Free state soldiers killed in the Civil War.

Nhead

Prompted by another thread (and not wanting to derail it) I am curious to learn about how many Free State soldiers were killed in the Civil War? An old Professor of mine told a story that, even up to the sixties, in the Dail if things got heated between parties a cry would go up of 'remember the 77' but why don't we remember the 'other' side so to speak? Just to note (and with all due respect to those executed) I am aware of Ballyseady etc as these loom large in our historiography however there is a memorial to Ballyseady but not to the ambush at Knocknagoshel, if we can, can we not let this descend into tit for tat.

CDfm

It is also difficult to get details of civilian deaths in the period for the War of Independence and Civil War.

I read somewhere that DeValera counselled Sean Lemass on the death of his brother.

Nhead

CDfm wrote: »

It is also difficult to get details of civilian deaths in the period for the War of Independence and Civil War.

I read somewhere that DeValera counselled Sean Lemass on the death of his brother.

Unfortunately civilians are nearly always forgotten about. It just seems that with the Irish Civil War we only really remember one side.

Exile 1798

From wiki.

Deaths by status of victim Status

Civilian* 86
Pro-Treaty 346
Anti-Treaty 596
unknown status 30
Total 1,058

*Civilian casualties, may be far higher, casualties for the Dublin fighting are given as 250, but it is not clear how many of these were killed and how many wounded.

(Statistics are likely to be incomplete, Free State government sources stated that between 540 and 800 National Army soldiers were killed in the war. Historian Michael Hopkinson, in Green against Green, p272-3, states "There are no means by which to arrive at even approximate figures for the dead and wounded. Mulcahy stated that around 540 pro-Treaty troops were killed between the Treaty's signing and the war's end; the government referred to 800 army deaths between January 1922 and April 1924. There was no record of overall Republican deaths, which appear to have been very much higher. No figure exists for total civilian deaths.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Irish_Civil_War#Deaths_by_date

Nhead

Again, I find it odd that out of the numbers mentioned above, there is always a tendency for people to remember the 77 executed (there were actually 81 executed under the bill). I can understand, to an extent, that the executions were emotive and the memory of the people executed was probably used for political purposes. If you travel around Cork and Kerry you see plenty of monuments for the anti- treaty side. Are there many monuments anywhere in the country for the pro-treaty side?

Tiocfaidh Armani

Nhead wrote: »

Again, I find it odd that out of the numbers mentioned above, there is always a tendency for people to remember the 77 executed (there were actually 81 executed under the bill). I can understand, to an extent, that the executions were emotive and the memory of the people executed was probably used for political purposes. If you travel around Cork and Kerry you see plenty of monuments for the anti- treaty side. Are there many monuments anywhere in the country for the pro-treaty side?

Maybe because republicans want to honour their dead. Do the Free State actually care about their dead? It would look like the answer to that would be a negative.

It's funny how people got up in arms about the British executing the 1916 leaders yet hardly blinked an eye to 77 men being executed, seems strange.

Nhead

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Maybe because republicans want to honour their dead. Do the Free State actually care about their dead? It would look like the answer to that would be a negative.

It's funny how people got up in arms about the British executing the 1916 leaders yet hardly blinked an eye to 77 men being executed, seems strange.

Well I would argue that, by now, we should honour both sides and technically the Free State isn't in existence. I do think people more than blinked eyes over the executions (not the 81 mind just the 77) that is my point. Collectively and I stress the word collectively, we seem to forget that both sides in the civil war could be as ruthless as the British were seen in 1916.

Another reason I am bringing this up, is that soon enough we will be coming up to the major anniversaries of events. The Civil War will probably be the most difficult one. I think there will
be a want and a need to reconcile the different shades of republicanism that exist on the
island. Btw, I don't want this to turn into a political mud-sling. This isn't intended as an anti, anti- treaty thread.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Nhead wrote: »

Well I would argue that, by now, we should honour both sides and technically the Free State isn't in existence. I do think people more than blinked eyes over the executions (not the 81 mind just the 77) that is my point. Collectively and I stress the word collectively, we seem to forget that both sides in the civil war could be as ruthless as the British were seen in 1916.

