Treaty: 90 Years ago today.

salutations

The Treaty was signed 90 years ago today and havent seen anything planned on TV for it. Would have been an ideal opportunity for RTE to show The Treaty with Brendan Gleeson. What a film that was, would love to see it again. Does anyone know why RTE have buried this so deep? I can't recall them ever showing it again after it was first shown in the early 90's. God knows they recycle enough rubbish on there.

There is this exhibition though, must check this out soon.
http://treaty.nationalarchives.ie/

dubhthach

salutations wrote: »

The Treaty was signed 90 years ago today and havent seen anything planned on TV for it. Would have been an ideal opportunity for RTE to show The Treaty with Brendan Gleeson. What a film that was, would love to see it again. Does anyone know why RTE have buried this so deep? I can't recall them ever showing it again after it was first shown in the early 90's. God knows they recycle enough rubbish on there.

There is this exhibition though, must check this out soon.
http://treaty.nationalarchives.ie/

I believe you can watch it on youtube, great piece of TV that's for sure. Collins said the treaty was a "stepping-stone" he was proven right in long run. Of course the loss of both him an Griffith no doubt had a major effect on the first 40 years of the state.

salutations

dubhthach wrote: »

I believe you can watch it on youtube, great piece of TV that's for sure. Collins said the treaty was a "stepping-stone" he was proven right in long run. Of course the loss of both him an Griffith no doubt had a major effect on the first 40 years of the state.

Youre dead right, it is on Youtube in full. Havent looked for it for ages, it was added last Feb. Quality isnt great but better than nothing, happy days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyTUy_c58U

jonniebgood1

the Irish delegation agreed to sign the ‘Articles of Agreement’ just after two o’clock on the morning of 6 December. Collins later wrote to his friend John O’Kane:

“When you have sweated, toiled, had mad dreams, hopeless nightmares, you find yourself in London’s streets, cold and dank in the night air. Think—what have I got for Ireland? Something which she has wanted these past seven hundred years. Will anyone be satisfied at the bargain? Will anyone? I tell you this; early this morning I signed my death warrant. I thought at the time how odd , how ridiculous —a bullet may just as well have done the job five years ago”
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_Treaty_Negotiations_October-December_1921#14Conclusionthenegotiationsdrawtoaclose

Collins rightly predicted his downfall. After getting the British to the negotiating table it seems to me that the Irish delegation had to make compromises. Collins was proven correct in that it was a stepping stone to full independence but he was unable to prevent the division of the country.

Does the OP or anyone else think Collins, Griffith and co could have or should have demanded more. Did they push for all they could get in the negotiations?

drkpower

salutations wrote: »

Does anyone know why RTE have buried this so deep? I can't recall them ever showing it again after it was first shown in the early 90's. God knows they recycle enough rubbish on there.

Amen to that. I asked them in December 2008 if they were going to repeat it. N o sign yet.

I am in receipt of your e-mail.

I contacted our Archive Unit regarding your enquiry about "The Treaty".
According to our records this film was produced by Merlin Films Ltd for Thames Television and
RTÉ - as it is not wholly owned by RTÉ we would not have the rights to make copies of it.

However, I will log your request that RTÉ repeat this film at a future date.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Kind regards.
Bernie Fitzpatrick - RTÉ Information Officer.

dubhthach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Collins rightly predicted his downfall. After getting the British to the negotiating table it seems to me that the Irish delegation had to make compromises. Collins was proven correct in that it was a stepping stone to full independence but he was unable to prevent the division of the country.

Does the OP or anyone else think Collins, Griffith and co could have or should have demanded more. Did they push for all they could get in the negotiations?

It's an interesting question, some have argued they were out manouvered by the British team, given the people on the British side of negotians this isn't too surprising. Of course the Collins claimed that Lloyd George threatened "terrible and immediate war" if the treaty wasn't signed. Barton also mentioned the following:

At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement.

The IRA were basically a spent force by the time of the Truce, they were low on ammo etc. Collins having ran the "war effort" knew this. I think given the situation he took the only decision he could. Of course most of the "blow-hards" who stayed at home had no involvement in the day to day running of the war. For them it was easy to stand on sidelines and cast accusations of treachery.

