Collins Revisionism

Chazz Michael Michaels

Just read an article by VB on Collins where he alludes to the idea that Collin's may have had pseudo-dictatorial ambitions:

Collins might well wonder at Kenny's sorry State

VINCENT BROWNE

Wed, Aug 22, 2012

MICHAEL COLLINS, one of the founders of the State, was assassinated 90 years ago today at Béal na Blá. Because at the time of his death he was the driving force in the newly independent Ireland, his central role in the War of Independence, and his relative youth (aged 31) at the time of his death, he has become a cult figure. His extraordinary energy, his organisational abilities, his charisma remain celebrated. Less acknowledged are serious misgivings concerning him.

Those misgivings arise in the main from his involvement in the secret oath-bound Irish Republican Brotherhood (the IRB). He had become president of that organisation in the summer of 1919 and, in the ideology of that movement, thereby had become “President of the Irish Republic”, outside the ambit of the new State he had been instrumental in creating.

He used that position secretly to win control of the IRA during the War of Independence and he continued to use that role to wage a secret war on the new entity, Northern Ireland, that had been created almost simultaneously with the emergence of the new Irish State. In so doing he was acting behind the backs of his closest colleagues, including Arthur Griffith and WT Cosgrave.

A historian, John Regan, now of Dundee University, has claimed: “The reorganisation of the Brotherhood was part of Collins’s desire to centralise power in himself. He had taken over military power at his own request, becoming Commander-in-Chief of the army at the beginning of July.

“At the same time he remained firmly in control of the civil government with Cosgrave acting as his deputy-cum-amanuensis in the cabinet . . . All sources of power led back to Collins within the regime . . . With Griffith’s death on August 12th (1922) and with no parliament to account to, Collins, for better or worse, assumed dictatorial powers within the new regime.”

Martin Mansergh, the historian and former Fianna Fáil minister for State, has said: “It is unfortunately wishful thinking to present Collins as someone who had definitely decided that force vis-a-vis the North had had its day.”

Martin Mansergh noted that Collins was at best ambiguous about how Protestants would fit into the new independent State. He said of that new State: “We are now free in name. The extent to which we become free in fact and secure our freedom will be the extent to which we become Gaels again.”

In his last speech in Dáil Éireann, Michael D Higgins said Michael Collins had been dismissive of the much-heralded Democratic Programme of the first Dáil, which envisaged a society founded on solidarity and equality.

Michael D said Collins had said that programme had been merely a sop to the Labour Party in 1919 and nobody should pay any attention to it.

Enda Kenny was this year’s orator at the annual commemoration ceremony at Béal na Blá last Sunday and he engaged in the usual acclaim of the “fallen hero” – to be fair to Enda that was a cliche he avoided. Michael Collins, he said, was “a reformer, a thinker, a moderniser (who would have been) pro-Europe”, “brilliant minister for finance”, “thoughtful”, “disciplined”. And an extraordinary claim: “The outstanding organiser who brought Lenin to Ireland to see how the National Loan worked.” Lenin was never in Ireland.

Enda went on to use the occasion to talk about how another heroic figure had done and was doing great things for Ireland: himself.

He said: “I refuse to allow what is in reality a temporary, hand-me-down financial straitjacket, damage what will be a magnificent future for our country, for our people and for our children’s children,” by which I think he meant he won’t allow the EU, ECB and IMF programme to damage our future.

But doesn’t he take credit for adhering meticulously to precisely this programme and doesn’t that win him the camaraderie of important people at EU summits? He made the now familiar delusionary claims about how great the Irish economy was doing: “We expect a second successive year of economic growth, driven by exports. Irish growth is expected to accelerate to 2 per cent next year, despite weak European performance.”

According to the latest figures on the economy from the Central Statistics Office (July 12th last), GNP (which is what matters) declined last year by 2.5 per cent and the outlook for this year isn’t great. The Central Bank is predicting a decline in GNP of 0.3 per cent for 2012.

And he talked up his and the Government’s “reform agenda”.

But the most telling part of the speech was the promise: “I give you my word that I will not rest, our Government will not rest, until Ireland has reclaimed and restored its economic sovereignty.” How could that be? The Maastricht Treaty, the Growth and Stability Pact, the “six pack” and the fiscal compact treaty all involve a major surrender of sovereignty ad infinitum.

In so far as we can envisage what Michael Collins might have wished for and in so far as that matters a damn, it is likely he would wonder what the struggle for independence was about, since we have given away so much of it, so casually.

© 2012 The Irish Times

What are peoples thoughts on that theory?

tac foley

I tend to agree with the very last sentence of the article. However, as a half-paddy, I'm not qualified to comment on the 'real agenda' of the man my dad worshipped.

However, I use my half-stake to admit that I'm frankly appalled that the occasion of remembrance could have been used as a grandstand by ANY politician to further his own political agenda, or, in Mr Kelly's case, to publicly highlight his own ineptitude.

tac

HavingCrack

Prior to Griffith's death there was apparently quite a big rift between him and Collins over the latters growing drift towards centralism and the consolodation of power (I'm using the Tim Pat Coogan biography as my source here, I know a lot of posters dislike him as a historian but I don't think he's too bad on Collins). The rift wasn't repaired prior to the formers death. I'm not sure whether I'd call it a step towards dictatorship, possibly more that the Civil War meant a need to centralise military, political and economic power in a much smaller group than would occur under a democratic republic.

