Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Why did the Irish Free State come to an end?

  • 06-06-2013 1:15am
    #1
    tdv123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭


    Taking the Free State out of the British Empire, the "oath of allegiance" being abolished & the "treaty ports" given back to the Irish government.
    Why did this all happen so easily in 1937 & why was there no objection from Britain?

    If these terms had been set just 15 years earlier in the Anglo-Irish treaty in the first place would this have saved us from the Civil War?


Comments

  • #2
    Oh me head
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭Oh me head


    In short Wallis Simpson & the Abdication crisis is to thank for the ending of the Free State


  • #3
    brennan1979
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭brennan1979


    There's an article here. http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/04/the-abdication-of-edward-viii-and-irish-independence/#.UbEKT5xgd30

    One of the interesting things is that, because of the Statute of Westminster, all Commonwealth countries had to co-ordinate their legislation regarding the abdication at the same time. It could have potentiality led to a situation where they had a different individual as monarch to the other states within the Commonwealth.

    It does raise the question why Westminster threatened terrible and immediate war during the Treaty negotiations when the dismantling of the Treaty was achieved by 1938 without a shot being fired.


  • #4
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Which showed good timing by Develara, especially in light of the present of the treaty ports and then very likelihood of another European war.


  • #5
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brennan1979 wrote: »
    There's an article here. http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/03/04/the-abdication-of-edward-viii-and-irish-independence/#.UbEKT5xgd30

    One of the interesting things is that, because of the Statute of Westminster, all Commonwealth countries had to co-ordinate their legislation regarding the abdication at the same time. It could have potentiality led to a situation where they had a different individual as monarch to the other states within the Commonwealth.

    It does raise the question why Westminster threatened terrible and immediate war during the Treaty negotiations when the dismantling of the Treaty was achieved by 1938 without a shot being fired.

    There was no such threat from Westminster.

    Both sides wanted an end to a trade war that was damaging to both sides, Dev wanted an end to partition (or was that just a negotiating tactic) and Britain wanted the treaty ports. Dev gave up his demands for the north but refused to budge on anything else. He did, apparently give a verbal assurance that Britain would have access to the ports in time of war (which he later refused and is probably one of the reasons Churchill could not stand him).

    The deal was signed in April 1938, just after the Anschluss and Italy's invasion of Ethiopia.

    I would put it down to perfect timing by Dev rather than any issues with the abdication.


  • #6
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    There was no such threat from Westminster.

    Devastatingly compelling deconstruction there. Not.
    There was. Or are you saying a peer of the British House of Lords was lying?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    brennan1979
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭brennan1979


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    There was no such threat from Westminster.

    Both sides wanted an end to a trade war that was damaging to both sides, Dev wanted an end to partition (or was that just a negotiating tactic) and Britain wanted the treaty ports. Dev gave up his demands for the north but refused to budge on anything else. He did, apparently give a verbal assurance that Britain would have access to the ports in time of war (which he later refused and is probably one of the reasons Churchill could not stand him).

    The deal was signed in April 1938, just after the Anschluss and Italy's invasion of Ethiopia.

    I would put it down to perfect timing by Dev rather than any issues with the abdication.

    I mentioned the Treaty negotiations in 1921. Terrible and immediate war is a direct quote from Lloyd George. As I said in the original post the results of the agreement of 1938 and Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937 were, to all intents and purposes, de Valera's Document #2 from the Treaty debates. Document #2 with external association was something all sides in the Dáil at that time could have supported but it was deemed unacceptable from the British side precipitating the Civil War. Yet 15 years later the Anglo - Irish Agreement of 1938 could resolve all these issues without a shot being fired.


  • #8
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brennan1979 wrote: »
    I mentioned the Treaty negotiations in 1921. Terrible and immediate war is a direct quote from Lloyd George. As I said in the original post the results of the agreement of 1938 and Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937 were, to all intents and purposes, de Valera's Document #2 from the Treaty debates. Document #2 with external association was something all sides in the Dáil at that time could have supported but it was deemed unacceptable from the British side precipitating the Civil War. Yet 15 years later the Anglo - Irish Agreement of 1938 could resolve all these issues without a shot being fired.

    Lloyd George warned of war, not threatened it. It was in reference to a response Westminster was expecting back later that day from Belfast to the latest proposals. Griffith is quizzed about it in the Dail debate and makes his understanding very clear.


  • #9
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Lloyd George warned of war, not threatened it. It was in reference to a response Westminster was expecting back later that day from Belfast to the latest proposals. Griffith is quizzed about it in the Dail debate and makes his understanding very clear.

