Anniversary of the shooting dead of Michael Collins

KingBrian2

94 years ago since the assassination of General Michael Collins by the irregulars during the civil war at Béal na Bláth. How the world and Ireland is such a different place since then. The treaty had only been passed the previous years December and a bloody civil war had erupted.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

94 years ago since the assassination of General Michael Collins by the irregulars during the civil war at Béal na Bláth. How the world and Ireland is such a different place since then. The treaty had only been passed the previous years December and a bloody civil war had erupted.

The Treaty was passed in January that year.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Treaty was passed in January that year.

I meant the signing of the treaty but thanks for pointing that out.

tac foley

Ireland's most grievous loss.

tac

Water John

Nice to have the President there yesterday. However, I think now with the 100 year anniversary of many of these events coming around, the annual commemerations should be dropped.
The one national day for fallen soldiers is enough.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I meant the signing of the treaty but thanks for pointing that out.

There is a big difference between signing and passing. Anyway, he knew what he was letting himself in for when he signed it. When he did it, he announced it was his death warrant. He was in poor health when he died and may well have died young anyway, like Griffith.

marvin80

Archive recording and footage from eye witnesses:

http://www.rte.ie/archives/2015/0821/722718-michael-collins/

http://www.rte.ie/archives/2012/0821/334362-10-year-old-girl-witness-to-events-at-death-of-michael-collins/

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is a big difference between signing and passing. Anyway, he knew what he was letting himself in for when he signed it. When he did it, he announced it was his death warrant. He was in poor health when he died and may well have died young anyway, like Griffith.

Yes well fighting a bitter civil war would put a strain on any man's health.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes well fighting a bitter civil war would put a strain on any man's health.

Sean Clancy was beside Collins on the taking over of Dublin Castle, fought in the Civil War and lived to be 105. What effect did the Civil War have on his health?

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Sean Clancy was beside Collins on the taking over of Dublin Castle, fought in the Civil War and lived to be 105. What effect did the Civil War have on his health?

I'm certain it was bad enough during the war years. It was a horrible ordeal to go through.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'm certain it was bad enough during the war years. It was a horrible ordeal to go through.

Yes. But what happened to his health?

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Yes. But what happened to his health?

I don't know, you tell me, I'm talking about Collins and Griffith died shortly after due to illness.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't know, you tell me, I'm talking about Collins and Griffith died shortly after due to illness.

You said the strain of a Civil War would affect anybody's health. I asked you how it affected Sean Clancy's health. Now you are saying it didn't affect his health. Collins was not well when he died and might have collapsed just like Griffith had he not been shot. There is no need to be making excuses for Collins.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

You said the strain of a Civil War would affect anybody's health. I asked you how it affected Sean Clancy's health. Now you are saying it didn't affect his health. Collins was not well when he died and might have collapsed just like Griffith had he not been shot. There is no need to be making excuses for Collins.

I didn't say it did not affect Sean Clancy's health all I said was I am not aware of the biography of Clancy or some of the other leading Republicans. I am however aware of Collins among others and his health had deteriorated in part due to the life he was leading. He was extraordinary in his abilities and endured a hell of lot.

Kettleson

Is it possible/likely that new evidence will/could eventually emerge to change the reality/understanding/interpretation of both Collins and De Valeras standing in Irish history?

Most of it appears to be based on opinion.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I didn't say it did not affect Sean Clancy's health all I said was I am not aware of the biography of Clancy or some of the other leading Republicans.

How then could you say that being in a Civil War would have affected anyone;s health?

KingBrian2

Kettleson wrote: »

Is it possible/likely that new evidence will/could eventually emerge to change the reality/understanding/interpretation of both Collins and De Valeras standing in Irish history?

Most of it appears to be based on opinion.

Plenty of books. programs, historical studies and witness testimonies have already been done but yes I would imagine as we get more details about other Civil War and Independence War revolutionaries that more clear and accurate picture will emerge. On the issue of Collins health we know he experienced enormous pressure as General during the war years. Griffith himself died of illness very shortly after Collin's death. My remarks on Collins is not in any way to diminish the role of other prominant revolutionaries.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Plenty of books. programs, historical studies and witness testimonies have already been done but yes I would imagine as we get more details about other Civil War and Independence War revolutionaries that more clear and accurate picture will emerge. On the issue of Collins health we know he experienced enormous pressure as General during the war years. Griffith himself died of illness very shortly after Collin's death. My remarks on Collins is not in any way to diminish the role of other prominant revolutionaries.

