Was Collins going to continue the war in the North?

masti123

It seems to be a very grey area in Irish history, while the IRA in the South opposed the Treaty, i've heard numerous times the IRA in Ulster supported Collins as he was arming them and had a plan to continue the war up North. Is this true? If so, why didn't the Free Staters continue with the plan?

RobertKK

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

masti123

RobertKK wrote: »

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

Apparently Collins was promised by David Lloyd George that it wasn't "economically viable". So based on this he and Griffith accepted it as a part of the Treaty. It was probably very much clear in his mind that the six counties would join the south in a few years.

RobertKK

masti123 wrote: »

Apparently Collins was promised by David Lloyd George that it wasn't "economically viable". So based on this he and Griffith accepted it as a part of the Treaty. It was probably very much clear in his mind that the six counties would join the south in a few years.

They were very naive if they believed that.

masti123

RobertKK wrote: »

They were very naive if they believed that.

Maybe so, but Collins did say the Treaty was a "stepping stone for Irish independence"

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

Cos he was drinking.

Along with the other delegates.

It's a crime that at one of the pivotal points in our history, in the face of Britain's strongest negotiators, our lads went on the tear.

MilesMorales1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Z1dqJzxNo

Jimoslimos

RobertKK wrote: »

They were very naive if they believed that.

Well they've never been economically viable, have they? Probably underestimated the British capacity to subsidise them though.

biko

masti123 wrote: »

i've heard numerous times

masti123 wrote: »

Apparently

Do you even source bro?

bear1

biko wrote: »

Do you even source bro?

Haha
I doubt that to be true. Churchill did offer during ww2 to return the north to Dublins control provided that de valera would allow the British to use our ports.
De valera refused and there we have it.

Fratton Fred

masti123 wrote: »

It seems to be a very grey area in Irish history, while the IRA in the South opposed the Treaty, i've heard numerous times the IRA in Ulster supported Collins as he was arming them and had a plan to continue the war up North. Is this true? If so, why didn't the Free Staters continue with the plan?

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

PC Lackey

Got to know when to walk away.

Britain had to be appeased in some way or its bruised ego would want revenge - which could mean the whole island.

Partition allowed them to save face and walk away victoriously with the great jewel that is northern Ireland.


I hear it costs them 10 billion pounds annually.

tomwaterford

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

How could someone be king in a republic :pac: :pac:

bear1

PC Lackey wrote: »

Got to know when to walk away.

Britain had to be appeased in some way or its bruised ego would want revenge - which could mean the whole island.

Partition allowed them to save face and walk away victoriously with the great jewel that is northern Ireland.


I hear it costs them 10 billion pounds annually.

According to a 2012 article so probably changed now it costs 20 billion to run per year with 9 billion coming from the north themselves and the rest from London.

newacc2015

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

KingBrian2

tomwaterford wrote: »

How could someone be king in a republic :pac: :pac:

We did not become a Republic until 1949. All Irish people up that point were legally British citizens. Vote in British elections and get the full treatment.

Junkyard Tom

newacc2015 wrote: »

At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

Please don't lump everyone in the north into one group. When you say 'they' what you mean is Unionist politicians generally and the DUP in particular.

Some of them haven't moved on from 1690 never mind having to deal with 21st Century issues.

masti123

bear1 wrote: »

Haha
I doubt that to be true. Churchill did offer during ww2 to return the north to Dublins control provided that de valera would allow the British to use our ports.
De valera refused and there we have it.

Churchill suggested that he might 'ask' the unionists if they would agree to a united Ireland if we went into the war but Dev was smart enough to know that would not happen i.e getting the unionists to say yes, that is. So he told Churchill where to go.

masti123

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

Tom Barry said it was about partition and the oath.

shugy

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

But its ours and its not about money to many. YEs it will be maybe tough for a few years but itll all be worth it in the end. The irish struggle has been for over 800 years and itll continue untill the country is united. There has been an uprising 6 times in the last 800 years and the last uprising wont be the last untill were united. Once were united, thats it, no more pain, murder and living under a foreign rule. Hopefully ill live to see the day were free!!

shugy

masti123 wrote: »

Tom Barry said it was about partition and the oath.