I would guess that Collins possibly did have an inclination towards dictatorship of the Roman kind whereby power was centralised for the duration of the 'emergency' and would be relinquished back to the 'people', in this case the Dail when the war was over.

tac foley

Two required reading books on the shelf in front of me are -

1. Michael Collins and the Treaty - T . Ryle Dwyer

2. Michael Collins - A life - by James Mackay

I think you would agree that the TPC biography - well-done though it undoubtedly was - was nevertheless substantially coloured by his own [well-respected] point of view.

Such a man needs to have been assessed at a distance in time, not by those who may either have shaken him by the hand, or had a hand in his death.

My $0.02.

tac

nuac

Can be difficult for someone who has been a military commander to move to being a politician in a democracy.

Viz Wellesly when he became Prime Minister was heard to complain that when he issued orders to the cabinet as to what has to be done that the cabinet considered them as a basis for discussion

pedroeibar1

The core topic in VB’s piece is statesmanship. What Collins might have gone on to do is conjecture and supposition, but learning ‘on the hoof’ he quickly had graduated from gunman to politician to being regarded as a statesman. . Churchill in "The Aftermath", (1929) describes him as ‘Successor to a sinister inheritance, reared among fierce conditions and moving through ferocious times, he supplied those qualities of action and personality without which the foundation of Irish nationhood would not have been re-established.’

Looking at recent leaders:-
CJH also moved up the ladder, but lost his balance when he got there. (Much as we might dislike him, the demeanour and deportment were there, tea service gift to Maggie was classic.)
Garret had no interest; he achieved statesmanship but his ambition was in his academic reputation.
Bertie had no interest at all at all.
Cowan did not know what it was.
Enda wants it so badly he will never attain it. The complete give-aways is the disconnection between his voice modulation, diction, body language and speech content and delivery. The Béal na Blá speech – its content and tribalism in particular - shows the disconnect is growing wider.

To paraphrase Churchill "I cannot recall any time when the gap between politicians and what was actually happening was so great as it is now."

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The core topic in VB’s piece is statesmanship.

Is it? There is also more of Browne's consistent attack on Enda Kenny.

In terms of dictatorial intentions I think it is difficult to show this and thus speculative in this article. The pro-treaty side which Collins was supportive of had democratic support...

Fuinseog

What happened to Michael Collins in Cork?
He was

A. murdered

B. killed in action

C. assassinated

D. a victim of friendly fire

tac foley

Fuinseog wrote: »

What happened to Michael Collins in Cork?
He was

A. murdered

B. killed in action

C. assassinated

D. a victim of friendly fire

Opinions are like recta, everybody has one. But taking the evidence given by the man who claimed to have actually fired the fatal shot into account, he was killed in action.

There appears to have been no deliberate attempt to target General Collins - the shooter claimed that he had simply shot in haste at the figure of a man in uniform.

On page 289 of Mackay's book Michael Collins, he notes that 'Sonny O'Neill, an ex-British Army marksman, fled in the gloaming. He had paused only long enough to loose off a last long shot at the tall figure in the roadway. He thought that he might have hit him, but did not wait around to find out.'

It was a lucky shot for the opposition, but terribly bad luck for Ireland.

Is is possible that there was never the intent to kill Collins at all?I've often wondered if there really had been a plan to actually kill Collins.

The supposition that it was Richard Mulcahy who shot him has been discussed and long ago set aside as a calumny.

tac
tac

Fuinseog

There is always the danger when you shoot at people that someone will get injured.
there is also the theory hat the machine gunner in the armoured car did it.

up until now most accounts I read merely said that Collins was 'shot'. with the increased publicity concerning Collins it will be interested to see how his demise is described.

tac foley

Fuinseog wrote: »

There is always the danger when you shoot at people that someone will get injured.
there is also the theory hat the machine gunner in the armoured car did it.

up until now most accounts I read merely said that Collins was 'shot'. with the increased publicity concerning Collins it will be interested to see how his demise is described.

Sir - the machine gunner in the armoured car could not get the thing to fire when it was needed.

The Mackay book is dated 1996.

Sonny O'Neill was interviewed a few years before his death in 1950 and expressed great remorse at the results of his hasty shot.

See this post from the recent Independent site -

On the 85th anniversary of the death of Michael Collins -- the question is: what would he think of Ireland today? Later this month, Lord David Puttnam will take the stand at Beal na mBlath, and give the commemorative oration on the 85th anniversary of the death of Michael Collins. Collins was killed on 22 August 1922, by Denis (Sonny) O'Neill, of the Republican forces, who himself died in 1950.

Although it was bitterly referred to for many years afterwards as the assassination of a "lost leader", with the perspective of time, it is now accepted more in the spirit of an accident of war.

I'm sure that those of you with more access to documentation than I have will be able to come up with more information, but digging this lot up took me less than two minutes.

tac

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is it? There is also more of Browne's consistent attack on Enda Kenny.

In terms of dictatorial intentions I think it is difficult to show this and thus speculative in this article. The pro-treaty side which Collins was supportive of had democratic support...

VB did not comment on the pro-Treaty side or Collins' intentions; in fact he did not assert much on Collins, he just quotes Regan, Mansergh and Michael D. and then went on to dump on Enda for setting himself up as a national saviour – justifiably IMO as Enda went off topic (and possibly script) with remarks like“I refuse to allow what is in reality a temporary, hand-me-down financial straitjacket, damage what will be a magnificent future for our country, for our people and for our children’s children,”

Browne attacks almost everyone; it is his modus operandi and part of his legal adversarial training/background. Sadly, his attacks too often are shown to be bluster, e.g. the way Quinn Snr. walked all over him with greater bluster and specious arguments. Personally I’m all in favour of politicos being given a hard time, the harder the better, as they had a free run with their BS for too long.

obrecki

What happened to Michael Collins in Cork?