You couldn't make it up. Griffith died before Collins!

BalcombeSt4

The killing of one of the first military dictators of the 20th century.

tac foley

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

The killing of one of the first military dictators of the 20th century.

Hogwash, Sir.

tac

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

You couldn't make it up. Griffith died before Collins!

The death of Griffith is very much reduced in significance in Irish history. Collins gets most of the attention while Griffith's role and even how he died is very obscure. Dev equally gets a huge share of coverage during the war years but men like Griffith who played pivotal parts are greatly diminished.

This is how the Wikipedia article of Griffith reads " Griffith died suddenly in Dublin on 12 August 1922. A public funeral was held four days later and he was buried at Glasnevin Cemetery, Dublin."

Given the fact he was one of the leading negotiators at the treaty talks and he set up the movement Sinn Fein back in 1907. You'd have thought a better account of his death would come out in the intervening years.

MOH

Kettleson wrote: »

Is it possible/likely that new evidence will/could eventually emerge to change the reality/understanding/interpretation of both Collins and De Valeras standing in Irish history?

Most of it appears to be based on opinion.

Honestly not being facetious, but it's unlikely any reliable new evidence is going to emerge after 94 years?

Arsemageddon

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The death of Griffith is very much reduced in significance in Irish history. Collins gets most of the attention while Griffith's role and even how he died is very obscure. Dev equally gets a huge share of coverage during the war years but men like Griffith who played pivotal parts are greatly diminished.

This is how the Wikipedia article of Griffith reads " Griffith died suddenly in Dublin on 12 August 1922. A public funeral was held four days later and he was buried at Glasnevin Cemetery, Dublin."

Given the fact he was one of the leading negotiators at the treaty talks and he set up the movement Sinn Fein back in 1907. You'd have thought a better account of his death would come out in the intervening years.

You haven't even bothered to read all of the Wikipedia page your giving out about, you just read the last paragraph.

The circumstances surrounding Griffiths death are well known- he had been convalescing in a nursing home in the weeks prior to his death as he had become seriously run down due to stress and had suffered a severe bout of tonsillitis. He insisted on returning to work and died of a either a heart attack or brain haemorrhage as he was leaving the nursing home.

Life expectancy was much shorter in the early 20th century, that people died young (or relatively young) was just accepted. Autopsies were a rarity back then.

KingBrian2

Arsemageddon wrote: »

You haven't even bothered to read all of the Wikipedia page your giving out about, you just read the last paragraph.

The circumstances surrounding Griffiths death are well known- he had been convalescing in a nursing home in the weeks prior to his death as he had become seriously run down due to stress and had suffered a severe bout of tonsillitis. He insisted on returning to work and died of a either a heart attack or brain haemorrhage as he was leaving the nursing home.

Life expectancy was much shorter in the early 20th century, that people died young (or relatively young) was just accepted. Autopsies were a rarity back then.

Thanks for that. I honestly never knew about that.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I honestly never knew about that.

I can well believe it!

jonniebgood1

4ensic15 wrote: »

I can well believe it!

Stick to the topic, any more goading or off topic posts may earn infractions.
Moderator

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is a big difference between signing and passing. Anyway, he knew what he was letting himself in for when he signed it. When he did it, he announced it was his death warrant. He was in poor health when he died and may well have died young anyway, like Griffith.

I was also not aware Collins was ill before his assassination by the Irregulars. Had he not being shot he could well have lived as long as Dev or Clancy. Griffith did not die young.

Peregrinus

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I was also not aware Collins was ill before his assassination by the Irregulars. Had he not being shot he could well have lived as long as Dev or Clancy. Griffith did not die young.

Griffiths was fifty, and even in 1922 a death at fifty was an untimely death.

For a man in 1920s Ireland, life expectancy at birth was 57.4 years. But this average was brought down by high infant and childhood mortality. A man who surivved to adulthood could expect to live, on average, until his late 60s. A man who was still alive at 50 could reasonably look forward to seeing age 70.

So, yeah, Griffiths died before his time, and it was seen at the time, and since, that his early death was attributable at least in part to strain and overwork.

Collins was a much younger man, who had generally enjoyed excellent health both as a child and an adult. Undoubtedly his position in 1922 was a very stressful one, especially after Griffith died, but I think the prospects that he would have coped with that stress, at least physically, were much better.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Griffiths was fifty, and even in 1922 a death at fifty was an untimely death.