On of irelands finest men. Hes up there with the best! What a man he was!

Junkyard Tom

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. l

But if we'd have had a all island state the north probably wouldn't be like it is. Unionists created a sectarian pseudo-state and did their best to keep it that way. If former unionists would have been 1-in-5 of the vote in an all island state they wouldn't have been able to create the sectarian ****-hole they did and we probably wouldn't have had the troubles.

Also, in the south, the Catholic church wouldn't have had the power it wielded had we had a large number of Protestants involved with administering the state.

If and buts candy and nuts.

Paramite Pie

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

Northern Ireland was the most economically developed part of Ireland at the time, with the UK's highest living standards at the time. They didn't want their economy to tank by joining us ironically.

If an all-island state had been created I don't think the extreme conditions in the North would have been fostered.

KingBrian2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

But if we'd have had a all island state the north probably wouldn't be like it is. Unionists created a sectarian pseudo-state and did their best to keep it that way. If former unionists would have been 1-in-5 of the vote in an all island state they wouldn't have been able to create the sectarian ****-hole they did and we probably wouldn't have had the troubles.

Also, in the south, the Catholic church wouldn't have had the power it wielded had we had a large number of Protestants involved with administering the state.

If and buts candy and nuts.

I believe the Question was about Collins continuing to fight up the North. He signed the treaty in order to end the war that had claimed the lives of so many Irishmen & Irishwomen. Unlike in the North an intensive war had already taken place on top of social unrest in the form of the 1913 Lockout.

The North was for the most part removed from the vicious guerrilla war raging across the rest of the island. Nobody wanted to continue to keep war going and going and turning the Northern part of the Island into warzone.

All sorts of stories have come out about what he would have done, prepared to do or the sort of bombing policy he would have enacted. They are immaterial. He supported a truce with the British despite considerable opposition from his followers and committed nationalists.

Junkyard Tom

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He signed the treaty in order to end the war that had claimed the lives of so many Irishmen & Irishwomen.

He also signed the treaty because the scumbags he was dealing with in London promised, as Tom Barry says in the clip, 'a terrible war'.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He also signed the treaty because the scumbags he was dealing with in London promised, as Tom Barry says in the clip, 'a terrible war'.

Good old paraphrasing to suit the agenda.

Lloyd George warned of an immediate and terrible war, because Belfast was pushing for an agreement. Alm the parties knew this meant the outbreak of a sectarian war far worse than the war of independence.

As it turned out, a far worse war did break out though.

Fratton Fred

tomwaterford wrote: »

How could someone be king in a republic :pac: :pac:

King in all but name.

How could a republic become a theocracy?

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good old paraphrasing to suit the agenda.

Verbatim. Listen to the clip. Is Tom Barry a liar or is Fred getting his Union Flag knickers in a twist because someone drew attention to the scumbaggery his countrymen got up to when it comes to Ireland?

KingBrian2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He also signed the treaty because the scumbags he was dealing with in London promised, as Tom Barry says in the clip, 'a terrible war'.

Amen brother, Amen to that.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Verbatim. Listen to the clip. Is Tom Barry a liar or is Fred getting his Union Flag knickers in a twist because someone drew attention to the scumbaggery his countrymen got up to when it comes to Ireland?

Was Tom Barry on the negotiating team, or at the subsequent Dail discussion on the treaty?

Arthur Griffith's account is very different and he was actually there, so I'd take his version over Tom Barry's.

Edit: apologies, it is Robert Barton's account.

KingBrian2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Good old paraphrasing to suit the agenda.

Lloyd George warned of an immediate and terrible war, because Belfast was pushing for an agreement. Alm the parties knew this meant the outbreak of a sectarian war far worse than the war of independence.

As it turned out, a far worse war did break out though.

Not by the Free State.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Arthur Griffith's account is very different and he was actually there, so I'd take his version over Tom Barry's.