Good point.

The car that he should have ridden in was at Béal na mBláth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV7sW6mjIvA&feature=share&list=UUHk_0K0j5EvyNHC56PFImig

Dannyboy83

Collins wanted to be dictator now so?
So why did he drive himself to sickness drafting a constitution?

Dictator status was already within his reach by the civil war..so why didnt he take it?
Collins was THE reason we became a flipping democracy.

Collins was the one operating with a democratic majority....It was Rory O Connor who advocated a military dictatorship.

To be honest, i think claims such as this display an utter failure to understand the era and the man.
Churchill nailed it. A man of action.
Whats the one word associated with Collins? Pragmatism

Collins masterminded the war of independence. Intelligence was his speciality. Why would he not RESUME this role?

Have these "historians" ever read The Path To Freedom?
Is he really too complex for them?
They need him to be black or white i think.

Fenian Army

Saying he materminded the war of independence gives hi far too much credit.

I'd give people like O'Malley more credit tbh.

Gee Bag

Fenian Army wrote: »

Saying he materminded the war of independence gives hi far too much credit.

I'd give people like O'Malley more credit tbh.

Collins ran GHQ.

GHQ directed overall policy

Ernie O'Malley was a training officer attachd to GHQ who spent his time in the field training/advising various rural units.

Gee Bag

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Collins wanted to be dictator now so?
So why did he drive himself to sickness drafting a constitution?

Dictator status was already within his reach by the civil war..so why didnt he take it?
Collins was THE reason we became a flipping democracy.

Collins was the one operating with a democratic majority....It was Rory O Connor who advocated a military dictatorship.

To be honest, i think claims such as this display an utter failure to understand the era and the man.
Churchill nailed it. A man of action.
Whats the one word associated with Collins? Pragmatism

Collins masterminded the war of independence. Intelligence was his speciality. Why would he not RESUME this role?

Have these "historians" ever read The Path To Freedom?
Is he really too complex for them?
They need him to be black or white i think.

The debate regarding Collin's potential to have become a dictator rests on two main points.

1. The way he tended to take on multiple roles that gave him enormous power. During the War of Independence he was both director of Intelligence for the IRA and Minister for Finance. Post treaty he was both C in C of the army and Chairman of the provisional government.

2. The Constitution drawn up for the Free State was a fundamentally flawed document (thats why it was replaced in 1937). The main problem was that the document could be ammended by the Oireachtas without referendum and there was no capacity for judicial review (i.e. courts being allowed to strike down unconstitutional laws). In essence, there was no true seperation of powers. With the Anti-treaty side refusing to take their seats this gave the sitting government enormous power.

The flawed constitution gave Collins (or indeed any of his successors up to 1937) the legal means to become a dictator. As we all know Hitler got the job in Germany via legal chicanery. This taken in tandem with his tendency to centralise power in himself certainly raises the question whether he would have done so, and given his popularity who could have stopped him.

This is of course all speculative because he died young, but given the rise of strong man military dictatorships elsewhere in Europe at this time it is certainly a question worth considering.

Dannyboy83

Gee Bag wrote: »

The debate regarding Collin's potential to have become a dictator rests on two main points.

1. The way he tended to take on multiple roles that gave him enormous power. During the War of Independence he was both director of Intelligence for the IRA and Minister for Finance. Post treaty he was both C in C of the army and Chairman of the provisional government.

2. The Constitution drawn up for the Free State was a fundamentally flawed document (thats why it was replaced in 1937). The main problem was that the document could be ammended by the Oireachtas without referendum and there was no capacity for judicial review (i.e. courts being allowed to strike down unconstitutional laws). In essence, there was no true seperation of powers. With the Anti-treaty side refusing to take their seats this gave the sitting government enormous power.

The flawed constitution gave Collins (or indeed any of his successors up to 1937) the legal means to become a dictator. As we all know Hitler got the job in Germany via legal chicanery. This taken in tandem with his tendency to centralise power in himself certainly raises the question whether he would have done so, and given his popularity who could have stopped him.

This is of course all speculative because he died young, but given the rise of strong man military dictatorships elsewhere in Europe at this time it is certainly a question worth considering.

Good post.
I can at least see the basis for the speculation given these points, as opposed to VB's article.

On point 1, as far as I'm aware, Collins had relinquished all duties pertaining to his role as Chairman, when he assumed the role of Commander in Chief.
I suppose on paper, a case may exist, but in practise it's seems unlikely.
His intention seems to have been to conclude the civil war as quickly as possible and accelerate the northern campaign.
In order to end the civil war, as the man who had run GHQ and possessed secrets of which we are still unaware, and will remain so, he needed to become CinC; there was no other logical choice.

It doesn't strike me as a power grab.
It seems like a clear correlation/causation issue to me.
Had he not been Director of Intelligence, but instead been Minister for Children, I believe there would be a much stronger case.

On the topic of the northern campaign, purely speculative personal opinion, but I believe more than anything, this was intended to be part of the core strategy to end the civil war.
A lot of the guys who fought in the War of Independence were half wits who more interested in 'playing soldiers' than anything. They could continue to play soldiers and not fight each other, if they had a common foe.


On point 2, I'm too rusty on the specific history now and wide open to correction, but I believe that it's slightly anachronistic (if that's the correct word). What I intend to say is that we judge it with a 21st century modernist mindset, rather than an early 20th century British mindset.

