If Michael Collins had lived....

And the founder of Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffiths, was one of the most pro-Treaty men. Funny how the wheel has gone full circle.

DeValera was jealous of Collins. He reckoned the best way to put him down was to send him to the UK to try and negotiate the unnegotiable (i.e. a Republic) and he would then come back a failure. However, when Collins signed the Treaty because he knew this was the best they'd get and the IRA was on its knees, DeValera (who has spent most of the Troubles out of harms way in the USA) couldn't accept it because he'd have to play second fiddle to Collins. Now, there probably would have been a civil war even without Dev but he bears most of the blame and his motives were mostly personal rather than political - although obviously he did believe the terms weren't acceptable.

Just for the record, it wasn't Dev that was in charge when we becam a republic in '48 or '49, it was Fine Gael.

Where to start, 'War of Independence'? was that independence that partitioned the country, and got elected Irish representives to swear an oath of allegence, in fact terms little better then Home Rule, which would have come into force regardless of the Anglo Irish War. The war was a success pretty much on the basis that the as a nation we didn't get our arses kicked for the first time and forced Britain to the negotiating table. The reason that 1916 is so highly regarded is that it brought out an untapped well of nationalism that lead to the Anglo Irish War an brought about an identifable modern day Irish constitution (the Proclamation) along with modern day identifiable historical and heroical figures.

As for the original point, while undoubtedly Collins was a genius in the art of guarilla warfare and counter espionage, question marks over his political nouse have to be asked, firstly it has been pretty much agreed that Lloyd George forced him to sign the treaty and DeV got him to go to go to sign it. Hardly the sign of a political heavy weight. Further to put so much weight on the findings of the boarder commission, who believed that once the Occupied state had its fullest secure boarders that they would ever give up one inch of it?

Finally TPC's The IRA and actually virtually every other book about the civil war states that the vast majority of the army sided with the anti treaty forces. As mum always asks a nation that had no guns, weaponary or cash managed to raise arm, train and full time army, where did the cash come from?

Also it probably doesn't do Ireland as a nation a lot of good dwelling on the what ifs of history, historical figures tend to lose their romance as they get older and the whiff of cordite moves further away so we will never know and never know what course of action that Collins would have taken if leader, he may have become a whipping boy to DeV, he may have become leader and made Ireland an economic stagnant pond like DeV we can't know and dwelling on it as Ireland has done for so long is hardly the sign of a healthy nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

And the founder of Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffiths, was one of the most pro-Treaty men. Funny how the wheel has gone full circle.

---

Well not really, Griffith was never really a Republican, he believed that Ireland should have its own seperate parliament but within a dual Monarchy system (as with Austria Hungery) meaning in effect that Ireland would still be with in the bounds of the empire.

However what you do see with the Civil War was the almost enevitable clash between violent Repuplicanism on one hand and consitutional Nationalism on the other, throughout the late 18th and 19th century one or the other had the upper hand in Irish poltics and on occasions - such as the land wars they joined however effectively they could never co exist. Constutional Nationalism of Parnell and O' Connell stopped short of what violent nationalism demanded so when they were given effectively the half measure and let get on with it there was perhaps only one outcome - even if home rule had been granted earlier it is likely that there would still have been a rebellion against Ireland within the empire (although now I realise that I'm speculating as I was railing against above)

I disagree about the glory of 1916. Why aren't the risings of 1798, 1803 and the other sporadic ones during the ninetinth centruy thought of in the same way that '16 was. They all left a legacy of nationalism. Is it because what some percieve as victory (clearly not me) followed soon after it?

Collins hands were very much tied. During my A LEVEL history we were told of Collins saying during the treaty negotiations soemthing to the ffect of "When we were told of a truce we thought you were insane, we couldn't have held out for more than few more weeks". He was by no means a politican and de Valera knew it but he didn't have the balls to sign what he knew would be an unacceptable agreement.

Collins living would have made little difference to the permenant partition that was inevitable by 1920's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speranza

I disagree about the glory of 1916. Why aren't the risings of 1798, 1803 and the other sporadic ones during the ninetinth centruy thought of in the same way that '16 was. They all left a legacy of nationalism. Is it because what some percieve as victory (clearly not me) followed soon after it?

---

As I said they were modern day heroes, also maybe a bit harsh on them and their place in history is also down to the fact that was followed shortly by Ireland's own parliament, I agree that the eventual result moved Ireland on very little more then it would have anyway 'Home Rule and the Treaty being similar documents.
But as I said we can identify with it because it gives Ireland the Proclamation, we have photograpghs of the event, even the odd bit of cinefilm, it comes to life easier. In a world domenated by the visual it brings history to us bit bit more then '98, '03 '48 or 67. Its perhaps not the entire reason but I do believe it accounts for some of it.