Originally Posted by QueenB
but they did come back in late november,i mean,is not like they just signed.. they went back showed what they could achived,and then well.. i just cant believe it was on the minds of the irish politicians back then that the english would have said "oh is this what you wanted? ok sure why not"
what i mean is..if the delegation did come back to consult on the resolutions, and then they were pressured by george.. was Devs way or the highway?
no, most certainly not. i agree with the above poster, particularily with the issue of the boundary commission.
dev knew, or had a very good idea what britian would offer since june -july. dev did have to take care and influence people in the dail, prepare people like and in particular cathal brugha, who was extremely hostile to the treaty and to collins and basically all that happened during the tan war, oddly enought (a man, for all his fine bravery, had no part in the tan war fighting), even had he being invited to take part. dev had in his papers, and according to historians like tp coogan (yes he is hostile to dev, he is just one example) admitted that he was not a doctrine republican in the same sense as brugha and stack.
the big problem was the confusion as to the powers of the delegates given by dev. they were not prepared, as pointed. as for the external relations theory, which developed in document no 2, dev had taken the opportunity to raise this with llyod george during the conference in july, he got no joy. instead of thinking of improved solutions etc he just sticked to his guns on the external association and provided the delegate with damn all guidance .
in fairness to all five and childers, they were men who probably had a better understanding of the british temperament and thinking and knew what british people were like. imagine brugha at the meeting?
wasn't dev in limerick on the morning it was signed?
its a shame that the civil war fighting occurred (people still could oppose and not surrendered their ideology) as dev was very quick to learn when in power in the early days, how less restrictive he had originally thought the treaty powers were when dealing with domestic matters.
whatever work you are doing for this, i would strongly suggest that you look at the oath of allegiance/fidelity taken by the dominions that of canada, australia and south africa, then look at the modern day version (all this can be got on the net) and compare and contrast them with the irish free state oath. you may see some differences with them, was the oath taken by the free state actually an oath of allegiance to the crown after all? i strongly recommend you look at this, i believe griffith got a bit of a concession with the wording of this.
with regard to the north, the train in motion with them started with the conversative party's allegiance with the unionists. they began to take the mantle from the ipp have hold the balance of power in westminister. the establishment of the uvf and their clear actions in public without army and police intervention made unity difficult. yes, home rule fianally became law in 1914, but the actions / bravery of the 36th ulster division in places like somme, and their reasons for fighting made it clear that in time, home rule could not be put in on parts of ireland. moreover, during the war itself, the government was in coalation, with carson in the war council. .. the events of ww1 and actions of uvf in that war and the delay in implementing the 1914 act, influence, inter alia, people like pearse that home rule would not come or be enough and complete seperation was the way forward.