Monday, November 07, 2005
Should the Treaty have been signed?
On Wednesday I made this post regarding the story that recently-published memoirs of former Irish government minister and Nobel Peace prizewinner Sean MacBride revealed Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith were drinking excessively throughout the crucial Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations in London in December 1921. In the words of McBride, "I felt that they were letting down the country, that matters were not being taken sufficiently seriously." What I want to know though is whether or not you think the men did let down the country by singing the Treaty which culminated in the Irish Free State. Therefore I've added a new poll to United Irelander which asks the question:
Should the Treaty have been signed?
This was perhaps the most divisive issue in Irish political history and it lead eventually to a civil war. My own view on it is that the Treaty shouldn't have been signed and that the delegates made a big mistake. Even though the IRA were down to counting bullets at that stage in the view of Collins, they at least retained the moral superiority and I don't believe Lloyd George's threats would have been as "terrible" as he made out with American and global opinion watching closely.
I don't think it should have been signed. But what do you think?
Should the Treaty have been signed?
This was perhaps the most divisive issue in Irish political history and it lead eventually to a civil war. My own view on it is that the Treaty shouldn't have been signed and that the delegates made a big mistake. Even though the IRA were down to counting bullets at that stage in the view of Collins, they at least retained the moral superiority and I don't believe Lloyd George's threats would have been as "terrible" as he made out with American and global opinion watching closely.
I don't think it should have been signed. But what do you think?
# posted by United Irelander @ 12:02 AM 
© 2008 United Irelander.
