Talk:Irish Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Qestionable statement

You say,

"In withdrawing, the Republicans boobytrapped the Irish Public Records Office, which was located next door — resulting in the destruction of one thousand years of Irish state and religious archives."

I have read a wide variety of books on the Irish Civil War and none have felt this charge to be proved. Many believe the destruction was caused by shelling from the Free State side. We may never know the truth of this. I think it unhelpful to state opinion as fact.--83.71.24.240 00:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - - - If I may add something to this ...? Rory O'Connor apparently knew what he was doing when he took over the Four Courts because he knew that at least some people would be slow to shell a building with such important Irish historical documents inside (as well as actually starting an Irish Civil War, but anon ...). Sure enough, two historians, one of them Eoin McNeill went up to the Four Courts and PLEADED with him to evacuate, citing all the usual good reasons such as destruction of documents. Rory never blinked an eye and kept repeating "No." So the two lads walked away; McNeill, I am reliably informed, angrily remarked to his companion "Aragh, what could you expect from a ******* architect?"

Shouldn't this be included in the article, with sources of course. And I too disagree with the Anti-Treaty side boobytrapping anything. In a book I read, it said that it was an accident, which was caused by the general anarchy of the occasion. I'm altering the piece, someone can change it back/post something here if they have a problem. - User:Dalta

As with the burning of the Customs House and its parish registry documents, surely this was looking forward to a new Irish identity from a ground zero where no-one could find that a landlord was an ancestor? 700 years and all that?Wikiman 10:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Outcome of the Civil War?

In another article on the Irish Civil War (not on Wiki) it sums it up by saying "De Valera became president of the Executive Council in 1932. He quickly broke as many ties with Britain as possible. De Valera decided to end the mandatory allegiance to Britain. In 1937 de Valera passed a new constitution making Ireland a democratic and independent state. This state remained in place until 1948." Why doesn't it have anything about that in this one? I know that it isn't officially "part" of the Irish Civil War- but it shows where all of the efforts led. I think that it needs to be added!! - Miranda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.233.237 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't (well, we try not to) editorialise or express an opinion. The text you give above is someone's opinion. (And it brushes over a long period when de Valera was out of constitutional politics, his return, and even his subsequent crackdown on the rump IRA. History of the Republic of Ireland is our best effort at summarising. The detailed articles are just that - detailed. (In future, please add new topics at the end of the talk page. Ideally, get a user-name and I can give you so more tips, but you'll have to be MirandaB or something because there is already a user:Miranda)--Red King 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think this was a point well made. I have added a paragraph on how the constitutional ussues of the civil war were worked out. NPOV I hope. Comments welcome. Jdorney (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera "ordering" Collins' death

"In the 1996 film Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera orders Collins' death. However, although de Valera was in the area at the time, he is not known to have been involved in the assassination."

Having watched the film recently it doesn't look as if deV/Rickman ordered the death of Collins at all. He seemed to be running a fever and the would-be assassin took his non-response as meaning he could set an ambush. Therefore, I believe that part of the article is inaccurate.

I agree. - [[User:Dalta]

Thanks very much to who ever wrote this article, I have learned so much about the grim Irish history. From Palestine all the way to Ireland, I say (God bless Ireland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.222.71 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of discussion

It's all too obvious that this whole area/topic is too recent and too close to any Irish person's heart; therfore there's a very small discussion page for such a divisive and relevant article

WOW

ÁThis is really confusing seriously we need to understand this more

What's so confusing about it? I think the article is written fairly clearly Jdorney 00:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I was genuinely surprised that the article is as good and as NPOV as it is. I'm suprised I hadn't kept up with it. --Red King 23:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sentence that needs work

see: "In 1926, having failed to persuade the majority of the anti-treaty side of its merits, de Valera and his allies left to resume constitutional politics and founded the Fianna Fáil party".