I think when it came to utter brutality the Free State took the prize, but the reason I compare the 77 executions were because they were carried out by the states government of the time, a bit like what the British were in 1916. They could easily have imprisoned the men but inside decided to execute them.

Another reason I am bringing this up, is that soon enough we will be coming up to the major anniversaries of events. The Civil War will probably be the most difficult one. I think there will
be a want and a need to reconcile the different shades of republicanism that exist on the
island. Btw, I don't want this to turn into a political mud-sling. This isn't intended as an anti, anti- treaty thread.

Fair enough:)

jonniebgood1

Nhead wrote: »

Well I would argue that, by now, we should honour both sides and technically the Free State isn't in existence. I do think people more than blinked eyes over the executions (not the 81 mind just the 77) that is my point. Collectively and I stress the word collectively, we seem to forget that both sides in the civil war could be as ruthless as the British were seen in 1916.

Another reason I am bringing this up, is that soon enough we will be coming up to the major anniversaries of events. The Civil War will probably be the most difficult one. I think there will be a want and a need to reconcile the different shades of republicanism that exist on the island.

I think this is a similar situation to the Irish casualties in WWI. The people you describe most likely died fighting for the betterment of Ireland, yet not everyone would recognise this. The description in 'Commemorating the Irish Civil War: History and Memory, 1923-2000' by Anne Dolan is I think accurate. She says "To die in 1916, 1919, 1920 or 1921 was to die a martyr for old Ireland. To die in a free state uniform was to die a mere soldier." pg 125 http://books.google.com/books?id=iS_3r0vHMxsC&pg=PA126&dq=free+state+army+casualties&hl=en&ei=qUd7TtqTJImc-waHha0w&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
She goes on to give an explanation of why this may be the case making many very good observations: "payment does not always preclude ideals" as a retort to the often made accusation against the paid free state army. In other words there were free state soldiers who were fighting their side of the civil war because they believed it the right thing to do for Ireland. This leads into the fact that the free state soldiers also died for Ireland, its not just the preserve of republicans. Its an interesting take and I would tend to agree with it. I find that all aspects of the civil war are less well known than pre-treaty conflict.

ArphaRima

Our Civil War like all civil wars are generally not spoken about, even a few generations later. A nation depends on unity. Highlighting disunity is generally not part of the national curriculum.

I really am interested in this however. I am interested to know the total deaths over the course of the war, on both sides and of course civilians. Again though it may not have been in the nascent state's interest to publicise or make available these figures to anyone.

Exile 1798

Nhead wrote: »

Again, I find it odd that out of the numbers mentioned above, there is always a tendency for people to remember the 77 executed (there were actually 81 executed under the bill). I can understand, to an extent, that the executions were emotive and the memory of the people executed was probably used for political purposes. If you travel around Cork and Kerry you see plenty of monuments for the anti- treaty side. Are there many monuments anywhere in the country for the pro-treaty side?

There are monuments because they were built by and maintained by Republicans. I think on the Free State side the death of Michael Collins provided them with a single figurehead through which they naturally channelled all energy into, both politically and emotionally in terms of commemoration. In a way that is more effective then commemorating the 77 executed or the 500 - 900 anti-Treaty soldiers who fell. Those become mere statistics, but the visage of Collins will loom large in Ireland until history stops.

Nhead

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think this is a similar situation to the Irish casualties in WWI. The people you describe most likely died fighting for the betterment of Ireland, yet not everyone would recognise this. The description in 'Commemorating the Irish Civil War: History and Memory, 1923-2000' by Anne Dolan is I think accurate. She says "To die in 1916, 1919, 1920 or 1921 was to die a martyr for old Ireland. To die in a free state uniform was to die a mere soldier." pg 125 http://books.google.com/books?id=iS_3r0vHMxsC&pg=PA126&dq=free+state+army+casualties&hl=en&ei=qUd7TtqTJImc-waHha0w&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
She goes on to give an explanation of why this may be the case making many very good observations: "payment does not always preclude ideals" as a retort to the often made accusation against the paid free state army. In other words there were free state soldiers who were fighting their side of the civil war
because they believed it the right thing to do for Ireland. This leads into the fact that the free state soldiers also died for Ireland, its not just the preserve
of republicans. Its an interesting take and I would tend to agree with it. I find that all aspects of the civil war are less well known than pre-treaty conflict.

