How successful were the Anglo - Irish Treaty negotiations?

iamanengine

I am interested in how successful were the Anglo - Irish Treaty negotiations and couldn't find much online, just wondering whats your thoughts on this?

Also try keep it bias and controversy free

Victor

Well, they ended with a treaty, so they were successful!

However, in determining whether it was successful or not, one has to look at the motivations of the various groups - the British government, those who ultimately came down as pro- or anti-treaty, the unionists and those ordinary people who just wanted life to return to normal after 7 years of war - ultimately Ireland had experience of war from 1914 to 1923.

jonniebgood1

As Victor points out success is relative to which participant being referred to and their expectations.

So the measure of success is different for all participants and should also be extended to some non- participants. Relevant parties would be nationalists (who can be subsequently divided), Unionists (can be divided in terms of north and south), British government, etc.

iamanengine

Actually very good point, i hadn't thought about it like that. I was viewing from mainly just De Valera's side and it's involvement with causing the Civil War. Although I suppose there were many different sides to it, each gaining something but generally not enough or what they wanted. So I suppose you would have to consider its success in terms of the Unionists, British, Pro - Treaty and Anti - Treaty...hmm, interesting.

Powerhouse

From the Irish perspective they could hardly have been considered successful since a Civil War began over the Treaty which was on the cards when just four votes the other way would have swung the Dáil vote on the matter. That one of the signatories of the Treaty ultimately fought on the anti-Treaty side in that conflict is surely the most damning indictment (if largely unrealised by many) of the Treaty.

You will find little enough serious analysis/debate of the Treaty in Irish histories as most tend to take the hugely conservative view that signing the Treaty almost irrespective of its content was the only show in town. Historians tend to be fond of Cumann na nGaedheal too.

Powerhouse

iamanengine wrote: »

So I suppose you would have to consider its success in terms of the Unionists, British, Pro - Treaty and Anti - Treaty...hmm, interesting.

Not much point in considering it in terms of pro-treaty and anti-treaty views regarding its success as the former will always have seen it as a success (indeed defence of the treaty above all else became a motif of the CnaG government) while the others naturally abhorred it. Better to consider it in terms of the country as a whole.

Ireland spent a couple of decades dealing with the fallout from the Treaty. Could that have been avoided by a better settlement at the time? Unfortunately this view generally gets buried under the riposte that there was no other option. However the no-other-option view this also implies the inevitability of Civil War as Collins' comment about having signed his death warrant when he signed the Treaty tacitly acknowledged.

secondopinion

Powerhouse wrote: »

Not much point in considering it in terms of pro-treaty and anti-treaty views regarding its success as the former will always have seen it as a success (indeed defence of the treaty above all else became a motif of the CnaG government) while the others naturally abhorred it. Better to consider it in terms of the country as a whole.

Ireland spent a couple of decades dealing with the fallout from the Treaty. Could that have been avoided by a better settlement at the time? Unfortunately this view generally gets buried under the riposte that there was no other option. However the no-other-option view this also implies the inevitability of Civil War as Collins' comment about having signed his death warrant when he signed the Treaty tacitly acknowledged.

What would a better settlement have looked like in your opinion?

jonniebgood1

As per previous comments a 'better solution' would differ depending on which sides viewpoint used. There may be some common ground though in suggesting a treaty that did not result in civil war would be better for all of the Islands occupants.

secondopinion

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As per previous comments a 'better solution' would differ depending on which sides viewpoint used. There may be some common ground though in suggesting a treaty that did not result in civil war would be better for all of the Islands occupants.

And what might the nature of such a treaty have been?

iamanengine

Well Lloyd George didn't really give Collins or Griffith much of a chance to try hash out a better deal seeing as he threatened 'immediate and terrible' war. Although he may have been bluffing. The Treaty itself may have been o.k. had the boundary commission actually done something. I would have thought the only real successors would have been the Unionists as they kept a partitioned state although the treaty may have contributed to the troubles but that's besides the point.

jonniebgood1

iamanengine wrote: »

Well Lloyd George didn't really give Collins or Griffith much of a chance to try hash out a better deal seeing as he threatened 'immediate and terrible' war. Although he may have been bluffing. The Treaty itself may have been o.k. had the boundary commission actually done something. I would have thought the only real successors would have been the Unionists as they kept a partitioned state although the treaty may have contributed to the troubles but that's besides the point.