What is "it"? Presumably the treaty. But why was de Valera in favour of it in 1926, if indeed he was? Rhollenton 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go - see what you think. Nice tidy-up, btw. --Red King 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Move Collins to LHS of info box

Michael Collins is listed on the right hand side of the info box, making it look like he was a commander of the pro-treaty forces. Any objections to moving him over to the left? --VinceBowdren 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He was the commander of the pro-treaty forces! Until his death, when Mulcahy took over that is. 140.203.7.37 11:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Um yes, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. Sorry there. --VinceBowdren 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight Change

Having seen the film, there is one wrong snippet of infomation i changed which was;

"In the 1996 film Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera orders Collins' death. However, although de Valera was in the area at the time, he is not known to have been involved in the assassination"

If you saw the BBC interview with Neil Jordan on the dvd, he stated that Eamon de Valera was in the area at the time. But did not have any part in his asassination. In the film this is very clear where Eamon de Valera is crying and the young assassin decides to take matters into his own hands. I could hardly see how this could of been interprated as a order to kill michael collins.I have changed this to;

"Eamon de Valera meets Michael Collins prior to his asassination"

Andrew Chung

Whether he ordered the assasination or not, I don't know... but I can tell you that the film makes DeV's response seem something like Henry's to Thomas Beckett... Which is to say, by not saying "no," the movie character gave silent consent to Collins' murder. (Of course, this matters a lot more in an article about the film... Cheers V. Joe 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"A form of words"

Here are the actual words of the oath contained in the treaty that TDs had to take:

I... do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V, his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherance to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.

M.E. Collins, Ireland 1868-1968, page 286.

So we can see that it is clear that TDs had to swear allegiance to the consitution and swear to be faithful to the British monarch.

On another form of words, exclusive use of the term "National Army" is POV, as it was used by one side only in the conflict. Free State Army is not POV, it is a simple statement of fact, this was the army ofthe Irish Free State. "Free Stater" on the other hand, could be seen in this context as pejorative. Remember that what we think about these things in the present is not relevant to presenting what went on then.

Jdorney

It was also a salve for wounded British pride, and in hopes that the southern unionists and foreign investors could accept the package; tho' always squaring the circle. No such wording could ever satisfy a 32-county-republic supporter. The Council of Ireland was formulated, if all 32 counties were still of interest. 'Crown-in-Ireland' respected the democratic will, in the commonwealth context. Objectors saw 'Crown' and 'faithful', and that was too much.Wikiman 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Free State Army/National Army

I thought that "National Army" was the actual title of the organisation and not POV whereas "Free State Army" while descriptive is by its inaccuracy and association with the term "Free Stater" is POV.

--Gramscis cousin 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree complely. The Anti-treaty side used the term "Free State Army" or "Free Staters" to deny the legitimacy of the lawful army: the pro-treaty side equally referred to the Republicans as "Irregulars" to deny their continuing use of the term "Irish Republican Army". But the fact of the matter is that the legal title of the Irish Army at that time was "National Army" and it is PoV to pretend otherwise. --Red King 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would say is that the term "Free State Army" is widely used by non-partisan historians. E.g. Michael Hopkinson, in "Green against Green", page 61 or M.E. Collins, Ireland 1868-1966, page 325. So purely as a descriptive term I don't think it is contentious. Hopkinson also uses the term "Provisional Government Forces" for the period up to December 1922, when the Irish Free State was officially established. The term "National Army" is of course the correct name and should be in the info box, but "Free State Army" is also legitimate when referring to this force, I think. It was also described by the Government as the "Irish Army", so this term is certainly not pov, not in an anti FS way anyway.

The other side should properly be referred to as the Anti-Treaty IRA, because this force was split over the treaty into pro and anti camps.