Yes I would agree also, I don't feel that those executed belong to one side, the Civil War represents a moment in Irish history, not just Republican history. The monuments to the 77 may have been erected by The National Graves Association but the memory doesn't belong to them alone. It shouldn't be about sides, or at least we should, as a nation start moving beyond that. Collins, of course looms large but then Collins was killed before the execution bill was in force, so it is easier to remember him. In ways I am not just talking about the physical commemoration but historiography, the way in which the country creates it's narrative and chooses the people we honour and those we forget.

Fratton Fred

fluffer wrote: »

Our Civil War like all civil wars are generally not spoken about, even a few generations later. A nation depends on unity. Highlighting disunity is generally not part of the national curriculum.

I really am interested in this however. I am interested to know the total deaths over the course of the war, on both sides and of course civilians. Again though it may not have been in the nascent state's interest to publicise or make available these figures to anyone.

I have a rather more cynical view.

The 1922 elections were overwhelmingly in favour of the pro treaty candidates (was it something like 95 seats out of 104 were pro treaty?).

Despite this, what was to become Fianna Fail put the country through a civil war that was bloodier than the war of independence.

Fianna Fail have effectively run this country for the vast majority of the time since, is there any great surprise that it is not talked about.

I have no doubt that an accurate figure could be put on the number of people (especially civilians) killed, but it is more convenient to sweep the whole thing under the mat.

Nhead

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have a rather more cynical view.

The 1922 elections were overwhelmingly in favour of the pro treaty candidates (was it something like 95 seats out of 104 were pro treaty?).

Despite this, what was to become Fianna Fail put the country through a civil war that was bloodier than the war of independence.

Fianna Fail have effectively run this country for the vast majority of the time since, is there any great surprise that it is not talked about.

I have no doubt that an accurate figure could be put on the number of people (especially civilians) killed, but it is more convenient to sweep the whole thing under the mat.

I think there is truth in that also Fred.

MarchDub

I'm not sure why there is a consensus on the thread - or is there? - that the civil war is being singled out as 'the forgotten war' and FF once again getting the blame. [Makes you wonder who voted for them for all those years].

I can remember at a time prior to the late 1960s troubles when the civil war was not so forgotten and talk about Michael Collins and the Free Staters and De Valera was common enough. And that was by the generation who lived through it all.

In fact it was only after NI became a hot bed of violence that ALL EVENTS surrounding independence, beginning with 1916, got swept under the carpet and 'forgotten' by just about all political parties. Remember the rather furtive 5 min laying of a wreath at the GPO in 1991 on the 75th Anniversary of 1916? God forbid that we would commemorate that.

johnny_doyle

the only publication I've come across yet giving casualty statistics is "County Wexford's Civil War" by Seamus Mac Suian. He has tried to list all FS, Executive Forces/IRA and civilians killed/died of wounds either in Co Wexford or from Co Wexford.

33 FS soldiers died in Wexford; 14 of whom were from Wexford. Of these 19 killed in action; 10 accidentally killed.

29 EF/IRA died in Wexford of whom 27 were from Wexford. Phillip Doyle was executed by EF/IRA for not following orders

13 civilians killed; 1 uncertain if linked to Co Wexford; 9 killed in Wexford.

There are a number of other "uncertains" owing to inaccurate reports, variations in name spellings, late registrations of deaths etc.

The book lists dates, names, ages, marital status of the casualties as well as where they are from.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I'm not sure why there is a consensus on the thread - or is there? - that the civil war is being singled out as 'the forgotten war' and FF once again getting the blame. [Makes you wonder who voted for them for all those years].

I can remember at a time prior to the late 1960s troubles when the civil war was not so forgotten and talk about Michael Collins and the Free Staters and De Valera was common enough. And that was by the generation who lived through it all.

