Which state really mistreated republicans?

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.