    Its the same thing Fred, i.e. if the current UK Prime minister warns Syria of war it can be taken as a threat. It is not difficult to understand Griffiths expressed view.


  • #10
    brennan1979
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭brennan1979


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Lloyd George warned of war, not threatened it. It was in reference to a response Westminster was expecting back later that day from Belfast to the latest proposals. Griffith is quizzed about it in the Dail debate and makes his understanding very clear.

    A Jesuitical distinction there Fred. I don't think Lloyd George mention of terrible and immediate war could be taken as anything other than a threat. Arthur Griffith's role in agreeing to the Boundary Commission in advance was a huge blow to the Irish side. The tactic of breaking negotiations on the issue of partition was voided by Griffith's pre agreement and, considering the tone of the Treaty debates, it was in Griffith's interests to portray the Treaty as an honourable agreement rather than an agreement signed under the threat of resumed war.

    Getting back to the original point if the British would have conceded in 1921 what they ultimately agreed to in 1938 we could have avoided the Civil War.


  • #11
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brennan1979 wrote: »
    A Jesuitical distinction there Fred. I don't think Lloyd George mention of terrible and immediate war could be taken as anything other than a threat. Arthur Griffith's role in agreeing to the Boundary Commission in advance was a huge blow to the Irish side. The tactic of breaking negotiations on the issue of partition was voided by Griffith's pre agreement and, considering the tone of the Treaty debates, it was in Griffith's interests to portray the Treaty as an honourable agreement rather than an agreement signed under the threat of resumed war.

    Getting back to the original point if the British would have conceded in 1921 what they ultimately agreed to in 1938 we could have avoided the Civil War.

    You seem to be missing my point. In 1921 there was effectively three parties, London, Dublin and Belfast. At the time of the negotiations people were still being killed in the north and there was a possibility that it could very rapidly escalate into a full scale war. The treaty was seen as am end to hostilities.

    in 1938, the back drop was completely different.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    brennan1979 wrote: »

    Getting back to the original point if the British would have conceded in 1921 what they ultimately agreed to in 1938 we could have avoided the Civil War.
    Would a 26 county republic of avoided the civil war or just refocused it northwards?


  • #13
    goose1
    Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭goose1


    Manach wrote: »
    Which showed good timing by Develara, especially in light of the present of the treaty ports and then very likelihood of another European war.

    Good timing or sheer luck? he was known to push his agendas forward despite anything anyway.


  • #14
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    The theory that external association as established in Bunreacht na h-Eireann was a mere accident is false. deValera's commitment to external association, and to a 'Republic all but in name' pre-date the abidcation of Edward VIII.

    This ambition of deValera's is set out in Origins of the Irish Constitution by Dr. Gerard Hogan, as he was then.

    In the Spring of 1935, de Valera invited John Hearne, a legal expert employed at the Department of External Affairs, to prepare draft heads of a new Constitution.
    Dev specified that these draft heads were to incorporate a President who would assume the functions of the King and Governor-General, whilst passively retaining a King as an international, diplomatic figurehead.

    According to Hogan, John Hearne presented the draft heads of the new Constitution to de Valera only one month later, which by then also provided for a State that was entirely republican in form, qualified only by a passive, consequential membership of the Commonwealth.

    Some people erroneously state that external association was an opportunity which accidentally 'developed' only after the abdication of Edward VIII 20 months later, but that is clearly untrue. The intention to disassociate long pre-dated the abdication, the latter of which was only a happy accident.

    I do not intend to suggest that de Valera ever intended to omit all implicit references to the King in the Constitutional reforms he had been working on since the early 1930s. This is false, mainly because he did not even omit reference to the King from Bunreacht na hEireann - even if that reference was thickly veiled in complex and obfuscatory syntax.

    The reference which passively 'facilitates' Ireland as a Kingdom was established in 1937 and has never been removed from the Constitution. It remains to this day in Art.29.4.1°.

    However, clearly de Valera had long planned the same outcome, to which the abidcation was only to give a little nudge.


  • #15
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    tdv123 wrote: »
    Taking the Free State out of the British Empire, the "oath of allegiance" being abolished & the "treaty ports" given back to the Irish government.
    Why did this all happen so easily in 1937 & why was there no objection from Britain?

    If these terms had been set just 15 years earlier in the Anglo-Irish treaty in the first place would this have saved us from the Civil War?

    The main reason it all happened was because of the work done in the Imperial conference in 1926 and afterwards. The Statute of Westminster of 1931 formalised the agreements made at the Imperial Conference. DeValera piggy-backed on what had been done. It was because of these developments that the abdication crisis had such significance.
    Even had it all been conceded in 1921 there would have been a civil war over the republic and partition.


Advertisement