Paul V walsh, author of an online paper on the ICW here [1] has this to say on the subject:

THE ISSUE OF NAMES: A variety of names were applied to the opposing sides in the Civil War, both during the war and in subsequent writings. Those members of the I.R.A. who opposed the Treaty were referred to as 'Rebels', 'Mutineers', 'Die-Hards', 'Republicans', 'Executive Forces' (after the Army Executive) and 'Rory O'Connor's Men' (after the leader of the faction in the Four Courts). Maj.Gen. Piaras Beaslai, director of the Provisional Government's propaganda, is credited with coining the term 'Irregulars' for the anti-Treaty I.R.A. The troops that fought in support of the Treaty were referred to as 'Provisional Government Forces', 'National Forces', 'Regulars', and 'Free Staters' or 'Staters' for short. In this paper the opponents of the Treaty are referred to as 'Republicans', while the supporters of the Treaty are referred to as 'Free State Forces' or 'Government Forces' (even though the Free State was not officially established until 6 December, 1922)

Jdorney 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I could accept "Free State army" (little A) or Free State forces (litle F) but "Free State Army" and "Free Staters" are pejorative provo terms and fail NPOV. --Red King 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Divided to this day

"It left Irish society deeply divided and its influence in Irish politics can still be seen to this day."

I'm not sure how accurate this statement is. Yes the Civil War was divisive but the remarkable thing was how despite the atrocities and violence the losing side could re-enter electoral politics and form the government within little more than ten years of the end of the war. Indeed the losing side went on to become the dominant party in Irish Politics for the remainder of the 20th Century and whereas, the divisions are mirrored in the two dominant parties in the state today, this persistance has more to do with the different socio-economic bases of the two-parties.

I'd like to see the above section and a bit in the Cost and Results section changed to reflect this but I'm not sure on the form it should take. Thoughts please?

--Gramscis cousin 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is really a quastion of emphasis. You could say that the remarkable thing was that such bitterness emerged between two factions of the same movement. Certainly as late as the 1960s, FF TD's were still reminding FG about the "77". Although the two parties have rarely been far apart in policy and despite the PR system often throwing up coalition governments, they have never been in coalition with each other. While I wouldn't argue that the divisions of the civil are still to the forefront of people's minds, most people would certainly say that FF was the more nationalistic party with regard to the North, for example.

On the other hand, you could also legitimately remark on the fact that FF got into power peacefully in 1932. However, at the time, this was by no means guarenteed. It is to W.T. Cosgrave's eternal credit that he not only respecte dthe reuslt of that election, he also instructed the gardai and army to obey the new government. Had Eoin O'Duffy been head of CnaG at the time, things might have been very different.

Jdorney 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Re socio economic bases, there is someothing in this statement, FG supporters generally being more prosperous, but on the other hand, b

Not anymore FF probably gets more support from the well to do but it is a difference in the style of wealth FF is the speculator the property developer the "self-made man". While FG is "old money" large farmers professionals etc

On the main point I agree that its a question of emphasis and the bitterness was certainly there particularly while the generation that took part were still involved. But it has primarily faded to a background thing now. Coalition hasn't happened as the parties together would have too large a share of the seats and either can find smaller coalition partners to make a majority. If for example either or both parties were to suffer a significant decline in fortunes to the extent that the numbers worked I don't see coalition as being an impossibility.

--Gramscis cousin 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New Para needed?

I'm considering writing a new paragraph on the guerrilla phase of the war. Currently, the course of this is passed over in relative silence. On the other hand, there are concerns about the length of the article as it stands at present. Thoughts anyone?

Jdorney 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Date Treaty ratified

Hoping you all agree that 7 January 1922 is better than 'December 1921'.Wikiman 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work.

Jdorney 11:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IRA Membership

Hi, The membership of the IRA given in the summary box seems a bit low. At the start of the conflict the Anti Treaty IRA definately outnumbered the Free State army. Certainly Tim Pat Coogan mentions this in his book. Also the casulty figures seem a bit high - The Anti Treaty IRA surely couldn't have sufferend 100% casulties between prisoners and killed during the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.14.100 (talk • contribs)