Would an 'immediate and terrible war' with the British have been worse than a civil war?
From a Unionist point of view their main stronghold in the north east remained in the union with Britain. However for a large swathe of Unionists spread out over the rest of Ireland it was not a success. The following table can be interpreted in different ways:
from http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html#decline_roi

And in the immediate years around the time of the treaty:

The relative Protestant population fell sharply (by over 30%) between 1911 to 1926

Interpretations for this decline vary alot depending on the source. Some people put it down to mundane and acceptable population movements while others would suggest they were hunted out in a form of ethnic cleansing. I would imagine the truth is somewhere in between.

Victor

Powerhouse wrote: »

From the Irish perspective they could hardly have been considered successful since a Civil War began over the Treaty which was on the cards

Continuing the war of independence would have meant war. Forcing the unionists into home rule would have meant war. What do you suggest?

when just four votes the other way would have swung the Dáil vote on the matter.

But it didn't go the other way.

That one of the signatories of the Treaty ultimately fought on the anti-Treaty side in that conflict is surely the most damning indictment (if largely unrealised by many) of the Treaty.

Who? Surely it is an indictment of that person, not the treaty.

You will find little enough serious analysis/debate of the Treaty in Irish histories as most tend to take the hugely conservative view that signing the Treaty almost irrespective of its content was the only show in town.

What were the other options? Continuing a war?

dmcronin

Hmm, damned if we did sign it and damned if we didn't.

Fratton Fred

iamanengine wrote: »

Well Lloyd George didn't really give Collins or Griffith much of a chance to try hash out a better deal seeing as he threatened 'immediate and terrible' war. Although he may have been bluffing. The Treaty itself may have been o.k. had the boundary commission actually done something. I would have thought the only real successors would have been the Unionists as they kept a partitioned state although the treaty may have contributed to the troubles but that's besides the point.

Lloyd George did not threaten war, he warned of it.

You will need to reed this and the following pages http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/D/DT/D.P.192112150079.html

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lloyd George did not threaten war, he warned of it.

Is there a difference?

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is there a difference?

Yes.

iamanengine

Threatened war and warned war sounds like the exact same thing to me. Either he said i'm warning you if you don't sign there will be war or sign or there will be war. Whats the difference? That is an interesting graph though, seriously significant decline, i'd put it down more to population movement then an ethnic cleansing..but maybe. Also i'm almost sure it was Barton who fought on the anti treaty and he was one of the plenipotentiaries.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes.

A man of few words Fred?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lloyd George did not threaten war, he warned of it.

There is no difference of any significance between these. The end result is the same thing so arguing over words is pedantic as all parties involved understood this.

Fratton Fred

There is no difference as to the outcome, but it is more than semantics.

Lloyd George did not threaten to declare all out war if the treaty was not signed. Arthur Griffith makes it clear what the delegation understood him to have meant.

In Northern Ireland there was a steadily worsening situation with regards tit for tat violence and it was that situation getting out of hand that was the real back drop and neither party wanted that.

There were effectively three parties in the negotiations, not two.

secondopinion

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no difference as to the outcome, but it is more than semantics.

Lloyd George did not threaten to declare all out war if the treaty was not signed. Arthur Griffith makes it clear what the delegation understood him to have meant.

In Northern Ireland there was a steadily worsening situation with regards tit for tat violence and it was that situation getting out of hand that was the real back drop and neither party wanted that.

There were effectively three parties in the negotiations, not two.

Thanks for that Fred. Irish amateur historians tend to ignore the third party (that was literally armed to the teeth) in their 'analysis'.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

when just four votes the other way would have swung the Dáil vote on the matter.

But it didn't go the other way.

Thinking this further, if the anti-treaty side had been subjected to the all-Ireland vote that they would have (claimed they) wanted, they would have lost somewhere by somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1.