The fact that it could be amended by the Oireachtas without referendum is commonly accepted as a loophole/oversight.

Going by wiki - on judicial review, there was provision made, however, it was mitigated by the loophole.

The constitution empowered the courts to strike down laws they found to be unconstitutional. However judicial review of legislation was made largely meaningless by the ease with which the Oireachtas could alter the constitution.
Furthermore, as the state had only recently seceded from the UK, Irish judges were trained in British jurisprudence.
To this tradition, founded on deference to the legislature and parliamentary sovereignty, constitutional review was an alien concept. This meant that despite the adoption of a new, more rigid constitution in 1937, constitutional review did not become a significant feature of Irish jurisprudence until the 1960s. During the entire period of the Free State, only two pieces of legislation were declared by the courts to be unconstitutional.

The constitution initially drafted was significantly different from the finished version iirc, due to it's requirement to comply with the Anglo-Irish treaty and continual British interference.


A slight aside, but while Dev's constitution was considered progressive - I hope the irony is not lost on people that it was the 1937 constitution which actually led to the state being run as a dictatorship for most of it's history; to quote Scofflaw from the Politics forum who puts these things more eloquently that most:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056589784
the Dáil, far from holding the executive to account, is a mere rubber-stamp for Cabinet-based government in a system in which the party bosses promote or demote local representatives to Ministerial positions according to party interests rather than competence

Lastly, on his combining roles - this was a personality trait, he was a workaholic. Irish independence probably would have not been achieved without it (National Loan, Intelligence War etc.)
I do not believe he would have lived to see the 30s regardless, due to the controversial figure he became as a result of the treaty but I'm fairly certain this would trait would have persisted - his declining health permitting.

Is that dictatorial?
I don't believe so.
I don't even believe it's negative.

He didn't seek to dominate all roles in cabinet; He sought to combine roles relative to the specific task he was pursuing.
He himself recognized he was not an adept politician/negotiator as Dev was, when he pleaded not to be a plenipotentiary.
Presumably Caesar/Hitler would have demanded to lead the delegation, not reject it?

When Dev & traitors ignored the democratic majority, he pleaded with them to remain. He wanted Dev to remain on as president.
Before he was compelled to shell the Four Courts by the British, he offered safe passage to the aggressors if they'd lay down their arms and leave peacefully. He didn't seek to exterminate them for challenging his authority - as a dictator would.

When most of these halfwits were squabbling and trying to kill each other, he and several of his colleagues were concentrating on the next step as outlined in the Path to Freedom, trying to figure out how to build Ireland up.
On that count alone, it's a shame he didn't become a benign dictator:)

Gee Bag

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

On point 1, as far as I'm aware, Collins had relinquished all duties pertaining to his role as Chairman, when he assumed the role of Commander in Chief.
I suppose on paper, a case may exist, but in practise it's seems unlikely.
His intention seems to have been to conclude the civil war as quickly as possible and accelerate the northern campaign.
In order to end the civil war, as the man who had run GHQ and possessed secrets of which we are still unaware, and will remain so, he needed to become CinC; there was no other logical choice.

I'm inclined to agree with you that Collins was probably the best choice for C in C of the army following the outbreak of the civil war. However, there were others available who could have assumed that role such as Richard Mulcahy which would have allowed Collins to remain as head of the government. It could be argued that taking on the role of C in C demonstrated his need to be always at the centre of events.

Also as pointed out by VB he remained as head of the IRB until his death. Being head of a paramilitary organisation that claimed to be the true government of Ireland does nothing to enhance his democratic credentials.

On point 2, I'm too rusty on the specific history now and wide open to correction, but I believe that it's slightly anachronistic (if that's the correct word). What I intend to say is that we judge it with a 21st century modernist mindset, rather than an early 20th century British mindset.

The fact that it could be amended by the Oireachtas without referendum is commonly accepted as a loophole/oversight.

Going by wiki - on judicial review, there was provision made, however, it was mitigated by the loophole.

The constitution initially drafted was significantly different from the finished version iirc, due to it's requirement to comply with the Anglo-Irish treaty and continual British interference.

The main flaw in the constitution re. ammendmant being possible by the passing of an ordinary act of the Oireachtas was noted from very early on. I couldn't really blame Collins for this as he was dead before there was a chance to ammend it. Post-civil war there was no excuse for the retention of this article.

Re. the wikipedia article on constitutional review I would accept the argument that Judges at the time would be very unlikely to find against the government. However, I would contend that not having the fig-leaf of Judicial Review to review constitutional ammendmants tends to indicate a degree of hostility to the principles of democracy in the early years of the Free State.

A slight aside, but while Dev's constitution was considered progressive - I hope the irony is not lost on people that it was the 1937 constitution which actually led to the state being run as a dictatorship for most of it's history

I would have to disagree with you here. I'm no fan of Dev, but I would tip my hat to him re. the 1937 constitution. When it was drawn up Europe was on the verge of war and Spain was in the throes of Civil War. At home we had the hapless Blueshirts making a lot of anti-democratic noise.

The rise of the Nazis was facilitated by the weak constituion of the Weimar Republic. The constitution of the second Spanish Republic was so extreme re. church-state relations that it helped foster the civil war. Similarly, right-wing dictatorships rose in countries without constitutions where power was vested primarily in the monarchy e.g. Italy, Romania, Huingary.

