went on that fervour changed into a more contemplative attitude. In his address to Churchill's outrageous charges against the Irish for WWII de Valera began his reply by saying that age had modified him as that "I know the answer I would have made" years ago.

It's not unusual for any one who lives a long life to temper their passions as time goes on - and for a more reflective mood to develop.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My understanding of this is that the book refered to was published in the 1980's, as opposed to a reincarnation of de Valera! As per ejmaztec post quote. It could be argued that publishing such a view after someones death is easy as they cannot reject it.

Yes, I knew that - but it was a strange statement to be allowed to go into print. Made me wonder about the entire article.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I think you seriously need to back up these opinions with some historical facts other than your own musings -

For one the Home Rule Bill of 1912 offered very little in the way of "independence" as has been pointed out on another thread about the Home Rule bills. The first statement in the Home Rule bill claims that the parliament of Great Britain has total control over Ireland and all Irish affairs.

I am not having a go at DeValera - what I am doing is putting him in the context of his time and I am not asserting that he was not progressive or stuck rigidly to positions -more that he adjusted his position over time given the circumstances he found himself in.

I am interested in this point and what was achieved by Collins & Griffiths do you care to expand.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I am interested in this point and what was achieved by Collins & Griffiths do you care to expand.

This was discussed on the thread "What Were The Differences between Home Rule and the Treaty" earlier this month. Here is my post on the first clause of the Home Rule Bill 1914.


And nationalists were concerned at how limited the power of the Irish parliament would be because the very first clause of the bill declared -

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish parliament or anything contained in this act, the supreme power and authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matter and things in Ireland and every part thereof".


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71569137&postcount=18

jonniebgood1

From this link it seems John Chinnery (as per OP) was one of the people killed in what are known as the 'Dunmanway killings'.

Next evening, two men (Robert Howe and John Chinnery) were shot dead at their farms in Ballaghanure, east of Dunmanway. In the nearby village of Ballineen, a 16 year-old, Alexander McKinley was shot dead.

http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/April%201922%20-%2026-28%20-%20dunmanway_massacre.htm
I am struggling to find any book links detailing these events in more detail

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

This was discussed on the thread "What Were The Differences between Home Rule and the Treaty" earlier this month. Here is my post on the first clause of the Home Rule Bill 1914.


And nationalists were concerned at how limited the power of the Irish parliament would be because the very first clause of the bill declared -

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish parliament or anything contained in this act, the supreme power and authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matter and things in Ireland and every part thereof".


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71569137&postcount=18

And how did the legislation compare to other "dominions" with their own Parlimemts - Aus. New Zealand etc ?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

And how did the legislation compare to other "dominions" with their own Parlimemts - Aus. New Zealand etc ?

The dominions that you mention were the result of massive plantations from the mother country and had traditions of seeking the protection and support of Westminster against the indigenous population - unlike India for example which retained a majority indigenous population and developed a more nationalist culture.

The issue for Ireland was that the Home Rule bill was a return to Poynings Law of 1494 which essentially meant that Ireland would only have a puppet parliament entirely controlled by Westminster. And nationalists knew this.

Poynings Law had not been overturned until The Repeal of the Declaratory Act of 1782 - and lasted until the Act of Union in 1800. In other words, The Home Rule Bill of 1912/14 wasn't even a return to the status of Ireland prior to the Act of Union.

CDfm

How much of that is opinion and how much is fact.

The British Parlimentary system had also changed and almost universal suffrage had been introduced.

You also have a independent crown protectorates and dominions -so the position was not static.

Another issue for me would have been Edward Coll's upbringing - he used his mothers family surname when he was brought up. I think the illegilitimacy thing is largely irrelevant. I had a distant relation a teacher & nun in New York and she is mentioned in local papers but there is no record of her otherwise.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/devalera.html

He wasn't inherently anti-English and his mother Catherine married an English Coachman named Charles Wheelwright.

What type of area did he grow up in.

Did any of his neighbours live in mudhuts etc ?

http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/Irish-Mud-Cabins/index.php

http://www.stpetersphibsboro.ie/a_history.htm

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

How much of that is opinion and how much is fact.

What do you mean? I was stating facts concerning the laws in Ireland and what the Home Rule law stated. Poynings Law - and the Declaratory Act which overturned it - are not based on opinion.

brianthebard

The DeValera Megathread, for all your DeV bashing needs!

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Another issue for me would have been Edward Coll's upbringing - he used his mothers family surname when he was brought up. I think the illegilitimacy thing is largely irrelevant. I had a distant relation a teacher & nun in New York and she is mentioned in local papers but there is no record of her otherwise.

There are photos available - I have some in books - of the home where de Valera was raised near Brubee Limerick. It's a small cottage type of home.
Maybe you can find a photo on the web? I had no luck when I searched.

I agree, the illegitimacy thing is total irrelevant. We all get here the same way! But it did cause de Valera some concern and probably affected him psychologically given the times - the Victorian age lived long. I do remember reading in one of his letters to his wife a mention of it and his concern about how his political enemies might use it.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

What do you mean? I was stating facts concerning the laws in Ireland and what the Home Rule law stated. Poynings Law - and the Declaratory Act which overturned it - are not based on opinion.

Tempus Fugit -different times.

Are you are saying that compared with other countries like Aus, Canada etc Ireland would have been treated differently or are you saying that there was no guarantee that it would not happen and that at that time it was actually a prudent assumption.

Do you have any precedents here ?

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Tempus Fugit -different times.

Are you are saying that compared with other countries like Aus, Canada etc Ireland would have been treated differently or are you saying that there was no guarantee that it would not happen and that at that time it was actually a prudent assumption.

Not saying treated differently - that's another topic. But the aspirations were different, like India Ireland had a strong majority indigenous population with a strong cultural identity and aspirations that differed from and were distrustful of imperial control.

Aside from the land grabs and plantations, the whole Poynings Law issue was fought over for centuries in the Dublin parliament. When the Catholic King James II summoned the Dublin parliament in 1689 one of the first acts taken was to repeal Poynings Law - it was a short lived victory as shortly afterwards under William and Mary it was re-instated. So for any informed nationalist with a knowledge of history going back to that in the early twentieth century would have seemed pointless.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

And how did the legislation compare to other "dominions" with their own Parlimemts - Aus. New Zealand etc ?

It was wasn't on the same level as the dominions at all it was sort of like what Northern Ireland and Scotland have now but with a couple of extra freedoms afaik.

MarchDub

I found this image of de Valera's childhood home in Bruree Limerick. I hope I have the url correct...

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Not saying treated differently - that's another topic. But the aspirations were different, like India Ireland had a strong majority indigenous population with a strong cultural identity and aspirations that differed from and were distrustful of imperial control.

............. So for any informed nationalist with a knowledge of history going back to that in the early twentieth century would have seemed pointless.

brianthebard wrote: »

It was wasn't on the same level as the dominions at all it was sort of like what Northern Ireland and Scotland have now but with a couple of extra freedoms afaik.

I don't know myself which is why I am asking and constotitional stuff & the League of Nations was DeV's bag.

So in looking at DeV what was on his shopping list.

Its OK to say that trust was 0 % .

The reason I am asking about what the conditions were that DeV grew up in etc might give us an idea of his motivations.

Take the universal suffrage out of the equation and pre-1918 only 1/3 of adult men and no women had the vote.

So the concept of democracy was not established but abject poverty and the power of wealth and "political patronage" was.