For a man in 1920s Ireland, life expectancy at birth was 57.4 years. But this average was brought down by high infant and childhood mortality. A man who surivved to adulthood could expect to live, on average, until his late 60s. A man who was still alive at 50 could reasonably look forward to seeing age 70.

So, yeah, Griffiths died before his time, and it was seen at the time, and since, that his early death was attributable at least in part to strain and overwork.

Collins was a much younger man, who had generally enjoyed excellent health both as a child and an adult. Undoubtedly his position in 1922 was a very stressful one, especially after Griffith died, but I think the prospects that he would have coped with that stress, at least physically, were much better.

Collins had stomach trouble when he died. He also had a cold when he went to Cork but nevertheless sat in the back of an open car. Like Griffith, he refused to slow down or rest. He would take steps three at a go to save time. He slept little. He was up at 6 Am on his last day. the reality is that his immune system was breaking down and had he survived Beal na Blath there is no guarantee that he would have lived a normal life span. It is much more likely he would have been beset by health problems.

Peregrinus

4ensic15 wrote: »

Collins had stomach trouble when he died. He also had a cold when he went to Cork but nevertheless sat in the back of an open car. Like Griffith, he refused to slow down or rest. He would take steps three at a go to save time. He slept little. He was up at 6 Am on his last day. the reality is that his immune system was breaking down and had he survived Beal na Blath there is no guarantee that he would have lived a normal life span. It is much more likely he would have been beset by health problems.

Collins routinely taking steps three at a go and getting up at 6 am is hardly an indication of poor health, 4ensic15. I think your claim that his immune system was breaking down because he had stomach trouble and a cold is a bit of a stretch. Compromised immune system, I'd buy. But depleted or compromised immune system as a result of stress isn't at all uncommon, and full recovery is usual. To go through such an experience at 30 wouldn't have implications for future life expectancy.

We can point to lots of leaders who fought wars that lasted much longer than the Irish Civil War, and who did so at an older age, and already in poorer health, than Collins, and yet lived to a ripe old age. Indeed, if we look at the leaders on the other side of the Irish Civil War, who presumably suffered similar stress in the conflict plus the additional stress of losing, Frank Aiken died in his bed at the age of 85, Eamon de Valera lived to 92. Collins himself was succeeded as leader of the Free State side by W T Cosgrave as Chairman of the Provisional Government and by Richard Mulcahy as Commander in Chief; both lived to be 85. So, really, there's not much reason for thinking that the stress of leading either side in the Irish Civil War would shorten life expectancy.

Really, apart from Collins himself, the only Civil War leader on either side who didn't live to a ripe old age was Liam Lynch, and we know why that[/i[ was.

There's a cult of Michael Collins out there. It existed while he was alive, and it escalated after he died. And those who belong to this cult ascribe almost superhuman or supernatural powers to him. The truth is, he was flawed. He died a broken man, by all accounts, as he had to face up to these flaws. He regretted the signing of the treaty, apparently, yet felt compelled to fight in its name. He died a shadow of himself. British intelligence documents even comment on the deterioration in his appearance, he had gotten quite out of shape.

There's an obvious element of human tragedy in the story of Michael Collins. But one must balance whatever sympathies they have for him on a human level with the fact that he was responsible for a lot of tragedy and brutality before he died.

Water John

Take no sides, flawed yes, but you cannot say 'he died a broken man, by all accounts'.
That is hyperbole. There is no such 'account' TMK.
Sweeping generalisation with no truth.

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

Collins routinely taking steps three at a go and getting up at 6 am is hardly an indication of poor health, 4ensic15. I think your claim that his immune system was breaking down because he had stomach trouble and a cold is a bit of a stretch. Compromised immune system, I'd buy. But depleted or compromised immune system as a result of stress isn't at all uncommon, and full recovery is usual. To go through such an experience at 30 wouldn't have implications for future life expectancy.

We can point to lots of leaders who fought wars that lasted much longer than the Irish Civil War, and who did so at an older age, and already in poorer health, than Collins, and yet lived to a ripe old age. Indeed, if we look at the leaders on the other side of the Irish Civil War, who presumably suffered similar stress in the conflict plus the additional stress of losing, Frank Aiken died in his bed at the age of 85, Eamon de Valera lived to 92. Collins himself was succeeded as leader of the Free State side by W T Cosgrave as Chairman of the Provisional Government and by Richard Mulcahy as Commander in Chief; both lived to be 85. So, really, there's not much reason for thinking that the stress of leading either side in the Irish Civil War would shorten life expectancy.