Michael Collins later claimed that at the last minute Lloyd George threatened the Irish delegates with a renewal of, "terrible and immediate war"

wikipedia.org

I guess Michael Collins was a liar too because the British with their long history of murderous colonial treachery couldn't possibly have threatened anyone with war because their intentions were just and good. You just won't hear a bad word about the British Fred will you?

Funny.

Fratton Fred

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not by the Free State.

Not what by the free state?

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I guess Michael Collins was a liar too because the British with their long history of murderous colonial treachery couldn't possibly have threatened anyone with war because their intentions were just and good. You just won't hear a bad word about the British Fred will you?

Funny.

FFS, from the same Wikipedia article:


but this was not mentioned as a threat in the Irish memorandum about the close of negotiations, but as a personal remark made by Lloyd George to Robert Barton, and merely a reflection of the reality of any military truce.[14] 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.

And if you read the debate in the Dail, Barton clearly states this was in relation to the North

But I guess our resident shinnerbot won't accept that because the collective says otherwise.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But I guess our resident shinnerbot won't accept that because the collective says otherwise.

Ahh now we see the mask slip. Anyone who is in any way critical of the British is a mindless 'shinnerbot'. What does that make you? You're a British Nationalist of the highest order - you just won't hear a bad word about Britain or the British.

In fact you're such an avowed British Nationalist that you have a hard time accepting that the Irish are a different people to the British and indeed would like to see Ireland back under British administration.

Funny.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ahh now we see the mask slip. Anyone who is in any way critical of the British is a mindless 'shinnerbot'. What does that make you? You're a British Nationalist of the highest order - you just won't hear a bad word about Britain or the British.

In fact you're such an avowed British Nationalist that you have a hard time accepting that the Irish are a different people to the British and indeed would like to see Ireland back under British administration.

Funny.

Oooh, you lost the argument so resort to the good old ad hominem.

That's pretty pathetic tbh

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oooh, you lost the argument

Na-na-n-na-naa you lost the argument? How mature of you.

so resort to the good old ad hominem.

You don't understand ad hominem.

Describing me as a 'shinnerbot' is ad hominem. Highlighting views you actually hold is not ad-hom.

Chrissybhoy

newacc2015 wrote: »

Honestly we dodged a bullet. If we got NI like it currently is. This country would be a mess. NI is such a burden on the UK economically. It is literally a banana republic. About a third of its workforce is public sector workers. Its industry is quite small compared to the south

We would achieve nothing if we have NI as part of our Dail. At times they make Alabama seem progressive and liberal

It wasn't then tho England kept hold of the north because economically it was massive for them especially Belfast port.

Collins was probably our greatest soldier and our weakest politician. Should never been sent across to deal with the likes of Lloyd George

flas

RobertKK wrote: »

Why did he sign away the six counties if he wanted them all along?

He didn't sign them away, dev had already gone to meetings previous to the ones Collins had gone to in London and was told in no uncertain terms that's what was happening..for those first meetings dev deliberately left Collins and them at home and brought his own men with him, and then tried to save face by sending Collins to do the signing... Collins had a weird sort of relationship with dev where he thought he was his better, better educated, from better stock etc. It was a time when the class system was still very much alive so felt duty bound to go and do dev's bidding when all indications were he knew that's all they would get

Banjoxed

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Please don't lump everyone in the north into one group. When you say 'they' what you mean is Unionist politicians generally and the DUP in particular.

Some of them haven't moved on from 1690 never mind having to deal with 21st Century issues.

The SDLP with the exception of Clare Hanna, who abstained, voted against allowing abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, so, yup, Alabama.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was (...................)account.

Indeed. The entire notion of the British state going to war and suppressing a rebellion is a nonsense. It's outside British notions of justice and fair play.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

Lots of complete and utter nonsense there caused by a complete mangling of history.

The most objectionable being the confusion of one of Dev's objections to the Treaty with the cause of the Civil War.