Hi, its a fair question, but not one that is easy to answer. The article already states that the anti-treaty side outnumbered the pro-treaty side by roughly 15,000 fighters to 7000 at the start of the war. This is Richard Mulcahy's estimate. Since he was chief of staff of the IRA and then of the National Army, it seems reasonable to accept this. On the other hand, there is a lot of room for error. The total strength of the IRA in June 1922 was between 70-100,000, on paper at least. Mulcahy's estimate only accounts for 22,000 of these men. Some of them perhaps never fought in the war. It seems likley that many more of them would have fought breifly on the anti-treaty side and them given up and gone home. On the question of casualties, the problem here is that no one really seems to know how many republicans were killed in the conflict. Michael Hopkinson in "Green against Green" has this to say (p272-3),

"There are no means by which to arrive at even approximate figures for the dead and wounded. Mulcahy stated that around 540 pro-Treaty troops were killed between the Treaty's signing and the war's end; the government referred to 800 army deaths between January 1922 and April 1924. There was no record of overall republican deaths, which appear to have been very much higher. No figure exists for total civilian deaths."

More heat than light I'm afraid, but I hope that helps.

Jdorney 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does, thanks for clearing that up!

Inconsistent Capitalization

Perhaps it's time to decide between "the Treaty" and "the treaty". Both the upper- and lower-case forms appear on the page interchangeably, which is quite unprofessional. The lower-case form is appropriate in most cases (when speaking generally of "the treaty") and the upper-case use should be reserved for the proper noun, in this case "The Anglo-Irish Treaty".

If you like. But please stop re-wording sentences so that they don't make sense, eg substituting "the new Ireland" for "the new state", or changing the wording of sentences just for the sake of it. Thanks Jdorney 17:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to clean up the inconcsistent capitalisation, which is worse in this article than I have seen in any other.

• Per WP:MOS, "the treaty" is correct. "Treaty" is capitalised only in the phrase "Anglo-Irish Treaty".
• Because there were two distinct factions of the IRA, I have used hte convention of "Anti-Treaty IRA", instead of "anti-treaty IRA".
• I think that the "Civil War" is appropriate, rather than "civil war" where writing of the subject of the article.
• I have opted for "Republicans" and "Nationalists", "Loyalists" and "Unionists".

Ground Zero | t 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Collins' role in the assassination of Henry Wilson and the latter's role in attacks on Northern Irish Catholics.

I would like to draw attention to two assertions made in this article. The line in question reads:

"He (Collins) had Henry Hughes Wilson, a retired British General, assassinated in London on the 22nd of June because of his role in attacks on Catholics in Northern Ireland."

There is no clear evidence that Collins ordered the assassination of Henry Wilson, although admitedly there is some circumstantial evidence. Secondly, there is no evidence that Henry Wilson had any part in attacks on Catholics in Northern Ireland. In fact, a book published relatively recently has painted Wilson as a compromising figure who regularly voiced his distaste with some British military tactics in Ireland. (I'm not saying that he was a pseudo-republican or that the attacks on Catholics in Northern Ireland was a British military policy.)

Collins held Wilson responsible as he was the commander in the north and then military advisor to the Northern Ireland government. As it happens he was critical of the Special Constabulary's attacks on Catholics, but in Collins' veiw he was culpable.

Re the other point, there is now ample evidence that Collins ordered Wilson's killing. In fact it is difficult to find a book on the civil war which argues otherwise.

Michael Hopkinson, Green against Green, page 112, "Joe Sweeney, the pro-treaty military leader in Donegal, recorded meeting Collins shortly shortly after the assassination. He told Ernie O'Malley, 'Collins told me he had arranged the shooting of Wilson...he looked very pleased'. Frank Thornton one of Collins old Squad recalled that the killing was carried out on the direct orders of GHQ.Mick Murphy of Cork no 1 Brigade, said that when in London he had been asked to take part in the plot explaining, 'they had instrcutions then from Michael Collins to shoot Wilson'...statements from Collins' intelligence agents point to fresh instruction being given in June. It is clear also that [Reginald] Dunne [the assassin] and spent some time closeted with him".

ME Collins, Ireland 1868-1966, p229, "Evidence has since come to light proving it was Collins, enraged by Wilson's role in the north, who ordered the killing".