The 1937 gave Ireland a true seperation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary. It also removed the legislatures ability to make ammendmants in the Oireachtas by enshrining the right to hold a referendum. It clearly contained flaws re the position of the church etc. but I would contend that it provided an essential bulwark against dictatorship.

Lastly, on his combining roles - this was a personality trait, he was a workaholic. Irish independence probably would have not been achieved without it (National Loan, Intelligence War etc.)
I do not believe he would have lived to see the 30s regardless, due to the controversial figure he became as a result of the treaty but I'm fairly certain this would trait would have persisted - his declining health permitting.

Is that dictatorial?
I don't believe so.
I don't even believe it's negative.

He didn't seek to dominate all roles in cabinet; He sought to combine roles relative to the specific task he was pursuing.
He himself recognized he was not an adept politician/negotiator as Dev was, when he pleaded not to be a plenipotentiary.
Presumably Caesar/Hitler would have demanded to lead the delegation, not reject it?

Its hard to disagree with you here, Collins was indeed highly effective in every role he assumed. In constitutional law there is a general assumption that it is dangerous to vest too much power in one individual/body. As Collins died young we can only speculate what he might/might not have done.

Re the treaty negotiations I don't remember ever having heard any one seriously argue that Dev was in the right thing. IMO it was political cowardice to have not attended.

When Dev & traitors ignored the democratic majority, he pleaded with them to remain. He wanted Dev to remain on as president.
Before he was compelled to shell the Four Courts by the British, he offered safe passage to the aggressors if they'd lay down their arms and leave peacefully. He didn't seek to exterminate them for challenging his authority - as a dictator would.

When most of these halfwits were squabbling and trying to kill each other, he and several of his colleagues were concentrating on the next step as outlined in the Path to Freedom, trying to figure out how to build Ireland up.
On that count alone, it's a shame he didn't become a benign dictator:)

You start this section by calling the anti-treaty side undemocratic (which I agree with) and then say that you would not have minded Collins having become a dictator! (The damn smiley is confusing me).

Having the benefit of hindsight if you strip away all the republican romanticism, the Civil War can only be seen as a massive strategic error by the anti-treaty side. The Civil War ensured that the Free State was too divided to pursue a campaign in the north and painted the government in to a corner re accepeting the status of a dominion.

Overall I think its fair to say that above all else Collins was a pragmatist willing to do whatever it took to get the job done. He had a long term vision for the country and was willing to do whatever was needed inthe short term to achieve the overall objective. The potential for a dictatorship was certainly there, but as to what might have happened we can only speculate.

tac foley

The echoes of the ICW have followed us all down the ninety years since it happened. Divisions are still there to be seen in government, and in the way that the country is still organised from the time that the British were there. My own family was divided by it, and one half still does not talk to the other half, who moved to another part of Ireland to ensure that the chance of reconciliation was reduced to a minimum.

For my father, Collins was Ireland's saviour, for his brother and two of his three sisters he was a British lackey and traitor.

This thread has been an object lesson to me, at least, seeing Collins through the eyes of both sides of the still-extant divide.

Thanks to all who have contributed to it in a meaningful fashion, and made it an object lesson in how to carry out such a sensitive discussion without 'printed bloodshed' spoling it.

tac

Dannyboy83

Gee Bag wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with you that Collins was probably the best choice for C in C of the army following the outbreak of the civil war. However, there were others available who could have assumed that role such as Richard Mulcahy which would have allowed Collins to remain as head of the government. It could be argued that taking on the role of C in C demonstrated his need to be always at the centre of events.

A fair point and probably quite accurate analysis given his nickname, or at least an accurate representation of how the anti-treaty side must have perceived it.
I suppose there is also the "fear factor" which Collins reputation carried, as much as ego.
Not to belittle Mulcahy by any means, but it must been a huge boost to Free State morale and probably a red light to the irregulars that the
sh1t had well and truely hit the fan, when Collins became CinC.
(Without going over the top, akin to Rommel ....something along those lines)

I hadn't quite understood the true depth of the hostility until I'd read (in the TPC version of events at least) about the travesty perpetrated at Collins grave, at Dev's insistence, years later.
Appalling bitterness, but having understood that, I did have the question wheter peace could have ever been the outcome with Collins still breathing, not to mind as CinC.

Tom Barry said when they'd heard of his death in prison, everyone spontaneously knelt and said the rosary. But there is no doubt in my mind that, lucky shot or not (or moreso incompetence/drunkeness on Collin's part), the irregulars set out to kill him at Beal na Blath.
CinC of enemy forces, it would be illogical not to.
(Another irony, but his one moment where he lacked ruthlessness, with his former comrades, may have ultimately contributed to his death)

Perhaps it was as much a shock to Collins as anyone else how quickly and utterly he became despised by his former comrades, I think the confrontation at the Four Courts was when he must have fully grasped it.

But you have a point and Mulcahy may have had a better chance at a peace settlement of some sort.

Also as pointed out by VB he remained as head of the IRB until his death. Being head of a paramilitary organisation that claimed to be the true government of Ireland does nothing to enhance his democratic credentials.

Another good point.
I believe it's boils down to realpolitik.

By remaining head of the IRB, he could ensure they were pulled in the direction he wanted them to go (and not pulled in some other direction, which was a risk if he had relinquished his role).
He could have dissolved the organisation as Mulcahy later did, and I believe he would have done so at a later point, but that would have handicapped the Northern campaign and given the civil war, it's arguable that he still perceived the organisation to be a necessity as long as he intended to carry out covert operations or seek reconciliation.
(Even during WW2, the British and Germans kept certain covert channels open. And the International bank of settlement iirc)

Without hindsight, I don't think it could have been recognised by Collins that the organisation had 'served their purpose' at that moment in time.