One thing I think that would have perhaps turned out differently if Collins had lived was the "Boundary commission" after all it was him and Griffith who got it inserted into the Treaty. I have a feeling he would have taken a hardline position on it unlike the mess that ensured with MacNéill.

salutations

Having just watched most of The Treaty on You Tube (beware the ending is missing) it really shows well what was going on but especially how Griffith was out manoeuvred in the one on one meeting over the recognition of the north and as he gave a written undertaking he felt honour bound to live up to his promise. This is what ultimately trapped them but we have to remember the British delegation were some of the most experienced negotiators and political operators in the world at the time. Peter Harte’s book The Real Michael Collins gives a really good account of the intricacies of the treaty negotiations and he also illustrates well where Griffith got caught out. I think that they could really have got more on the north if Griffith hadn’t effectively recognised the existence of the northern state under Craig, after all at least two counties had Catholic majorities and others had huge Catholic populations. Surely they could have forced the hand of the British on this point. The British could never have argued that these people wanted to be part of the northern state and as has been mentioned if Collins had lived it seems likely he would have made the boundary commission a far more important issue than it became.
As regards the republic though there was simply no chance and it was just the diehards who refused to acknowledge this fact. Unfortunately and tragically these were also some of the most prominent members of the IRA which ensured a horrific civil war was unavoidable.
On another point I thought the actor who played Cathal Brugha was excellent, I’m well aware that himself and Collins despised each other but I wonder was Brugha really this much of hot head and how accurate was this actor’s depiction of him.
Gleeson was also excellent as Collins and apparently researched his mannerisms and accent with people who knew him. Pity he didn’t get to play him in the Hollywood version.

Fratton Fred

The Dail debate can be found here: http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.P.192112150080.html

I have pointed this to Griffith's opinion on the "threat" of war.

KeithAFC

salutations wrote: »

Having just watched most of The Treaty on You Tube (beware the ending is missing) it really shows well what was going on but especially how Griffith was out manoeuvred in the one on one meeting over the recognition of the north and as he gave a written undertaking he felt honour bound to live up to his promise. This is what ultimately trapped them but we have to remember the British delegation were some of the most experienced negotiators and political operators in the world at the time. Peter Harte’s book The Real Michael Collins gives a really good account of the intricacies of the treaty negotiations and he also illustrates well where Griffith got caught out. I think that they could really have got more on the north if Griffith hadn’t effectively recognised the existence of the northern state under Craig, after all at least two counties had Catholic majorities and others had huge Catholic populations. Surely they could have forced the hand of the British on this point. The British could never have argued that these people wanted to be part of the northern state and as has been mentioned if Collins had lived it seems likely he would have made the boundary commission a far more important issue than it became.
As regards the republic though there was simply no chance and it was just the diehards who refused to acknowledge this fact. Unfortunately and tragically these were also some of the most prominent members of the IRA which ensured a horrific civil war was unavoidable.
On another point I thought the actor who played Cathal Brugha was excellent, I’m well aware that himself and Collins despised each other but I wonder was Brugha really this much of hot head and how accurate was this actor’s depiction of him.
Gleeson was also excellent as Collins and apparently researched his mannerisms and accent with people who knew him. Pity he didn’t get to play him in the Hollywood version.

Collins did an excellent job to get as much as he could for Irish nationalists. He was never going to get the whole Island as one. Wasn't going to happen.

dubhthach

TG4 had a documentary on the treaty last night "An Conradh 1921" as part of their Anamnocht series (Anam = soul, nocht = naked/revealing), I only saw the second half of it but it was another quality production from TG4. It can be viewed on the TG4 player on their website.

I see the following quote on IFTN site:

"Speaking about the documentary executive producer Morgan Bushe (Other Side of Sleep, The Runway) at Fastnet Films said, “Andrew Gallimore has done an incredible job. He’s managed to unearth a ream of archive footage which has never being seen before on Irish television; coupled with the deeply personal first hand accounts. ‘An Conradh 1921’ succeeds in adding a whole new dimension for audiences that might already have knowledge of this time while also in my opinion making the definitive film on this period for a first time viewer"

jonniebgood1

KeithAFC wrote: »

Collins did an excellent job to get as much as he could for Irish nationalists. He was never going to get the whole Island as one. Wasn't going to happen.

