Was the Irish Civil War a ‘natural’ conclusion to the events of previous years?
Some historians will say that the Civil War was a ‘natural’ conclusion to the activities of the previous year others will disagree. This essay will take the line that yes; the civil war was a natural and inevitable conclusion to the Anglo-Irish difficulties. In order to understand why the Civil War came about one must first understand how it came about by studying the actions of the previous years, the War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Then it is necessary to look at the feelings of the opposing sides of the Civil War. Finally one must look at history itself and compare the Irish War of Independence and the Civil War with similar cases. Once all steps have been taken the ultimate aim of this essay is to prove that the Civil War was a ‘natural’ conclusion to the previous years.
The War of Independence (WOI) was fought between the years 1918 and 1921 and ‘was mainly limited to Dublin and the province of Munster, and the IRA victories were few and far between’ . Ireland had forgotten about its aspirations for Home Rule and was now looking for a more drastic form of Independence. The war had its origins in the formation of unilaterally created independent Irish parliament, called Dáil Éireann, formed by the majority of MPs elected in Irish constituencies in the Irish (UK) general election, 1918. This parliament, known as the First Dáil, and its ministry, called the Aireacht declared Irish independence. The Dáil knew that ‘England’s difficulty (was) Ireland’s opportunity’ and ceized the day. After the failed rebelion of 1916 public sympathies slowly but surely swung to the millitant IRA (and Sinn Fein). By 1921 the WOI was a cause of British anxiety and embarressment and something had to be done. Once the Ulster province had been calmed by the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, the Lloyd George turned to its Nationalist neighbour. A Sinn Fein delegation, including Michael Collins and Arthur Grifith was sent to Westminster to negotiate the Anglo-Irish Treaty. It is important to note that President DeValera was not present. It is very possible that he knew there would have to be some comprimise made and he didn’t want to make it. After heated discusions and debates the delegation w...
... middle of paper ...
...jority of cases where there is Revolution there is Civil War.
As we see with history, it was almost inevitable that Ireland would experience civil war once she achieved ‘independence’. However, it was not just the history of other countries which dictated this, but also her own. When one person dies they leave behind a hundred mourners. As we can see by the strong words of Mary MacSweeny many of the families of Irish ‘martyrs’ wanted to see their deaths avenged. This was a strong force behind the Civil War and saw it as a ‘natural’ conclusion to previous years. There were also many rifts within the IRA prior to the Treaty and once they had no common enemy they were prone to fight themselves. With all this evidence pointing to the Civil War’s ‘natural’ occurrence it is hard to see how it could not have happened.
Bibliography
Litton, Helen, The Irish Civil War: An Illustrated History, (Dublin, 1995).
Purdon, Edward, The Civil War1922-1023, (Cork, 200).
Townshend, Charles, Ireland: The 20th Century, (London, 1998)
WEB: http://www.answers.com/topic/irish-civil-war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence
Throughout the years, many people have been taught that the reason the Civil War happened, was to abolish slavery all through the United States. Although that is true, there were more reasons why the Civil War occurred.Referencing will be done on different articles and writers to support the findings of the authors. The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War” by Paul Finkelman, discusses about the North (union) and the South (confederacy) and the disagreement of the territories following the constitutional laws regarding slavery, the article explores both sides of the territories and their beliefs of how the situation of slavery should have been dealt with. The article “The Economic Origins of the Civil War” by Marc Egnal, discusses the North’s (union) and the South’s (confederacy) economic situation that could have pushed the two territories to engage in war with one another. Finally, the last article “Politics, Ideology, and the Origins of the American Civil War” by Eric Foner, focuses on the Norths (union) and Souths (confederacy) views on politics and ideas of how each territory is ran and how they have affected the North and the South. These historians supplied specific and different explanations that explained what exactly caused the United States to enter into a Civil War. With the information provided by the authors, the evidence will lead us to the answer of what caused the Civil War.
The book “For cause and comrades” written by James M McPherson is not one of your typical civil war books. This book is completely different than what everyone would expect, McPherson tries to explain the why of the war behind the scenes of it. He goes into great detail onto how dissects the initial reason of both sides North and South by concentrating not on battlefield tactics and leaders but what emotional and great experiences the men had to face in the battle field.
...deration, and finally, the U.S. Constitution. However, a more philosophical analysis can be drawn about the Civil War. In essence, the War challenged the idea of whether self-government and democracy prevail over pandemonium. And in the words of James Buchanan “Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.” The sheer legacy of the United States of America was imperiled and the Union was on a macrocosmic stage, with spectators seeing if the avant-garde idea of a democratic would draw to a close or perpetuate through onerous times. The Civil War was a test, and the tenuous America indeed passed it, knowing that more hurdles have been bound to come. But, there has been hope that success has always been possible and the American Dream has maintained for generations to come.