Niall C Hartigan, The Kerry Landings, p29, "It is probable that the execution of the ...feild marshal was ordered by Collins".

Jdorney 10:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Several historians have tried to make the connection that Collins ordered Wilson's assassination, however it often on very flimsy evidence. For the sake of represented the mainstream historiography, we should should just declare that he may or may not have been assassinated on Collin's order. Personally I think he did, but there isn't enough to evidence to authoritively say he did. Its a very complex historical debate and I don't think wikipedia should take one side over the other, especially since I doubt any of us are professional historians. (Well I am sort of a local historian, but thats another matter) NewIreland2009 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree the speculation is just that, and should be so framed in the article. Peter Hart was also sceptical of a direct link to Collins. RashersTierney (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Limerick,Waterford etc.

Hello i've recently made an article on the Battle of Kilmallock and i am ow considering making an article on the fighting in Limerick and Waterford etc during the free state offensive.However i cannot think what to call them.Here are some ideas for limerick

• Assault of Limerick
• Taking of Limerick
• Limerick Landings
• Seabourne attack of Limerick
• Siege of Limerick (1922)
• Battle of Limerick

However there are problmes.The first four all seem POV in favour of one side or another while siege if limerick isn't really correct because it wasn't a siege and battle of limerick just doesn't seem right. Dermo69 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of this information is already in Irish Free State offensive. If you have more material then you should just expand the sections of this article imo. Jdorney 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure?I think those battles deserve an article of their own since it was an important war and i don't think theres enoguh about it.Anyway i have come up with Battle of Limerick (1922) and Battle for Limerick City. Dermo69 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates

There are currently three templates at the start of the article, which creates a large hole and makes the article unreadable. I am moving two of them to the bottom. The two campaign templates are not supposed to be moved. Does anybody know how to fix this? Scolaire 09:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Treaty and dominion

The article states "which established the Irish Free State under British dominion and without the six counties of Northern Ireland."

This is incorrect.

The Irish Free State was to be a dominion; a dominion is a sovereign state. The article makes it sound as if somehow the Irish Free State was subject to British rule, which was not the case.

I suggest a better wording is "which established the Irish Free State as an independent dominion, like Australia and Canada ..." Tim2718281 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change, citing a reference, of course. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Tim2718281's version (and South Africa, btw). And to be very picky, for about a week, the Free State included Northern Ireland. That's about how it took for the Northern Ireland parliament exercise its right to petition the King to opt out of the Free State and for the King to approve. See Partition of Ireland. --Red King (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this good enough?

1. Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State.

--Red King (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dominion article uses the word "autonomous", which seems to me to hit the right note. I think 'independent' is more unambiguous and thus open to challenge as being POV. --Red King (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Flying Col. Image

An image on this page purports to depict the West Cork Flying Column, but its source page describes it as Hogan's 3rd Tipp. Col. (The image address is probably the source of the confusion) This is a serious conflict and would indicate that there is a problem, one way or the other, with the reliability of the image's description. Also, if it is Hogan's Column, it is probably from the Sharkey Collection, which may indicate copyright problems. RashersTierney (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of Four Courts occupation?

Has anyone got the date Rory O'Connor moved in? The memoirs of TM Healy say late March, and as a lawyer he should have known. But he doesn't give an exact date either.Red Hurley (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ferriter in The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 ( p253) gives 14th April as start of occupation, but no source and no specific ref to O'Connor. O'Malley in The Singing Flame might be a source, but I don't have copy to hand. RashersTierney (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) This NYT article, of April 14th, 1922 should answer your question RashersTierney (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Fixed link to NYTRashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Guerrilla phase

I'm thinking about writing a section on the guerrilla phase of the war, which is currently passed over in relative silence. Does anyone agree or do people think the article is long enough already? Thoughts are welcome. Jdorney (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means. But a lot of the activity amounted to destroying railway lines and cutting telegraph wires. What do you include and where do you draw the line? While I admire your work on wikipedia, you edited out of Executions during the Irish Civil War the fact that there was no Act on the Dail record, and the opposition of the church hierarchy, both of which were essential facts at the time, or corrections, and referenced as best anyone can. Odd as it may seem, most governments do react harshly in the event of civil war, and the provisional government in late 1922 was no different from so many others.Red Hurley (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we all have disagreements RH. I don't really agree with your edits on the executions page, but I'll get back to you about that on that page. Re the church, I included their condemnation of the anti-trety side on this page, but including it on the executions page seems to be arguing that they publicly supported the executions, which as far as I'm aware, is not the case.