Batsy

iamanengine wrote: »

Threatened war and warned war sounds like the exact same thing to me.

Lloyd George warned of war, not threatened it.

Lloyd George wanted peace. That's why he wanted the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was designed to end the Anglo-Irish War, to be ratified.

But he was scared that a resumption of hositilities may have come about by those who were against peace if the Treaty was not ratified immediately.

It was actually Michael Collins who started the myth that Lloyd George threatened war. I don't know if he was genuinely mistaken or he disgracefully and deliberately made Lloyd George's statement mean something that it didn't to make him loook like some sort of bloodthirsty tyrant.

In reality, Lloyd George's statement was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, merely a reflection of the reality

Robert Barton noted that:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Still, Irish nationalists don't like the truth to get in the way. Just a quick Google of the words "immediate and terrible war" will bring up loads of websites written by Irish nationalists like Sinn Fein and ignorant "Irish Americans" which state things like "the terrorist Brits threatened immediate and terrible war...."

Of course, the reality was very different.

Rebelheart

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Would an 'immediate and terrible war' with the British have been worse than a civil war?
From a Unionist point of view their main stronghold in the north east remained in the union with Britain. However for a large swathe of Unionists spread out over the rest of Ireland it was not a success. The following table can be interpreted in different ways:
from http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html#decline_roi

And in the immediate years around the time of the treaty:


Interpretations for this decline vary alot depending on the source. Some people put it down to mundane and acceptable population movements while others would suggest they were hunted out in a form of ethnic cleansing. I would imagine the truth is somewhere in between.

Using the notorious Wesley Johnston site as a historical source for interpreting the figures relating to the Protestant population in the 26 counties does not bode well for your views on this issue. It has long been discredited for two principal and very obvious reasons: WW I deaths of Protestants and the removal of over 100,000 members of the British military garrison in the 26 Counties by 6 December 1922. Neither of these get a look-in with Johnston - the decline is all due to some iniquitous "Home Rule is Rome Rule" policy of the nascent state.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Using the notorious Wesley Johnston site as a historical source for interpreting the figures relating to the Protestant population in the 26 counties does not bode well for your views on this issue. It has long been discredited for two principal and very obvious reasons: WW I deaths of Protestants and the removal of over 100,000 members of the British military garrison in the 26 Counties by 6 December 1922. Neither of these get a look-in with Johnston - the decline is all due to some iniquitous "Home Rule is Rome Rule" policy of the nascent state.

What are you on about- The table quoted gives figures and does not mention any of the items you have just brought into the equation. Neither does it claim not to include WWI deaths, it simply reproduces census figures. Is use of census figures not allowed!

Rebelheart

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What are you on about- The table quoted gives figures and does not mention any of the items you have just brought into the equation. Neither does it claim not to include WWI deaths, it simply reproduces census figures. Is use of census figures not allowed!

Johnston's website is dedicated to fringe unionist theories about the reasons for "Protestant Decline in the Republic of Ireland" (back in the old days he was calling it the "Irish Republic" so he's getting smarter in his presentation anyway). He has been at it for years. His thesis revolves around the Arlene Foster/Robin Bury thesis from the 1990s that all these Protestants were "ethnically cleansed" from the 26 Counties between 1911 and 1925 and that, surprise surprise, this interpretation of the figures just proves why a united Ireland is a threat to Protestantism. He mentions "intimidation", he mentions "discrimination" and much more. That he never once in all his analysis (mar dhea) mentions the removal of the massive British garrison from the 26 counties as a huge cause of that decline speaks to his agenda. He's also a big fan of Robin Bury and the nutcase "Reform Movement" who want special treatment for being British nationalists in Ireland. Jesus wept.

As such, anything which appears on Wesley Johnston's website under the guise of "statistics" relating to Irish history should be treated with caution.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

............

As such, anything which appears on Wesley Johnston's website under the guise of "statistics" relating to Irish history should be treated with caution.

As stated the figures in the table are based on Census figures.

jonniebgood1

Batsy wrote: »

Lloyd George warned of war, not threatened it.

