Which state really mistreated republicans?

Dr_serious2

I always found it interesting to think that the Irish Free State (1922-1949) put 87 republicans to death. The vast majority of these were during the Civil War, although there was a handful during the Emergency too.

Meanwhile, the North, long derided for its sectarian policies, only executed one Republican in that time frame. Obviously discrimination is measured in more than executions, but why was the firing squad (and an English hangman in one case) used so liberally down here against people we once purported to support?

The Irish Free State ended with the Constitution of 1937...

Dr_serious2

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

I always found it interesting to think that the Irish Free State (1922-1949) put 87 republicans to death. The vast majority of these were during the Civil War, although there was a handful during the Emergency too.

Meanwhile, the North, long derided for its sectarian policies, only executed one Republican in that time frame. Obviously discrimination is measured in more than executions, but why was the firing squad (and an English hangman in one case) used so liberally down here against people we once purported to support?

It was a civil war... There's going to be a fair bit of bitterness about those that went against the treaty and decided to kill other Irishmen.

What? You think that immediately after the war ends, people are just going to forgive and forget what happened? I'm guessing there wasn't any split in your family about the treaty then... My grandfather never forgave his brother for fighting with the Anti-treaty forces, and my side of the family has never met that brother's side of the family since.

FTA69

The Civil War began when Collins decided to accept guns off the British government and bomb he Four Courts.

Peatys

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My grandfather never forgave his brother for fighting with the Anti-treaty forces, and my side of the family has never met that brother's side of the family since.

Why not? Your grandfather doesn't get to decide who talks to who.

If ff and fg can get past treaty politics, so can we.

Kumbaya etc

frag420

Was hoping this was a Republican/Trump bashing thread...I am disappoint!

FrancieBrady

Civil Wars are invariably nasty occurrences. Everything gets warped in judgement, personal and group think.

The same can be said of suppression and oppression only the result comes later.
The civil war released a pressure valve quickly and suppression and oppression took time to explode and resulted in much more death and destruction and is still an intractable problem to solve.

Peatys

frag420 wrote: »

Was hoping this was a Republican/Trump bashing thread...I am disappoint!

Early doors yet. Still have to get through multi quotes, someone will say hyperbolic, strawman, vitriol, sealion and a few other forum words i haven't googled yet..

Edit: and of course, the rollseyes.

Peatys

Peatys wrote: »

Why not? Your grandfather doesn't get to decide who talks to who.

All very logical. :rolleyes:

Family politics are far worse than anything the political parties can throw out.

Peatys

[Deleted User] wrote: »

All very logical. :rolleyes:

Hai

FrancieBrady

The Irish state locked away the testimonies of those involved in our decade of internal strife.
They only opened the archive last year when all from the period were dead. Every time I go to it I get lost in fascination at some of the personal stories from the period.
That move is largely held responsible for fostering what is called 'civil war politics' because many many ghosts were not put to bed from a justice point of view. Different times.

Capt'n Midnight

FTA69 wrote: »

The Civil War began when Collins decided to accept guns off the British government and bomb he Four Courts.

Are you sure it didn't start three months earlier when the Four Courts were taken over ?

Dev had three months to reconcile but was a me féinner.

Avatar MIA

Since when were the Free Staters/Pro treaty not republicans?

donegaLroad

The treatment of Republican prisoners by the Irish Free state after the civil war was abysmal.

Approx 12,000 Republicans had been interned by the Irish Free state by 1923.

8,000 of them went on hunger strike in protest at their continued detention; the strike was called off when 2 of them died.

Sure Rory O'Connor was executed by the Irish free state army, and at the same time had been best man at Kevin O'Higgin's wedding. What does that tell you?

um7y1h83ge06nx

I would say any state with a strong monarchy or dictatorship.

Thinking about it the worst states for republicans would have been the Soviet Union and China. Not being a committed communist in Stalin's Russia would have been rough and he killed more people than Hitler.

Capt'n Midnight

Franco's Spain wasn't Republican friendly.

tomwaterford

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Since when were the Free Staters/Pro treaty not republicans?

Since they swore alligence to the Crown??


How can someone be a republican and do that?

Hector Bellend

Dr_serious2 wrote: »

I always found it interesting to think that the Irish Free State (1922-1949) put 87 republicans to death. The vast majority of these were during the Civil War, although there was a handful during the Emergency too.

Meanwhile, the North, long derided for its sectarian policies, only executed one Republican in that time frame. Obviously discrimination is measured in more than executions, but why was the firing squad (and an English hangman in one case) used so liberally down here against people we once purported to support?

How many unionists were executed during the same period?

Avatar MIA

tomwaterford wrote: »

Since they swore alligence to the Crown??