But anyway. Re the guerrilla phase, I agree its difficult write a narrative of this kind of conflict -due to the absence of battles, territory held etc. On the Chronology of the Irish Civil War page I've been trying to log individual incidents of note. What I have in mind here is to document them main trends of the war - ie

• From August to September 1922, roughly, a flare up of guerrilla attacks as Free State troops occupied the localites. This was the high point of teh anti-treaty campaign and the period when they operated in teh greatest numbers and inflicted teh most casualites on the National Army.

• The winter of 1922, a fall off in guerrilla attacks, rounding up of some the anti-treaty columns in several areas, like Sligo, Mayo, etc. The detterent effect of the executions on the guerrilla campaign.

• The New Year, when the sabotage campaign on teh railways and senators houses intensified due to weakness of the anti-treaty side to mount bigger operations.

• The end, March -May 1923, the breaking up most of the main anti-treaty concentrations, the cycle of tit for tat atrocities in March. The death of Lynch, the ceasefire.

Something along those lines.

Jdorney (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Volatile and unstable flock

Please show reference to support this opinion of the 'flock' in question, Nowhere in the extract do these terms appear. See Burden of evidence for policy guidelines on disputed references. RashersTierney (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A full reference was given ClemMcGann (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

None to support the opinion on the 'flock' in question. RashersTierney (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

here is an OCR:

• The hierarchy welcomed the 1921 Treaty but it led to two major consequences which were to affect the Church and its relations with the new state: partition and the Civil War. With regard to partition, the Catholic Church in Ireland now had to deal with two states, three at a further remove if we take into account the British government's sovereignty over Northern Ireland. The Civil War had particularly profound psychological consequences in the Twenty-Six Counties which have yet to be explored in detail by historians. Its ruthlessness and cruelty appalled churchmen but the Church's support for the new Irish Free State government aroused bitter hostility from a large minority of republicans. The depth of this hostility with its potential for anti-clericalism shocked many in the clergy and the hierarchy. In the years after the Civil War the bishops' pastorals were full of gloomy, doom-laden pronouncements about the inherent sinfulness of the people and the need for constant vigilance against threatening influences which might corrupt them. The picture of a triumphalist Catholic Church in post-independence Ireland has now been set in stone but on closer examination this triumphalism was deceptive. The Church was, in fact, deeply insecure about its role in a new state which had been born out of violence, a violence, moreover, which had revealed how volatile and unstable its flock could be. The political turbulence which was the legacy of the Civil War was to agitate the new state to varying degrees until the late 1930s.

ClemMcGann (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be the opinion of Ms McMahon that that adherents of the Roman Catholic Church were/are volatile and unstable. It may even be your own view, but the reference above does nothing to verify the allegation. And please don't revert while an issue is being discussed. RashersTierney (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rashers, in general you good work here, however I am disappointed by this exchange. Why did you claim "Nowhere in the extract do these terms appear"? Why do you now question <the opinion of Ms McMahon>?

Dr Deirdre McMahon is Deputy Director of the Centre for Historical Research (University of Limerick) and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. She has published Republicans and Imperialists: Anglo-Irish Relations in the 1930s isbn 0300030711 and she published The Moynihan Brothers in Peace and War 1909-1918: Their New Ireland, isbn 0716527553. She has contributed to the Oxford History of the British Empire isbn 0199246793 and to Ireland and the British Empire isbn 0199251835. She co-edited a volume of essays, Obligations and Responsibilities: Ireland and the United Nations, 1955-2005 (published by Institute of Public Administration in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs).