Collins may have signed the Treaty but he certainly thought there was more to gain from ulster including a failed military tactice that I began to look at here
If getting the island as a whole was the most important objection then a different tactic would have been applied by the Irish delegation.

shanew

that TG4 documentary will repeated on Saturday at 19:15


S.

eire4

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Collins rightly predicted his downfall. After getting the British to the negotiating table it seems to me that the Irish delegation had to make compromises. Collins was proven correct in that it was a stepping stone to full independence but he was unable to prevent the division of the country.

Does the OP or anyone else think Collins, Griffith and co could have or should have demanded more. Did they push for all they could get in the negotiations?

I think Collins did a great job and his death was way beyond a tragedy for Ireland. He knew intimately the state of the IRA and was absolutely right about the treaty being just a stepping stone to full independance.
Lets face it DeValera would have been at the negotitaions if he felt we could get some kind of Republic or something similar. He knew that wasn't on and so he didn't go. I also feel that he was jealous of Collins and sent him just so that he could be the one who had to sign the imperfect treaty while he could stay off to the sidelines.

Fiatach

dubhthach wrote: »

I believe you can watch it on youtube, great piece of TV that's for sure. Collins said the treaty was a "stepping-stone" he was proven right in long run. Of course the loss of both him an Griffith no doubt had a major effect on the first 40 years of the state.

How was he proven right in the long run? Its 90 years later and we still have our independence denied by Britain. Some 'stepping stone' this turned out to be....

InchicoreDude

De Valera dismantled the treaty, and it gave freedom to 26 counties. Collins was proven right in his prediction that it was a stepping stone to freedom (Ironically it was De Valera that ended up proving him right). For example, Ireland would have been able to declare neutrality in WW2; this was an assertion if independence & freedom. So the treaty was a stepping stone!

I have always wondered what would have happened if Collins lived. People overlook that he was still was head of the IRB at the time of his death, and their mission was still to gain full freedom. From what I have read, Collins was putting a lot of faith into the Boundary Commission, and I cant imagine he would have accepted their findings in the way that his successors did. I think by then his successors were somewhat weary of war, and wanted to stay statesmen [And good ones they were]. But because Collins has put so much faith into the commission in the treaty debates, I think he might have pursued their findings a lot more......

I am curious also if De Valera would have established FF had Collins lived. I suspect he might not have, and that a reconciliation with Collins could have been a more likely outcome. Nothing to back that up though, just an opinion....

Fiatach

InchicoreDude wrote: »

De Valera dismantled the treaty, and it gave freedom to 26 counties. Collins was proven right in his prediction that it was a stepping stone to freedom (Ironically it was De Valera that ended up proving him right). For example, Ireland would have been able to declare neutrality in WW2; this was an assertion if independence & freedom. So the treaty was a stepping stone!

The British government designed the territory of the 26 county state so how can autonomy inside this state be described as 'freedom' when the extent of national freedom is limited by the British government. Ireland has not gained its freedom 90 years on.

InchicoreDude

Fiatach wrote: »

The British government designed the territory of the 26 county state so how can autonomy inside this state be described as 'freedom' when the extent of national freedom is limited by the British government. Ireland has not gained its freedom 90 years on.

Your point isnt logical; If Britain had 'designed' a 32 county state, would that mean Ireland still wasnt free????

Fiatach

InchicoreDude wrote: »

Your point isnt logical; If Britain had 'designed' a 32 county state, would that mean Ireland still wasnt free????

Considering Ireland consists of 32 counties and not 26, if freedom was given to Ireland, it would be free from British rule. Today Ireland is still unfree, 90 years on from the treaty.

jonniebgood1

Fiatach wrote: »

Considering Ireland consists of 32 counties and not 26, if freedom was given to Ireland, it would be free from British rule. Today Ireland is still unfree, 90 years on from the treaty.

If you want to go into things in this type of way what country is actually 'free'?

Would county Antrim be free if the Unionist majority there were a part of an Irish Republic?

And getting back to the treaty, what viable alternative was there?

Fiatach

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you want to go into things in this type of way what country is actually 'free'?

Would county Antrim be free if the Unionist majority there were a part of an Irish Republic?

And getting back to the treaty, what viable alternative was there?