Really, apart from Collins himself, the only Civil War leader on either side who didn't live to a ripe old age was Liam Lynch, and we know why that[/i[ was.

DeValera and Mulcahy were individuals who alwyas slept well. Collins was pushing himself beyond the beyonds. He would have suffered burnout within a short time. He was not sleeping enough, he was drinking too much, had already developed a stomach disorder and I have no doubt he would have kept going till he dropped.

KingBrian2

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a cult of Michael Collins out there. It existed while he was alive, and it escalated after he died. And those who belong to this cult ascribe almost superhuman or supernatural powers to him. The truth is, he was flawed. He died a broken man, by all accounts, as he had to face up to these flaws. He regretted the signing of the treaty, apparently, yet felt compelled to fight in its name. He died a shadow of himself. British intelligence documents even comment on the deterioration in his appearance, he had gotten quite out of shape.

There's an obvious element of human tragedy in the story of Michael Collins. But one must balance whatever sympathies they have for him on a human level with the fact that he was responsible for a lot of tragedy and brutality before he died.

The tragedy was not C&C Michael Collins it was the civil war which had to be put down by extreme and brutal measures. He went on record to publically back the treaty while many of his compatriots conspired to have him shot.

If anything it goes to show the treachery of those who refused to accept the terms of the treaty that had been negotiated by Collins & Griffith in the name of the Dáil.

Water John

No point in reiterating the two sides of the civil war here.
The extreme nationalists, and I'm not referring to Dev here, were never going to accept any thing less than the delivery of a 32 county Ireland at that point.

Politicians know its always about the art of the possible.

Its why the settlement in NI took so much time, to bring as many as possible along the road.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The tragedy was not C&C Michael Collins it was the civil war which had to be put down by extreme and brutal measures. He went on record to publically back the treaty while many of his compatriots conspired to have him shot.

If anything it goes to show the treachery of those who refused to accept the terms of the treaty that had been negotiated by Collins & Griffith in the name of the Dáil.

He was reputed to have been having an affair with Lady Lavary around the time of the treaty, and she gave an account of him basically being hoodwinked by more skilled parliamentarians and negotiators. In fairness, the Irish delegation were up against a strong British team. By her account he did not support the treaty, immediately regretted signing it, fell into depression and turned up in a car one night to her house asking her to leave for the States with him.

Revisionists have sought to portray the IRA and Lynch in particular as some blood thirsty fundamentalist who was hell bent on war, but the opposite was the truth. Lynch sought every means of avoiding a conflict, whereas Collins was the one who fired the initial shots, broke the pact, refused to consider steps to move back from the brink etc.

I think it was Meda Ryan's book on Liam Lynch which best illustrated the efforts made by Lynch and others to figure out some means of moving forward without armed conflict, but, particularly after the Fours Courts assault, they met a brick wall in Collins. And Collins was the man who could have saved the situation.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

He was reputed to have been having an affair with Lady Lavary around the time of the treaty, and she gave an account of him basically being hoodwinked by more skilled parliamentarians and negotiators. In fairness, the Irish delegation were up against a strong British team. By her account he did not support the treaty, immediately regretted signing it, fell into depression and turned up in a car one night to her house asking her to leave for the States with him.

Revisionists have sought to portray the IRA and Lynch in particular as some blood thirsty fundamentalist who was hell bent on war, but the opposite was the truth. Lynch sought every means of avoiding a conflict, whereas Collins was the one who fired the initial shots, broke the pact, refused to consider steps to move back from the brink etc.

I think it was Meda Ryan's book on Liam Lynch which best illustrated the efforts made by Lynch and others to figure out some means of moving forward without armed conflict, but, particularly after the Fours Courts assault, they met a brick wall in Collins. And Collins was the man who could have saved the situation.

Collins was told to attack the Four Courts by Churchill.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Collins was told to attack the Four Courts by Churchill.

This was months after the treaty had been agreed and a Free State general had been kidnapped.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This was months after the treaty had been agreed and a Free State general had been kidnapped.

Who said it wasn't?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Collins was told to attack the Four Courts by Churchill.

Had the pact been adhered to, and it wasn't as Collins deliberately broke its terms, it offered a means for a coalition based 3rd Dáil Éireann to bring the treaty for ratification before the Irish people.