I suggest that her view deserves respect ClemMcGann (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for compliments. Regarding Dr. McMahon, I have no problem with her as an historian of considerable merit. However, the phrase in question (quoted for first time on this page)is unfortunate in that it is a sweeping generalisation, and whether intentionally or not, could be construed as sectarian. I sincerely doubt that this was the intention of the author, showing that even academics are not infallible. Finally, the disputed phrase, as a statement of fact, is not proven and is superfluous to the very relevant contribution that precedes it. Therefore it should be removed. RashersTierney (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

with regret, for the sake of peace - its gone. It is valid, but might belong elsewhere. ClemMcGann (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated RashersTierney (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Navy

Infobox says only one ship, presumably the Lady Wicklow, what about the Arvonia and did the reassigned Helga not also constitute part of the nascent Naval Service? RashersTierney (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an election "show" anything?

The election showed that a majority of the Irish electorate supported the treaty and the foundation of the Irish Free State, and that the Sinn Féin party did not represent the opinions of everyone in the new state... The election "showed" nothing. The author is making an inference (one which I can imagine historians disagreeing on). I suspect this is not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Feel free to ignore/correct me if I am wrong.68.54.140.68 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Elections show people's political preferences, no? Jdorney (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An election does indeed "show" something, it shows people's support for policies put forth by each party, also the treaty was ratitfied by the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.74.153 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits on 7 Feb 2009 - guerrilla phase

Everyone, I've been threatening for a long time to expand the sections of the guerrilla phase of the war and I've now done so. I've tried to be as brief as possible and have highlighted individual events as sparingly as I could to demonstrate general trends.

Nevertheless, I recognise that people might consider these changes to be too long or too clouded in detail for the general reader to consume. Because of this, I'd like to hear people's opinions before proceeding any further. Do people feel, for example, that this section should get its own article, which might be shorter and more digestible? All thoughts welcome.

Finally, some of the refs are a bit rough and ready because I don't have all my books here to provide page nos and I've taken a lot of the info from the chronology page which I'd been compiling. I'll tighten these up if people think the changes should stay. Jdorney (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Aiken.jpg

The image File:Aiken.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use for File:Aiken.jpg

Though this image may be subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:

1. It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. Aiken was instrumental to ending the Irish Civil War and immediately implemented a policy of de-escalation.
2. It is of much lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality.
3. The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
4. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the subject of the photo and his historical significance are among the objects of discussion in the article. RashersTierney (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Safety Bill

My Irish history reference work refers to actions taken by the government of the newly formed Irish Free State which passed a bill, which I now believe was called the Public Safety Bill, which made the possession of arms a capital offence. This was, as I understand it, the legal basis for executions of anyone found in posession of arms and was clearly intended to bring a resolution to the conflict that had arisen, albeit favouring the status quo. But I find no reference to this bill in this article and I am not sure when the bill was repealed. Does the article need a reference to this? I would have thought it does. Or is the information that I have wrong?--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The two most comprehensive sources I've seen on the issues you've raised are O'Halpin's 'Defending Ireland' and Ó Longaigh's 'Emergency Law in Independent Ireland'. If you can't access these let me know and I'll try to root out the info. you want. RashersTierney (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the references. Googlebooks helped me access part of O'Halpin's work and it confirms the Public Safety Act as being the legal precendent for the actions. Still not sure when the act came off the statute though (which I assume it did). --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ó Longháin is better on the complexities of the various Public Safety Acts, of which there were several between 1923 and 1927. Succeeding Acts tended to confer new powers or drop elements of previous legislation as the Gov. responded to the changing security situation, court challenges etc. RashersTierney (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See Executions during the Irish Civil War for full treatment 79.97.100.183 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Guerrilla War

This section (which I wrote, so mea culpa), is far too long in comparison with the rest of the article. I'm going to move it to a new article and then trim this one. Thoughts anyone? Jdorney (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to do that now. Jdorney (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, see Guerrilla Phase of the Irish Civil War. Jdorney (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)