County Antrim is a mere fragment of the Irish nation. This is the partitionist and apologist attitude for British rule handed down through the years, that you can ring fence in a certain area (usually unionist) in Ireland and claim it has a legitimate majority. The alternative was the all Ireland Republic already established in 1919. Britain engineered the two states to clamp down on the Republic and prevent Irish Freedom and their plan, unfortunately, is still working like a dream to this day.

owenc

Fiatach wrote: »

Considering Ireland consists of 32 counties and not 26, if freedom was given to Ireland, it would be free from British rule. Today Ireland is still unfree, 90 years on from the treaty.

I can tell you now that i am as free as i could possibly be. Infact i couldn't be even more free. Nonsense. And i won't be anymore free if i join the roi. Not that i will be.

owenc

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you want to go into things in this type of way what country is actually 'free'?

Would county Antrim be free if the Unionist majority there were a part of an Irish Republic?

And getting back to the treaty, what viable alternative was there?

No there would just be bloodshed i know this isn't a political forum but it was brought up. I don't think county antrim will ever join roi.

owenc

Fiatach wrote: »

County Antrim is a mere fragment of the Irish nation. This is the partitionist and apologist attitude for British rule handed down through the years, that you can ring fence in a certain area (usually unionist) in Ireland and claim it has a legitimate majority. The alternative was the all Ireland Republic already established in 1919. Britain engineered the two states to clamp down on the Republic and prevent Irish Freedom and their plan, unfortunately, is still working like a dream to this day.

What a pile of tripe. Britain is doing nothing. Once again you republicans are in a mind of your own. Sinn fien have been let do anything they wanted. We are not gerrymandering anything. The people of antrim are unionist not nationalists the votes are not gerrymandered so stop saying that.

owenc

Fiatach wrote: »

How was he proven right in the long run? Its 90 years later and we still have our independence denied by Britain. Some 'stepping stone' this turned out to be....

"WE"... sorry wtf are you talking about? "WE" as in you in Northern Ireland? Your not from Northern Ireland. You live in the republic of ireland state independent of britain. You are not from northern ireland you cannot say that you don't have independence when you do and if you are trying to say that "WE" as in northern ireland is your place; well sorry but no it is not. Northern Ireland belongs to us we will make the decisions not you. Thanks but no thanks! If you want to try it out i'll leave to you but don't expect it to get along fine because it won't.

Fiatach

owenc wrote: »

"WE"... sorry wtf are you talking about? "WE" as in you in Northern Ireland? Your not from Northern Ireland. You live in the republic of ireland state independent of britain. You are not from northern ireland you cannot say that you don't have independence when you do and if you are trying to say that "WE" as in northern ireland is your place; well sorry but no it is not. Northern Ireland belongs to us we will make the decisions not you. Thanks but no thanks! If you want to try it out i'll leave to you but don't expect it to get along fine because it won't.

I'm talking about Ireland as a national unit. I'm not going to exclude any part of Ireland, not even the northern part you live in.

R.Dub.Fusilier

owenc wrote: »

"WE"... sorry wtf are you talking about? "WE" as in you in Northern Ireland? Your not from Northern Ireland. You live in the republic of ireland state independent of britain. You are not from northern ireland you cannot say that you don't have independence when you do and if you are trying to say that "WE" as in northern ireland is your place; well sorry but no it is not. Northern Ireland belongs to us we will make the decisions not you. Thanks but no thanks! If you want to try it out i'll leave to you but don't expect it to get along fine because it won't.

sorry for going off topic . from what i can see on this forum you go unchecked with you Ulster unionist / loyalist sh++e. all the 36 counties are Irish and in case you cant count that includes the six counties of ulster under British rule. you are living on stolen land , even if your family bought their land 200 years ago . it wasstolen then and its stolen now. if you hurry little boy you can catch the end of "Willy wonka" on UTV.

jonniebgood1

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

sorry for going off topic . from what i can see on this forum you go unchecked with you Ulster unionist / loyalist sh++e. all the 36 counties are Irish and in case you cant count that includes the six counties of ulster under British rule. you are living on stolen land , even if your family bought their land 200 years ago . it wasstolen then and its stolen now. if you hurry little boy you can catch the end of "Willy wonka" on UTV.

If you have a problem with a post you should report it. Not reply in this manner. There is no need for taunting- i.e. the Willy wonka reference. To imply childishness on another poster and then follow it with a childish retort is unnessesary.
It would be better in this case to simply challenge the points that you disagree with. This would be of interest to many users.