Such a major decision surely required the consent of the Irish people. How can anyone argue on behalf of a man who denied the Irish people their right to vote on their own destinies through subterfuge and then who would subsequently claim that the pact election, he manipulated and betrayed, was the Irish people's decision on the treaty and therefore provided a British armed militia with a mandate to attack the IRA?

Those are not the actions of an honest man. If Collins was merely a man caught in between a rock and a hard place by the failure of Griffith in London to repel the Welsh Wizards charms then how are his actions around the pact justified?

Why would Collins behave in such a manner if he truly sought unity?
The pact was agreed among both sides of army and party to establish a truce capable of permitting the government to come together in peace and place the debate before the people. An agreement was reached and that agreement was broken off by the actions of Collins on the eve of the election, Griffith refused to betray Lloyd George but Collins had no issue betraying both his own side in the treaty debate and those opposed, and in doing so, he proved that he wanted a war with his own. The killing of Henry Wilson just sped it up.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Who said it wasn't?

Collins had to act against the Four Courts given the treacherous actions committed against his force never mind what Churchill wanted. Those who took over the Four Courts weren't his men.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Collins had to act against the Four Courts given the treacherous actions committed against his force never mind what Churchill wanted. Those who took over the Four Courts weren't his men.

Churchill told Collins to get the Four Courts cleared or the Brits would come back and do it. The Four Courts had been occupied for months before Collins acted.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Churchill told Collins to get the Four Courts cleared or the Brits would come back and do it. The Four Courts had been occupied for months before Collins acted.

Collins at this stage had to put the treaty into force, to allow a building to remain under the control of irregular factions risked the implementation of the treaty but that is exactly what the anti treatyites wanted. Others in the cabinet would have expected the other IRA units to stand down and respect the chain of command. Collins was naïve in believing he could reason with the anti-treayites. He delayed too long in removing the threat of an IRA mutiny.

Chuchote

Returning to the subject… I don't think this can be called an assassination. He died in one of many ambushes set up for Free State troops by Volunteers. His death was mourned by both sides; there are accounts, for instance, of Republican prisoners falling to their knees to say a rosary for the repose of his soul when the news came in.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Collins at this stage had to put the treaty into force, to allow a building to remain under the control of irregular factions risked the implementation of the treaty but that is exactly what the anti treatyites wanted. Others in the cabinet would have expected the other IRA units to stand down and respect the chain of command. Collins was naïve in believing he could reason with the anti-treayites. He delayed too long in removing the threat of an IRA mutiny.

Collins did what Churchill told him.

KingBrian2

Chuchote wrote: »

Returning to the subject… I don't think this can be called an assassination. He died in one of many ambushes set up for Free State troops by Volunteers. His death was mourned by both sides; there are accounts, for instance, of Republican prisoners falling to their knees to say a rosary for the repose of his soul when the news came in.

Well calling it an ambush would be the most accurate term to describe it, considering his position at the top of the Free State gvt it was more likely an unplanned assassination. I'm not sure if the attackers even knew who he was. In any case the war in that part of Ireland was particularly fierce so he knew what he was getting himself in for heading down there.

Water John

Yes, republicans were sorry at the loss of Collins.
The man who raised the word that a convoy had passed that morning was not thanked, in later years.
This was an ambush set up at short notice. They chanced, that because a lot of the routes were blocked, it might return the same route, militarily inadvisable.

4ensic15

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well calling it an ambush would be the most accurate term to describe it, considering his position at the top of the Free State gvt it was more likely an unplanned assassination. I'm not sure if the attackers even knew who he was. In any case the war in that part of Ireland was particularly fierce so he knew what he was getting himself in for heading down there.

Of course they knew who he was. He had passed through earlier on the day of the incident. He had been hanging around in pubs on the day. It would have been common knowledge he was in cork, let alone a secret to the irregulars.

Water John

Communication systems were very diff. Not at all sure they knew.
Chance happens. Remember Dev had stayed nearby the night before. Some may believe that there was some intention to meet.

KingBrian2

4ensic15 wrote: »

Of course they knew who he was. He had passed through earlier on the day of the incident. He had been hanging around in pubs on the day. It would have been common knowledge he was in cork, let alone a secret to the irregulars.

You weren't around back then. How do you know? They could have mistook him for a free state officer. High ranking officers all travelled in convoys back then.

4ensic15

Water John wrote: »

Communication systems were very diff. Not at all sure they knew.
Chance happens. Remember Dev had stayed nearby the night before. Some may believe that there was some intention to meet.

There were good enough communication systems, even at that time. There were phones and people with bikes and motor vehicles.