How can someone be a republican and do that?

A means to an end. They were hardly monarchists. And I don't think that was the issue with the Anti-Treaty crowd. It was always the plan to break away, but where the plan failed was that they thought the six counties would eventually follow.

jim_bull

FTA69 wrote: »

The Civil War began when Collins decided to accept guns off the British government and bomb he Four Courts.

no it began when develera decided to make a scapegoat of collins , he knew what we got was the best we could at the time so he sent collins over to collect the silver medal and then threw a strop when he arrived back

jim_bull

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Franco's Spain wasn't Republican friendly.

you mean communist friendly , franco was a murderous tyrant but he was fighting bolsheviks

tomwaterford

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A means to an end. They were hardly monarchists..

Be that as it may

Someone republican can't swear oath of alligence to a monarch (of any country) and expect to be called a republican and be taken seriously...there are completely different




If you stand for nothing,you'll fall for anything. ...as the old saying geos

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

Be that as it may

Someone republican can't swear oath of alligence to a monarch (of any country) and expect to be called a republican and be taken seriously...there are completely different

Yes, because Republicans are romantics/dreamers thinking they can win an extended war against the British... All because they wouldn't swear an oath that would be gone a few years later.

If you stand for nothing,you'll fall for anything. ...as the old saying geos

Better to get limited freedom with the definite promise of complete freedom later, than continue a war that would probably have been lost, and encourage a harsher (re)occupation.

I definitely prefer the pragmatic attitude of the pro-treaty supporters, than the attitude of the "republicans" who would prefer to continue the war against the British with little expectation of success... and also to consider killing other Irishmen rather than use peaceful means. But then I guess lives are cheap compared to certain "values". Yes.. "Republicans" are so much better.

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, because Republicans are romantics/dreamers thinking they can win an extended war against the British... All because they wouldn't swear an oath that would be gone a few years later.



Better to get limited freedom with the definite promise of complete freedom later, than continue a war that would probably have been lost, and encourage a harsher (re)occupation.

Meh...if your willing to compromise and swear oath to someone else that's up to yous....I wouldn't even kneel at mass tbh


As for a second point that "complete freedom later" its been nearly a century now?....I think it's safe to say that was a lie

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, because Republicans are romantics/dreamers thinking they can win an extended war against the British... All because they wouldn't swear an oath that would be gone a few years later.



Better to get limited freedom with the definite promise of complete freedom later, than continue a war that would probably have been lost, and encourage a harsher (re)occupation.

I definitely prefer the pragmatic attitude of the pro-treaty supporters, than the attitude of the "republicans" who would prefer to continue the war against the British with little expectation of success... and also to consider killing other Irishmen rather than use peaceful means. But then I guess lives are cheap compared to certain "values". Yes.. "Republicans" are so much better.

Hindsight is a great thing as they say.

I wonder what shape the world would be in had people not stood up for what they believed in?

Both sides in Ireland had decisions to make based on what they believed (honestly) the outcomes would be.

The honest belief that not totally ending the British period of rule here would have huge implications for a section of Irish people was fully borne out by subsequent events.

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

Meh...if your willing to compromise and swear oath to someone else that's up to yous....I wouldn't even kneel at mass tbh

Just words. I'm more practical-minded. I prefer the benefits of the Republic to living in an occupied country controlled by the power that was willing to unleash the Black'n'tans.

As for a second point that "complete freedom later" its been nearly a century now?....I think it's safe to say that was a lie

Are you a British Citizen? No? A citizen of the Republic of Ireland? Yes?

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just words. I'm more practical-minded. I prefer the benefits of the Republic to living in an occupied country controlled by the power that was willing to unleash the Black'n'tans.



Are you a British Citizen? No? A citizen of the Republic of Ireland? Yes?

Meh and yet 2 million or so people live under occupation still,and had likes of parashute regiment released on them.....but sure we'll just turn a blind eye to that once yous get the benefits of living in a republic



Just someone asked were pro treaty republicans...all I pointed out was the hypocritesy of claiming to be and swearing oath of alligence to the Crown....that to be is a circle that can't be squared

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wonder what shape the world would be in had people not stood up for what they believed in?

Perhaps no civil war, and a Republic that didn't lose so many incredible people to a temper tantrum?

We're at opposite ends here. I have zero patience with the romantic nonsense of the "republicans" from the millisecond they decided to break with the "pro-treaty" side.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps no civil war, and a Republic that didn't lose so many incredible people to a temper tantrum?

We're at opposite ends here. I have zero patience with the romantic nonsense of the "republicans" from the millisecond they decided to break with the "pro-treaty" side.