In fact it was only after NI became a hot bed of violence that ALL EVENTS surrounding independence, beginning with 1916, got swept under the carpet and 'forgotten' by just about all political parties. Remember the rather furtive 5 min laying of a wreath at the GPO in 1991 on the 75th Anniversary of 1916? God forbid that we would commemorate that.

That is interesting MD. Is it possible to summarise what the thoughts on the civil war were amongst the people who lived through it?

I wouldnt call it 'forgotten', my impression of it is that it is purposely not remembered which is different. Notwithstanding the various reasons for this I would be interested in whether the civil war was as widely discussed as the war of independence pre the NI troubles. Do you think that discussion of the civil war is as prominent in historical consideration as the 1916 rising or the war of independence. I do not think so- its rarely mentioned on this forum for example and seldom mentioned in History Ireland in comparison with the mentioned events.

Nhead

MarchDub wrote: »

I'm not sure why there is a consensus on the thread - or is there? - that the civil war is being singled out as 'the forgotten war' and FF once again getting the blame. [Makes you wonder who voted for them for all those years].

I can remember at a time prior to the late 1960s troubles when the civil war was not so forgotten and talk about Michael Collins and the Free Staters and De Valera was common enough. And that was by the generation who lived through it all.

In fact it was only after NI became a hot bed of violence that ALL EVENTS surrounding independence, beginning with 1916, got swept under the carpet and 'forgotten' by just about all political parties. Remember the rather furtive 5 min laying of a wreath at the GPO in 1991 on the 75th Anniversary of 1916? God forbid that we would commemorate that.

Personally, I was only making a comment on the Free State Army and commemoration, I don't think The Civil War is forgotten. I agree with your statement though that the state stopped commemorating 1916 etc. You'll have to forgive me I'm a seventies child I can 't remember the 60s

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That is interesting MD. Is it possible to summarise what the thoughts on the civil war were amongst the people who lived through it?

I agree entirely that it wasn't in fact 'forgotten' that is why I put the word in inverted quotes - there was a selective amnesia about the whole of the recent Irish past after the outbreak of the NI troubles.

This is my memory - and this is what you asked for - so it is personal observation only.

The civil war was part of the whole experience in the fight for Independence. The generation who lived through it - although a majority supported the Treaty and we can see this from the ballot box nevertheless did not entirety reject De Valera's position either. It was not a clear cut decision to be 100% on one side or another on that point for the general public. Not talking about combatants here.

What I mean by that is aspirationally [and I want to stress this] many who voted for the Treaty and peace also understood the opposition to the Treaty because few thought that the border and allegiance to the King were anything else but wrongful impositions by the British who just refused to leave the island. They lived through the border going up - many would say, “we had to see it in the newspapers to check where it was”. It was not a natural line for them at all.

Collins was viewed with much love, respect and reverence for his leadership in the war of Independence and his death was a huge tragedy and loss. But De Valera - and this is a very clear memory of mine - had all the magic of having taken a stand, albeit in vain as regards the Treaty, against the British. They were both two sides of one coin - the fight for freedom - and people saw this IMO. The common enemy was without.

I can remember going to political rallies with my father in the 1950s and De Valera would appear on the scene - usually towards the end- to almost hysterical cheers and chants that would sometimes end in song. He was the embodiment of the spirit of 1916 to that generation. He had nothing to hide or apologise about - his stand in 1916, and in the independence fight and establishing the first Dail were all part of the aura. His position in the civil war was not necessarily seen as a negative, - just viewed as his ‘excessive love’ of country as Yeats phrased it, as hard as that might be now to understand.

The country was much more proudly nationalist then. There was a strong sense amongst that generation of having achieved independence. In 1968 when the Taoiseach Jack Lynch went on TV to make a statement about what we could all see was a breakdown in law and order in NI surrounding the civil right marches and said 'we will not stand by' he had just about the whole country with him. I remember being at a lunch table and everyone there was expressing the willingness ‘to go’ with Lynch. Talk of the UN coming in on the Irish side was rife. But of course it all came to nothing – and the terrible violence that took so many innocent lives was the actual legacy. And then we all decided to ‘forget’ how independence was actually won.