Cork life centre

[The High King]

The treaty was passed by a vote in the Dáil

There were no rules in the standing orders about a super majority so the margin being close was not relevant. athe treaty was passed by a majority of elected representatives in the Dáil everything else is revisionism

The charge was selling out the country.
Using English artillery on fellow Irishmen, some of which was fired by Englishmen at the end of a long War against the English qualifys imo.

Majority of support for the treaty was in areas mostly untouched by the war of independence.
They also supplied most of the men for the free state army.

 

[El Guapo]

The charge was selling out the country.
Using English artillery, some of which was fired by Englishmen at the end of a long War against the English qualifys imo.

Yes, that's fine, you have that opinion. What was set out was the the margin of the legally held Dáil vote being close meant that it was a sell out.

I say that is revision, what happened was a treaty was agreed to by the signatories who had the authority granted to them by the Taoiseach of the day. That treaty was subsequently ratified in a legal vote by the Dáil, which were the elected government of the people. That is how democracy works. Let's not pretend otherwise.

The side who did not win the vote took up arms.

Be critical all you like of subsequent decisions like bowing to pressure from Churchill to use British artillery at the four courts but those events are entirely separate from the ratification of the treaty.

So yes terming it as a sell out is revisionism

 

[The High King]

Since we are

Yes, that's fine, you have that opinion. What was set out was the the margin of the legally held Dáil vote being close meant that it was a sell out.

I say that is revision, what happened was a treaty was agreed to by the signatories who had the authority granted to them by the Taoiseach of the day. That treaty was subsequently ratified in a legal vote by the Dáil, which were the elected government of the people. That is how democracy works. Let's not pretend otherwise.

The side who did not win the vote took up arms.

Be critical all you like of subsequent decisions like bowing to pressure from Churchill to use British artillery at the four courts but those events are entirely separate from the ratification of the treaty.

So yes terming it as a sell out is revisionism

Being a devils advocate for a second and supporting your position.
The nordies who still like to call everybody from the south free staters, many of who also like to point out that the Cork's rebel moniker started with Perkin Warbeck also like to forget that a majority of the divisions in the north supported Michael Collins.

 

[Yermon]

Since we are

Being a devils advocate for a second and supporting your position.
The nordies who still like to call everybody from the south free staters, many of who also like to point out that the Cork's rebel moniker started with Perkin Warbeck also like to forget that a majority of the divisions in the north supported Michael Collins.

Interesting the turn this thread has taken. I think Don (RIP) might have approved. Education is the key.

Cork's rebel moniker had a bit to do with Waherfud squealing to the authorities regarding Warbeck too I think.

As to the Northern Divisions giving support to Michael Collins, I think that any reading of history would put that down to the personal dispositions of leaders in the north and their high regard for Collins rather than the overwhelming wishes of their men. Similarly much of dublin and the recruitment of the "dublin guards" with the entire Squad giving their allegiance to Collins "If it's good enough for Mick it's good enough for us".

Mick himself wasn't fully convinced about the whole "means to achieve full statehood" for the 32, hence still passing on the new weaponry he got from the brits to the northern divisions to fight against the new orange state initially - another reason they felt the need to initially support Collins rather than the Treaty itself imho.

 

[Corks finest]

i know you have a particular perspective on this but the margin is irrelevant.

The Dail carried the motion and ratified the treaty. That is democracy, 50% +1 vote.

Then the minority side of the argument took up arms because they didn't agree.

Selling out the country Is cheap revisionism

Revisionist stuff is the free state denying it executed prisoners without trial,
Ignoring the fact that the free state caused 100 pc the war in the north,
And left the nationalist ppl to suffer under British/ unionist tyranny since the foundation of the partial republic

 

[El Guapo]

Revisionist stuff is the free state denying it executed prisoners without trial,
Ignoring the fact that the free state caused 100 pc the war in tbe north,
And left the nationalist ppl to suffer under British/ unionist tyranny since the foundation of the partial republic

I'm not revising or denying any of those things happened (not sure about the 100% but again you have a perspective and that's fine)

The fact remains the treaty was ratified by the Dail, vv fine margins as you put it are not relevant.