One could characteristise those who thought they could establish a successful state and ignore the fact that they consigned huge numbers of their fellow citizens to sectarian bigoted misrule and continued subjugation as 'romantic' too.
I would prefer the words 'romantic and tragically deluded' myself.

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

Meh and yet 2 million or so people live under occupation still,and had likes of parashute regiment released on them.....

Are you including the British and immigrants in that figure?

How about the numbers of Irish people in the north? Hmm... How would you determine the figure?

but sure we'll just turn a blind eye to that once yous get the benefits of living in a republic

Yous? Err... aren't you also in the Republic?

And I repeat. I prefer a Republic to no Republic. Obviously, you'd prefer to do all or nothing.

Just someone asked were pro treaty republicans...all I pointed out was the hypocritesy of claiming to be and swearing oath of alligence to the Crown....that to be is a circle that can't be squared

Sure. it can. a means to an end. All squared.

Avatar MIA

tomwaterford wrote: »

Be that as it may

Someone republican can't swear oath of alligence to a monarch (of any country) and expect to be called a republican and be taken seriously...there are completely different

You're entitled to your opinion.

tomwaterford wrote: »

If you stand for nothing,you'll fall for anything. ...as the old saying geos

Not sure of the relevance here to this oft used quote in this context. You can hardly accuse the pro treaty side for not having the courage of their convictions. Were they monarchists, 100% no. They were republicans taking advantage of the Sop required by the British.

Your Face

Yay - Civil war politics

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, because Republicans are romantics/dreamers thinking they can win an extended war against the British... All because they wouldn't swear an oath that would be gone a few years later.



Better to get limited freedom with the definite promise of complete freedom later, than continue a war that would probably have been lost, and encourage a harsher (re)occupation.

I definitely prefer the pragmatic

Yes, that Boundary Commission business was such a resounding success in this regard. Not. At the very, very best reading, the people who signed the Treaty were extraordinarily duped. Naive. Idiotic. At very best. The thoughts of Arthur Griffith during the negotiations, however, betray a mind that was overly impressed by the power of the British Empire and very keen to please them in order to be given some of it.

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A means to an end. They were hardly monarchists. And I don't think that was the issue with the Anti-Treaty crowd. It was always the plan to break away, but where the plan failed was that they thought the six counties would eventually follow.

The Oath of Allegiance was, by every established historical account, the principal issue for anti-Treaty republicans and as such the principal cause of the Irish Civil War. It was generally believed that partition would not be permanent so the Oath became the main issue.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Franco's Spain wasn't Republican friendly.

True. They did like Fine Gael, though. And let us never forget it (some 12 years after their crowd tied 10 Irishmen to a landmine in Ballyseedy wood and blew 9 of them to death and some 45 years before a Fine Gael-controlled Dublin City Council refused to grant Nelson Mandela Freedom of the City). Quick rewrite on that history from all our resident Blueshirts!

Kermit.de.frog

Fine Gael are a Republican party as is every party in the Dáil.

SEPT 23 1989

Don't think they would have bothered if they had received advanced copies of Reeling in the Years

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Are you sure it didn't start three months earlier when the Four Courts were taken over ?

Dev had three months to reconcile but was a me féinner.

Dev had no control over Republicans like Mellows and O'Connor. Whether you agree with them or not, like the men of 1916 they were prepared to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.

Plus the execution of prisoners during the Civil War was particularly savage, very often it was a summary execution without trial and motivated solely by revenge, when Mellows and O'Connor were executed they simply selected one from each province. When the prisoners in Ballyseedy were blown apart, they strafed what remained of the bodies with gunfire. Those in Cahersiveen suffered a more gruesome fate, their limbs were broken and knees shot first to ensure they couldn't escape.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Are you sure it didn't start three months earlier when the Four Courts were taken over ?

Dev had three months to reconcile but was a me fner.

Dev had no control over the men in the Four Courts. They were military men who recognised no civil authority. Dev gets far too much blame for the Civil War.

baylah17

FTA69 wrote: »

The Civil War began when Collins decided to accept guns off the British government and bomb he Four Courts.

No
It began when a bunch of traitors took over the four courts

tomwaterford

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not sure of the relevance here to this oft used quote in this context. You can hardly accuse the pro treaty side for not having the courage of their convictions. Were they monarchists, 100% no. They were republicans taking advantage of the Sop required by the British.

I fear you may be mistaking nationlism with being republican??

An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship

Quite how you can make and claim this idiolgy ok with swearing an oath to any crown is beyond me tbh

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

No
It began when a bunch of traitors took over the four courts

Or signed a Treaty that sold out the ideals of 1916, with no authority to do so from a Dail to which they had pledged allegiance and after a week in which many of them cracked in the face of a clearly smarter British negotiating team and went drinking heavily in London.