Undemocratic - yes.
Necessary - probably.

Given the bizzare revionism which we seem to be witnessing lately, I'm predicting that at some point, some journalist will seek to add an SA angle to this relationship.

The main flaw in the constitution re. ammendmant being possible by the passing of an ordinary act of the Oireachtas was noted from very early on. I couldn't really blame Collins for this as he was dead before there was a chance to ammend it. Post-civil war there was no excuse for the retention of this article.

Agree, and I suppose there is a case to be made, considering events which transpired during the civil war and after, that this may have been intentional.
"Emergency powers" as it were.
I recall reading that the British viewed Dev's rise to power in '32 with the same concerns as the Nazi rise to power.

Ultimately, the government stood down and allowed Fianna Fail into power, and Dev proceeded to round up and jail the IRA anyway, so the emergency powers would have been vestigial.

Re. the wikipedia article on constitutional review I would accept the argument that Judges at the time would be very unlikely to find against the government. However, I would contend that not having the fig-leaf of Judicial Review to review constitutional ammendmants tends to indicate a degree of hostility to the principles of democracy in the early years of the Free State.

Fully agree.

I would have to disagree with you here. I'm no fan of Dev, but I would tip my hat to him re. the 1937 constitution. When it was drawn up Europe was on the verge of war and Spain was in the throes of Civil War. At home we had the hapless Blueshirts making a lot of anti-democratic noise.

The 1937 gave Ireland a true seperation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary. It also removed the legislatures ability to make ammendmants in the Oireachtas by enshrining the right to hold a referendum. It clearly contained flaws re the position of the church etc. but I would contend that it provided an essential bulwark against dictatorship.

I wouldn't dispute any of this.
I think this is a fair evaluation.

My point with my previous comment was that the 1937 constitution contained it's own set of anti-democratic flaws, which have actually been actualised since the late 30s (by all governments, not just Fianna Fail), as opposed to 'potentially' anti-democratic flaws which may have arisen from the original constitution.

I will go too far off topic by getting into it here and it's been heavily covered in the politics forums already, but briefly, Dev implemented an array of measures such as disempowerment of the upper chamber, which have prolonged the tribal nature of our politics and civil war deliniations up to present day, while retarding our progression toward typical political deliniations as seen in other Western Democracies.
The organisation of our parliamentary system (particularly with anti-democratic devices such as the Whip) means that we tend to have elected dictatorships in the form of a Cabinet and no recall system (other than praying to Christ that the Greens will pull out of government, for example).

That's not to say we are unique in this regard - similar deliniations are observable in other countries such as Greece (Pasok etc.)/Spain and they tend to suffer from similar problems.

In spite of all this, the constitution was indeed progressive for it's time and was virtuous in comparison to most of the rest of Europe at the time.

Its hard to disagree with you here, Collins was indeed highly effective in every role he assumed. In constitutional law there is a general assumption that it is dangerous to vest too much power in one individual/body. As Collins died young we can only speculate what he might/might not have done.

I believe the tragedy of Collin's death for Ireland, was that he was killed before he could begin to build up Ireland.

I think it's fair to say he died without realising his ambition.
From his writings, my opinion is that the War of Independence and the events in which he participated, were in his opinion, the prelude.

The skillset which was pre-requisite to his role in intelligence, is the same skillset which would have been exploited to build the country up. Except he would have been able to utilize them to the full during peacetime.

Re the treaty negotiations I don't remember ever having heard any one seriously argue that Dev was in the right thing. IMO it was political cowardice to have not attended.

Political astuteness imo (which Collins probably lacked to some extent, owing to his pragmatic personality I guess).

I think it's quite amazing, when you consider the proficiency of Dev/Collins and a few others, borne out of early 20th Century Ireland, who apparently came from nowhere.
It's not like they had a tradition to rely on, like the British.
They seem to have been quite gifted and just came out of nowhere. Boggles the mind. 90 years later and we are producing the likes of Brian Cowen...makes me wonder. (Not that we're unique - FDR/JFK vs Bush/Palin lol)

Dev was an incredible operator and even more ruthless than Collins, but cunning and restrained enough to be subtle about it.

I wonder if their relationship could have survived during peacetime.

You start this section by calling the anti-treaty side undemocratic (which I agree with) and then say that you would not have minded Collins having become a dictator! (The damn smiley is confusing me).

I recall reading LeMass talking about the set of economic reforms he implemented upon coming to power, which spawned the first bout of prosperity the country had seen. He had largely based these economic reforms on a British White Paper which was published immediately prior to WW2 iirc. (I believe this may have been covered in the TPC bio of Dev, but not certain).
But I've seen an academic comparison of these reforms and some of the suggestions outlined in the Path to Freedom and other proposals for the time.

Collins and Co were formulating many of the ideas LeMass implemented 40 years later, and they were even deferred during Dev's reign by his particular vision and reluctance to 'let go the levers of power', for at least a decade - from at least the 50's onward.

I guess my comment refers to 'what could have been'.
The alternative for Ireland could have been vastly 'brighter' than what it ultimately became.
Journalists tend to take a negative angle, because that sells more copies.


That's not to say I agree with all Collin's view either - he seemed to be staunchly in favour of the Irish language, but I do believe he would have been more moderate and upon recognizing it was a failure, would have had the balls to do something about it, unlike modern day Fine Gael who backtracked on their proposal for Irish to be optional for the Leaving Cert.