Lloyd George wanted peace. That's why he wanted the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was designed to end the Anglo-Irish War, to be ratified.

But he was scared that a resumption of hositilities may have come about by those who were against peace if the Treaty was not ratified immediately.

It was actually Michael Collins who started the myth that Lloyd George threatened war. I don't know if he was genuinely mistaken or he disgracefully and deliberately made Lloyd George's statement mean something that it didn't to make him loook like some sort of bloodthirsty tyrant.

In reality, Lloyd George's statement was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, merely a reflection of the reality

Robert Barton noted that:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty

Still, Irish nationalists don't like the truth to get in the way. Just a quick Google of the words "immediate and terrible war" will bring up loads of websites written by Irish nationalists like Sinn Fein and ignorant "Irish Americans" which state things like "the terrorist Brits threatened immediate and terrible war...."

Of course, the reality was very different.

Myth???
The notes by Barton from the meetings are availiable on the Department of foreign affairs website and it seems pretty clear:

LLOYD GEORGE stated that he had always taken it that Arthur Griffith spoke for the Delegation, that we were all plenipotentiaries and that it was now a matter of peace or war and we must each of us make up our minds. He required that every delegate should sign the document and recommend it, or there was no agreement. He said that they as a body had hazarded their political future and we must do likewise and take the same risks. At one time he 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.

He then produced two letters one of which he said he must that night send to Craig. One was a covering letter to H.M. Government's proposals for the future relations of Ireland and Great Britain and stated that the Irish Delegation had agreed to recommend them for acceptance by Dail Eireann. The other stated that the Irish Delegation had failed to come to an agreement with H.M. Government and therefore he had no proposals to send to Craig. http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=213

Victor

Rebelheart wrote: »

notorious Wesley Johnston

Really? Any time I've looked, I've seen a neutral to nationalist view point on it.

But in the meantime:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0220/1224312052744.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0319/1224313529074.html

Rebelheart

Victor wrote: »

Really? Any time I've looked, I've seen a neutral to nationalist view point on it.

But in the meantime:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0220/1224312052744.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0319/1224313529074.html

Having read his website since it first started it's disingenuous to deny his pro-British nationalist political bias. As I've pointed out above, his "discussion" of the reasons for Protestant decline in the 26 Counties deliberately omits mention of the two major factors in that decline, WWI and the withdrawal of the British war machine. Many years ago I emailed him with a slew of academic sources with figures regarding the above two issues, particularly the importance of the withdrawal of the British military garrison and their families to the number of Protestants in the 26 Counties. These reputable and widely available academic references never made an appearance in his "discussion". Rather, he seeks to apportion responsibility for the decline on sectarian factors primarily.

Your links in no way support his central "ethnic cleansing" thesis as the explanation of Protestant decline. One swallow doesn't make a summer, etc.

franc 91

What's even more incredible about this is, that later on (during the World War Two) Churchill actually offered a United Ireland to Dev with the apparent approval of some of the Unionists, which he then refused for his own political reasons. It's all explained there in one of the programmes - The Limits of Liberty - by Diarmuid Ferriter.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

But how typical that once again the poster who goes around this website shouting "Mick" and "Paddy" at Irish posters would introduce sectarianism into things and equate all Protestants with people who hold his own anti-Irish, xenophobic rightwing views.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not anti Irish at mate, I just don't like arseholes.

If you 2 have a problem with each other you should deal with it by PM. If it continues on this forum there will be bans issued. Please heed this warning.

Moderator.

Judgement Day

I'm not quite sure how the withdrawal of the British military presence would have affected the census returns given that prior to the War of Independence the bulk of that presence would have been Irish regiments largely made up from the RC population.

The Roman Catholic "Ne Temere" requirement for a non-Catholic spouse to agree to educate and raise his/her children as Roman Catholics would also have had a serious affect on Protestant numbers. In some cases it was also expected for that spouse to convert to Catholicism before the marriage, to ensure compliance.

Protestants who had served in the RIC also would have been under serious pressure to get out - some of my own family went to the USA for this reason. Other members of the family never felt at home in the new State and went back to England despite having been here for generations.