If anybody has an issue with this they should PM me
Moderator.

owenc

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

sorry for going off topic . from what i can see on this forum you go unchecked with you Ulster unionist / loyalist sh++e. all the 36 counties are Irish and in case you cant count that includes the six counties of ulster under British rule. you are living on stolen land , even if your family bought their land 200 years ago . it wasstolen then and its stolen now. if you hurry little boy you can catch the end of "Willy wonka" on UTV.

erm... ok................. that was odd.

Fratton Fred

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

sorry for going off topic . from what i can see on this forum you go unchecked with you Ulster unionist / loyalist sh++e. all the 36 counties are Irish and in case you cant count that includes the six counties of ulster under British rule. you are living on stolen land , even if your family bought their land 200 years ago . it wasstolen then and its stolen now. if you hurry little boy you can catch the end of "Willy wonka" on UTV.

Would you mind proving that Owen stole the land he is on now?

dubhthach

[Mod]
Folks stay on topic -- The Treaty -- debates on land ownership and claims of theft etc are not relevant. If needs be I'll lock the thread.
[/Mod]

MarchDub

Guys IMO the forum – and this thread - has veered far away from any pertinent or valid historicity. Or indeed any knowledge or understanding as to how history – the actual historic record - is understood or validated. Statements are being made without any reference to primary sources which just makes such claims random uninformed opinions and not based on the known historic record.


To take or quote one statement of Collins out of context is to render it useless as regards a valuable historic discussion. Collins said many things about the Treaty both on the Dail record, in his own writings and in letters and also – to address the issue of broader historic topics that have found their way into the discussion – he very much placed the issue of the Treaty within the entire context of the Irish experience going back 700 years. You can’t isolate a moment in history and treat it like it happened in a vacuum. And you can’t have a valid historic discussion and analysis without giving your primary sources for your claims.


Otherwise – no surprise - you end up with a bar room debate and brawling. And that’s not my understanding of the H&H forum rules or ethos.

CDfm

And, the founders of the state made a distinction between the Irish nation and the state at a time when the concepts and principles of democracy were being tried out in Europe. They did not always agree but understood the distinctions.

+1 on what MD has posted , H&H used to be a fine forum and a very historically literate forum without having intellectual pretentions.

Just because you are discussing the past does not make it history as real history is backed by primary sources, secondary sources and their interpretation.

While politics is part of history, history is not politics and it is not history to take things out of their historical context.

You cannot have a proper history discussion if people wont respect the historiography or the methodology of history as a discipline and that means being open minded when the facts are not those that you would have liked them to have been.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Guys IMO the forum – and this thread - has veered far away from any pertinent or valid historicity. Or indeed any knowledge or understanding as to how history – the actual historic record - is understood or validated. Statements are being made without any reference to primary sources which just makes such claims random uninformed opinions and not based on the known historic record.


To take or quote one statement of Collins out of context is to render it useless as regards a valuable historic discussion. Collins said many things about the Treaty both on the Dail record, in his own writings and in letters and also – to address the issue of broader historic topics that have found their way into the discussion – he very much placed the issue of the Treaty within the entire context of the Irish experience going back 700 years. You can’t isolate a moment in history and treat it like it happened in a vacuum. And you can’t have a valid historic discussion and analysis without giving your primary sources for your claims.


Otherwise – no surprise - you end up with a bar room debate and brawling. And that’s not my understanding of the H&H forum rules or ethos.

CDfm wrote: »

And, the founders of the state made a distinction between the Irish nation and the state at a time when the concepts and principles of democracy were being tried out in Europe. They did not always agree but understood the distinctions.

+1 on what MD has posted , H&H used to be a fine forum and a very historically literate forum without having intellectual pretentions.

Just because you are discussing the past does not make it history as real history is backed by primary sources, secondary sources and their interpretation.

While politics is part of history, history is not politics and it is not history to take things out of their historical context.

You cannot have a proper history discussion if people wont respect the historiography or the methodology of history as a discipline and that means being open minded when the facts are not those that you would have liked them to have been.

You will note that both posts quoted come directly after a request to stay on topic. The point being that as moderators we are seeking to keep the forum on track. However it is perfectly valid to ask questions of the forum and as such I have moved the posts from the other thread to feedback at this link