Having the benefit of hindsight if you strip away all the republican romanticism, the Civil War can only be seen as a massive strategic error by the anti-treaty side. The Civil War ensured that the Free State was too divided to pursue a campaign in the north and painted the government in to a corner re accepeting the status of a dominion.

And a very risky strategy.
It could have given the British carte blance to 'restore order' and put the whole miserable independence project to an end.
From some of the conversations and remarks I remember with the elders in the 80s and 90s, there would have been quite a bit of support for it in West Cork, where there was a certain 'Zimbabwean' element.

Overall I think its fair to say that above all else Collins was a pragmatist willing to do whatever it took to get the job done. He had a long term vision for the country and was willing to do whatever was needed inthe short term to achieve the overall objective. The potential for a dictatorship was certainly there, but as to what might have happened we can only speculate.

I think that's a more realistic summation than any I've seen in the recent Collins revisionist articles.
That's the approach journalists should take.

He wasn't an angel, history proves he was ruthless.
But can they show us a successful leader who isn't?

nuac

Interestinng and thought provoking posts here - thanks guys

Jolly Red Giant

Collins was an able organiser and tactician -

However, he was also viciously anti-worker and anti-labour - among other things he attempted to split the trade union movement along nationalist lines (and failed), he accused strike organisers of being British spies, suggesting that they should be dealt with in an appropriate fashion (and again failed to undermine the trade union movement), he consistantly backed the bosses in industrial disputes, he attempted to split the trade union movement in the North along sectarian lines (again failing, admitting privately that 'labour in Ulster is anti-Carsonite and clearly internationalist'), he fully backed the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force set up to smash farm labourers strike and he instigated a strategy during the civil war to break the Munster Soviet.

Dr.Nightdub

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

he attempted to split the trade union movement in the North along sectarian lines (again failing, admitting privately that 'labour in Ulster is anti-Carsonite and clearly internationalist')

JRG, do you have a source / background for that quote? I've been researching Collins and the north recently - with specific reference to the IRA's northern offensive of May 1922 - and hadn't come across that before.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

However, he was also viciously anti-worker and anti-labour - among other things he attempted to split the trade union movement along nationalist lines (and failed), he accused strike organisers of being British spies, suggesting that they should be dealt with in an appropriate fashion (and again failed to undermine the trade union movement), he consistantly backed the bosses in industrial disputes, he attempted to split the trade union movement in the North along sectarian lines (again failing, admitting privately that 'labour in Ulster is anti-Carsonite and clearly internationalist'), he fully backed the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force set up to smash farm labourers strike and he instigated a strategy during the civil war to break the Munster Soviet.

It is widely accepted that the leadership of nationalism was conservative in their nature. Can you expand how Collins tried to undermine the trade unions and then how he failed- the labour movement could hardly claim to have blossomed in the next decade?

Fenian Army

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is widely accepted that the leadership of nationalism was conservative in their nature. Can you expand how Collins tried to undermine the trade unions and then how he failed- the labour movement could hardly claim to have blossomed in the next decade?

?

People like Mellowes for example were hardly conservative.

jonniebgood1

Fenian Army wrote: »

?

People like Mellowes for example were hardly conservative.

If you are trying to make the point that the nationalist leadership was not conservative in their outlook then by all means proceed.... I stand over the comment but will welcome you to make a case in the contrary.

Jolly Red Giant

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

JRG, do you have a source / background for that quote? I've been researching Collins and the north recently - with specific reference to the IRA's northern offensive of May 1922 - and hadn't come across that before.

A document in the National Archives

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is widely accepted that the leadership of nationalism was conservative in their nature. Can you expand how Collins tried to undermine the trade unions and then how he failed- the labour movement could hardly claim to have blossomed in the next decade?

Collins provided £800 (if my memory serves me correctly) from very scarce funds to assist the establishment of the Irish Engineering Union in an attempt to split the AEU along national lines. He also drafted plans to engage in papamilitary attacks against members of the AEU if the AEU membership acted to prevent the establishment of the IEU. The move had limited success - I think the IEU mustered no more than 600 members from the many thousands in the Irish section of the AEU and Collins abandoned plans to fund a breakaway union from the NUR. The IEU played a prominent role in scabbing on strikes in North Munster during the Munster Soviets in 1922.

snafuk35

Fuinseog wrote: »

What happened to Michael Collins in Cork?
He was

A. murdered

B. killed in action

C. assassinated

D. a victim of friendly fire

The historical concensus is that Denis "Sonny" O'Neill, a former British marksman who joined the IRA was the man who shot Collins.
Collins was killed by a bullet that entered the left side of his forehead above the hairline (no doubt when his right cheek was against the stock of his .303 Lee Enfield as he was firing at IRA members fleeing along a lane on high ground above the roadway where he was standing in the open).
The bullet carried an air pocket and fragments of bone to travel in front of it when it exited the back of his skull blowing out a massive wound.
O'Neill is believed to have killed Collins with an elephant gun (it is said he got rid of the gun subsequently so it would not be traced) and may have used a dum dum round which would have expanded and might have created the massive wound described by his comrades and doctors who saw the body.

snafuk35

tac foley wrote: »

Opinions are like recta, everybody has one. But taking the evidence given by the man who claimed to have actually fired the fatal shot into account, he was killed in action.

There appears to have been no deliberate attempt to target General Collins - the shooter claimed that he had simply shot in haste at the figure of a man in uniform.