The Civil War commenced when O'Connor and Mellows took the Four Courts. Mellows spoke of poverty and colonisation, the betrayal of the Republic etc. It wasn't just about an oath, the Treaty was considered a fundamental betrayal. Your summary referring to Dev wanting to be king and prods and dancing and "my guy was better than your guy"...it's car crash stuff.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The civil war wasn't about the partition of Ireland, it was about swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

'Tis strange to see a man like yourself praising an Irish Republican who despised English culture and aspired for a revival of Gaelic life and ways.

KingBrian2

Dev and Collins might have patched up had Collins not being killed during the civil war. Cosgrave is held personally responsible for the atrocities that followed and the state that was created. From the Free Staters point of view they were much aggrieved by his death and Griffith's that followed and to make the deeds more difficult were the irregulars attempts to make the country ungovernable and the fragile state moribund.

KomradeBishop

Not suggesting any kind of CT, but it's a bit weird the way the details surrounding Collins death are not very well documented. We have the stories of the supposed (and no reason to doubt...) witnesses and all, about what happened, but some of the details are kind of sketchy and not well fleshed out.

In addition, things like when Collins was allegedly responsible for attacking the Four Courts, leading to 1000 years of Irish historical records being blown up due to a secondary explosion from artillery fire - the historical documentation/details surrounding that specific event, seem to be similarly sketchy.

Arsemageddon

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In addition, things like when Collins was allegedly responsible for attacking the Four Courts, leading to 1000 years of Irish historical records being blown up due to a secondary explosion from artillery fire - the historical documentation/details surrounding that specific event, seem to be similarly sketchy.

The anti-treaty side occupied the Four Courts from mid-April to late June 1923 when the civil war began .During that time they planted explosives in the Public Records Office containing the chancery scrolls and in the land registry office. Their plan was to set off the explosives to act as a distraction if they were attacked and had to escape. There is a copy of an order from Oscar Traynor (Head of the anti-treaty IRA in Dublin) in the Military Archive which ordered the Four Courts Garrison to set off the explosives if attacked.

Prior to the outbreak of hostilities Eoin MacNeill (professor of Medieval Irish History at UCD, Gaelic Leaguer and former head of the Irish Volunteers) repeatedly pleaded with the commander of the Four Courts garrison Rory O'Connor to move the records to a safe place, O'Connor refused.

Whether or not the fires caused by the shelling caused the explosion or whether it was detonated deliberately is moot, the Anti-treaty side had planned to destroy the records and didn't move them to safety in the 3 months they occupied the Four Courts.

It was an act of cultural vandalism every bit as ignorant as those of ISIS or the Taliban blowing up the Banyam Buddhas.

failinis

PC Lackey wrote: »

I hear it costs them 10 billion pounds annually.

And proud of it

Arsemageddon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The
De Velera wanted to be king himself (which is why he created a presidency with pretty much the exact same powers) of a Catholic state with comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. The last thing he wanted was half a million devout prods getting in the way.
.

This post is breathtakingly ignorant.

Like it or nor DeValera was the democratically elected leader of the country in the 1930s. The constitution he introduced in 1937 is a brilliant document which guaranteed that Ireland would not become a dictatorship by introducing a president whose role it was to intervene should the government attempt to introduce fundamentally undemocratic legislation

In a similar vein it guaranteed the independence of the judiciary (that's why we had to have a referendum on judge pay a few years ago) and the free assembly of the Dail and Seanad.

Bearing in mind that in the 1930s the Nazis created their dictatorship through legal means, Mussolini was in power in Italy, Stalin was in the Soviet Union, the Spanish Civil War was raging and numerous other smaller European were dictatorships - our constitution was the exact opposite of what you claim. It meant that no single individual could dominate the state and made Ireland an independent republic in all but name.

DeValera might have been a bit of a prick, but on this score your wrong.

dresden8

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Collins was a far far better man than De Velera and his death is one of the worst things to happen to this state since independence.

Collins started the civil war on the orders of Churchill. Dying young does wonders for your reputation.

KingBrian2

dresden8 wrote: »

Collins started the civil war on the orders of Churchill. Dying young does wonders for your reputation.

He would have ended it if his life was not cut short by anti treaty forces.