Several factors played in to the American Civil War that made it have the outcome that it did. Although the South had better trained officials due to their military school, the North was far more advanced than they. The North had the advantage over the South in several ways. However, the outcome of the Civil War was not inevitable: it was determined as much by human decisions and human willpower as by physical resources, although the North’s resources gave them an edge over the South.
I felt like the author could clearly show the true contributing factors of the civil war. As an admirer of history, I could use utilize his book for references later on in my academic studies. The book is 127 pages chronicling the events that led to the civil war. Holt gives novices history readers a wonder firsthand look into the world of young America pre-civil war. His book brought out new ways to approach the study of pre-civil war events. The question whether the Civil War was inevitable or could have been derailed was answered in The Fate of Their Country. Holt places the spotlight on the behaviors Politicians and the many congressional compromises that unintendedly involved the actions of the residents of American. These factors at hand placed the Civil war as inevitable. Most of the politician’s views in The Fate of Their Country were egotistical and shortsighted which left gaps in American’s social future. To consider the subject of why, first we need to understand the contributing causes, America’s great expansion project, the Manifest Destiny the driving factor behind the loss of virtue and political discord.
For a long time, historians have been unable to come to an agreement to why the Civil War started and whether or not it was repressible or irrepressible. Northern and Southern writers had different opinions as to why the war occurred. To most Northern writers, the war occurred because of the unlawful plan of slave owners who were committed to a not liable institution. The North defended the Constitution and was against the immoral aggression of the south. The North clearly defended the Union. However, the Southern writers on the other hand tried to show their views on why the Civil War started by portraying the North as the aggressive ones who wanted to destroy the South and all of its institutions. The south insisted that slavery was not the main cause of the war but instead was the aggressive and unconstitutional acts of the North. The south claimed the North used its powers for political and economic gain and denied that the war had stemmed from differences over slavery. The north’s domineering attitude toward the south was the main cause for their hostilities. They defended this ...
The Civil War began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor when the Confederate army attacked Union soldier and ended on May 9, 1865 with a Union Victory. There are many events, laws, and people that provoked the Civil War. The two most important causes are slavery and the expansion of the United States causing an unbalance of free and slave states. This essay examines major events that initiated the war starting from the Compromise of 1820 to the election of 1860 and proves how the Civil War was inevitable.
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.
Ever since the occupation of Ireland by the English began in 1169, Irish patriots have fought back against British rule, and the many Irish rebellions and civil wars had always been defeated. To quash further rebellion, the Act of Union was imposed in 1800, tying Ireland to the United Kingdom of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Laws discriminating against Catholics and the handling of the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-50 led to increased tension and the proposal of introducing Home Rule gained support.
After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.
In 1642, King Charles raised his royal standard in Nottingham, marking the beginning of the English Civil War. The next ten years saw the Cavaliers (supporters of the King) and the Roundheads (supporters of the parliament) engaged in a vicious battle for their respective leaders with the Roundheads ultimately victorious. This essay will attempt to explain why civil war broke out in England while summarizing the story behind the antagonism of the two parties.
Irish Republican Army – The IRA held the belief that all of Ireland should be its own independent republic from England. After WWI ended, Irish local started the Irish War for Independence in 1919, where the English eventually settled and made a treaty for the Irish. In 1922 the IRA rejected the Anglo-Saxon Treaty, and fought again for Irish independence, where they were eventually defeated. In the film “The Wind That
The Irish and British governments fought for many years over the ownership of Northern Ireland. Britain had main control over Northern Ireland, and Ireland did not think that was fair. Be...
Of all of the things that could have happened in Ireland, the Easter Uprising was by far the most unpopular thing to do in the eye of the Dublin public. The majority of people in Dublin at the beginning of the 20th century did not want the Uprising to happen, because it would postpone the ability to gain their independ...
Ireland, otherwise known as Éire in Gaelic Irish, became a republic in 1949. It had represented a long battle for independence from Britain, dating back to the middle of the 12th century. After the success of the Anglo-Norman intervention that had began in 1167, by 1171 Ireland had become a colony of Britain (2). This meant that the King of England, King Henry II, would be the country’s new lord (2). Throughout the next 600 years or so, Irish resentment against the British would continue to arise. With attempted rebellions, and resistance to British rule and religion, resulted the establishment of the Act of Union in 1800 (16, pg 420). From this Act, followed the Great Potato Famine in 1845 (16, pg 420). With the amount of carelessness shown by the British government, came the result of Home Rule (16, pg 420). This was an idea presented in 1870, which carried out into the early 20th century (16, pg 420-421). Development of the group Sinn Féin as well as others carried out these beliefs in Home Rule, resulting in the Easter Rising. Easter Rising was a turning point – it was one of the first major acts towards gaining Irish independence. In 1919 the Anglo Irish War, began, and from there result a civil war between the northern and southern states of Ireland ( ). In 1949, Ireland declared themselves a republic – finally gaining full independence as a nation ( ).