On page 289 of Mackay's book Michael Collins, he notes that 'Sonny O'Neill, an ex-British Army marksman, fled in the gloaming. He had paused only long enough to loose off a last long shot at the tall figure in the roadway. He thought that he might have hit him, but did not wait around to find out.'

It was a lucky shot for the opposition, but terribly bad luck for Ireland.

Is is possible that there was never the intent to kill Collins at all?I've often wondered if there really had been a plan to actually kill Collins.

The supposition that it was Richard Mulcahy who shot him has been discussed and long ago set aside as a calumny.

tac
tac

The ambush and a least one other ambush on an alternative route were set up when intelligence was received that Collins touring through Cork.
The placing of a barricade across the road was intended to halt the convoy. The placing of a mine was clearly intended to cause multiple casualties.
The obvious intention was to kill Collins.
The main body of the ambushers had left by the time the convoy had turned up and Sonny O'Neill got lucky.

snafuk35

Fuinseog wrote: »

There is always the danger when you shoot at people that someone will get injured.
there is also the theory hat the machine gunner in the armoured car did it.

up until now most accounts I read merely said that Collins was 'shot'. with the increased publicity concerning Collins it will be interested to see how his demise is described.

Collins was lying on a grass bank during the majority of the gun fight.
The armoured car with the machine operated by McPeake had moved up close to touring car and two 200 round belts were fired. When McPeake loaded a third belt he cause the gun to malfunction and could only fire in single shots like a rifle.
The lull gave the IRA ambushers who had been retreating from right to left along a lane that ran roughly parallel to the roadway the chance to retreat after having been pinned down by the machine gun fire.
Collins rose up ran back behind the armoured car fired a few shots and then shouted at his men to follow him because he could see the IRA moving along the lane.
He was standing in the open when he was shot with the armoured car to his right.
McPeake was shooting up at the lane.
Collins would have been to his left and not to his front so it is highly unlikely McPeake shot him.
Collins was killed by a single shot through the left forehead above the hair line and the .303 round exited the right side of the back of his head behind his right ear blasting out a massive fatal wound.
The following November after witnessing the conduct of Free State troops, McPeake switched sides and brought the armoured car with him over to the Anti-Treaty side.

pedroeibar1

snafuk35 wrote: »

The historical concensus is that Denis "Sonny" O'Neill, a former British marksman who joined the IRA was the man who shot Collins.
Collins was killed by a bullet that entered the left side of his forehead above the hairline (no doubt when his right cheek was against the stock of his .303 Lee Enfield as he was firing at IRA members fleeing along a lane on high ground above the roadway where he was standing in the open).
The bullet carried an air pocket and fragments of bone to travel in front of it when it exited the back of his skull blowing out a massive wound.
O'Neill is believed to have killed Collins with an elephant gun (it is said he got rid of the gun subsequently so it would not be traced) and may have used a dum dum round which would have expanded and might have created the massive wound described by his comrades and doctors who saw the body.

I doubt this because it is a very strange choice of firearm, certainly not one a trained marksman would select for guerilla tactics/sniping. Firstly, an elephant gun is a ‘stopping’ weapon, not a sniper gun. In 1920’s Ireland such a gun would have been most uncommon and unlikely to be found outside a ‘Big House’ gunroom. Most were 4 bore (means that they fired a 4 ounce projectile, slightly smaller than a golfball) and most were smooth bore, not rifled, which means they were not very accurate. It would have been almost impossible to obtain 4b ammunition and would have been a nightmare to carry/use in the field as it weighs more than 20 lbs, more than double the weight of a Lee Enfield .303 and three times the weight of a shotgun.

A Lee Enfield would have been a much more likely firearm, more accurate at longer ranges, more commonly found and more portable. Also, its bullet would leave a very large exit wound if it hit bone on entry.

snafuk35

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I doubt this because it is a very strange choice of firearm, certainly not one a trained marksman would select for guerilla tactics/sniping. Firstly, an elephant gun is a ‘stopping’ weapon, not a sniper gun. In 1920’s Ireland such a gun would have been most uncommon and unlikely to be found outside a ‘Big House’ gunroom. Most were 4 bore (means that they fired a 4 ounce projectile, slightly smaller than a golfball) and most were smooth bore, not rifled, which means they were not very accurate. It would have been almost impossible to obtain 4b ammunition and would have been a nightmare to carry/use in the field as it weighs more than 20 lbs, more than double the weight of a Lee Enfield .303 and three times the weight of a shotgun.

A Lee Enfield would have been a much more likely firearm, more accurate at longer ranges, more commonly found and more portable. Also, its bullet would leave a very large exit wound if it hit bone on entry.

I agree.

digzy

good thread lads. thought I knew it all after my a1 in the leaving cert history exam, but there's a few gaps!

just wondering if there's any update on the allegations of collins being involved in a clandestine discussion with a specific british envoy prior to the ceasefire? I have a vague recollection of vincent browne speculating it on his show but must've fell asleep!

snafuk35

digzy wrote: »

good thread lads. thought I knew it all after my a1 in the leaving cert history exam, but there's a few gaps!

just wondering if there's any update on the allegations of collins being involved in clandestine discussion with a british envoy prior to the ceasefire? I have a vague recollection of vincent browne speculating it on his show but must've fell asleep!

Those aren't allegations. It's a matter of fact.
There were behind the scenes discussions via intermediaries between the Irish and British leaderships long before the Truce in 1921.
The same thing goes on in all conflicts.

Fuinseog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Z1dqJzxNo&feature=g-vrec

tac foley

'Savage Eye' is to AGS as 'Father Ted' was to the RC Church.

tac