Terning it a sell out is provocative at least, I don't agree with you on it but the margin of the vote is irrelevant. It was democratic and taking up arms was anti Democratic

 

[Yermon]

Revisionist stuff is the free state denying it executed prisoners without trial,
Ignoring the fact that the free state caused 100 pc the war in tbe north,
And left the nationalist ppl to suffer under British/ unionist tyranny since the foundation of the partial republic

They absolutely did execute unarmed defenceless prisoners without trial. And in some cases did it in as barbarous a way as you could think of - imagine strapping nine prisoners to a mine and exploding it so as to blow their bodies to smithereens. Even some in the IDF would balk at that.

Free State or not it's most likely there'd have been fighting in the north either as a separate 6 or as part of the 32 imho. The UVF had imported tens of thousands of guns and a million rounds of ammo so they were going to fight one way or the other I think

Agreed - the lot of nationalists in that statelet had been deplorable. People found themselves on the wrong side of a very arbitrary line and through no fault of their own found themselves in a statelet that discriminated against them even further than had been the case prior to the WoI. I think things have improved since the GFA but the only way was up, and it's still far from perfect there.

 

[The High King]

Interesting the turn this thread has taken. I think Don (RIP) might have approved. Education is the key.

Cork's rebel moniker had a bit to do with Waherfud squealing to the authorities regarding Warbeck too I think.

As to the Northern Divisions giving support to Michael Collins, I think that any reading of history would put that down to the personal dispositions of leaders in the north and their high regard for Collins rather than the overwhelming wishes of their men. Similarly much of dublin and the recruitment of the "dublin guards" with the entire Squad giving their allegiance to Collins "If it's good enough for Mick it's good enough for us".

Mick himself wasn't fully convinced about the whole "means to achieve full statehood" for the 32, hence still passing on the new weaponry he got from the brits to the northern divisions to fight against the new orange state initially - another reason they felt the need to initially support Collins rather than the Treaty itself imho.

Maybe so but they can fuck off with calling people from Munster freestaters for a start.
Especially considering the majority in Munster was for continuing on to the bitter end and the same attitude did not exist in he North at the time.

 

[Corks finest]

They absolutely did execute unarmed defenceless prisoners without trial. And in some cases did it in as barbarous a way as you could think of - imagine strapping nine prisoners to a mine and exploding it so as to blow their bodies to smithereens. Even some in the IDF would balk at that.

Free State or not it's most likely there'd have been fighting in the north either as a separate 6 or as part of the 32 imho. The UVF had imported tens of thousands of guns and a million rounds of ammo so they were going to fight one way or the other I think

Agreed - the lot of nationalists in that statelet had been deplorable. People found themselves on the wrong side of a very arbitrary line and through no fault of their own found themselves in a statelet that discriminated against them even further than had been the case prior to the WoI. I think things have improved since the GFA but the only way was up, and it's still far from perfect there.

Tbh I’ve 16 grandchildren and 3 great grandkids in Derrys Creggan estate
And Crossmaglen South Armagh,
I can categorically confirm that the GFA is not good for a sizeable population of the 6 Counties both nationalist and unionist

I'm not revising or denying any of those things happened (not sure about the 100% but again you have a perspective and that's fine)

The fact remains the treaty was ratified by the Dail, vv fine margins as you put it are not relevant.

Terning it a sell out is provocative at least, I don't agree with you on it but the margin of the vote is irrelevant. It was democratic and taking up arms was anti Democratic

one man’s meat etc etc

 

[Happyhonkaman]

Tbh I’ve 16 grandchildren and 3 great grandkids in Derrys Creggan estate
And Crossmaglen South Armagh,
I can categorically confirm that the GFA is not good for a sizeable population of the 6 Counties both nationalist and unionist

one man’s meat etc etc

In what way would you think the GFA is not good for them CF?

First off it means that they can almost certainly live their daily lives without worrying about being shot or blown up which is the most important thing for everyone up there surely? I assume you are referring to discriminatory stuff with regards to education, jobs etc?