Michael Collins and the Irish Civil War:

How One Man Changed the Course of Irish History in the 1900’s.

Donald Clinton
HST 110
Professor Judge
November 17, 2016
 Outline

I. Introduction: Michael Collins had a large impact on the Irish Civil War, and his influence has

continued throughout time.

A. Introduction of the history surrounding Michael Collins’s life, including the idea of Irish

home rule and the origins of the Civil War.

1. Irish home rule movement

a. The Irish wanted freedom from Britain’s power.

b.They lobbied for self-governance, without the hand of the British in their affairs.

c. The Home Rule Bill was almost passed, but did not because of WW1.

2. The Treaty devised with the British required an oath of allegiance.

a. The conflict between those who were Pro-Treaty and those who were Anti-Treaty led

to the Civil War.

II. Author Eoin Neeson

A. Qualifications and Information about Neeson

1. Neeson is Irish and From Cork, like Collins.

2. Neeson was a journalist and wrote works about Ireland throughout his life.

3. The biography was within 50 years of Collins’s life and death.

B. Neeson’s Perspective and main ideas in The Life and Death of Michael Collins

1. Neeson attempted to humanize Collins, unlike many other authors who wrote about

Collins.

2. Neeson analyzes Collins’s life throughout the biography.

III. The Life and Death of Michael Collins

A. Summary of biography

1. The work analyzes Collins’s rise to fame, from his young life as a postal worker to his

involvement in the Irish Civil War.

 a. Collins joined the Irish resistance movement, and was brought to a prison camp after

the Easter Sunday uprising.

b. The biography details Collins’s fame in the Pro-Treaty movement of the Civil War.

B. Analyzing the biography

1. Neeson was able to humanize the legend of Collins.

2. It was a little difficult to follow without previous knowledge of the Civil War.

IV. Views of other Authors

A. Other views on Collins and the Civil War

1. The Civil War was a means to an end.

a. Neeson’s views matched other authors in the idea that the conflict over the treaty

would only end in Civil War.

b. Neeson seemed to have more regret than other authors about the War.

2. Michael Collins was a successful leader.

a. Even the members of the Anti-Treaty side mourned over Collins’s death.

b. Collins is viewed as the typical Irish hero.

c. Neeson agrees with other authors in viewing Collins as a hero of the time.

V. Individual Analysis

A. Collins was good leader, and Neeson had a fair judgment of Collins.

1. Neeson seemed fairly impartial in his view of Collins, making it easier to agree with

Neeson’s viewpoints on Collins

B. Collins was human, not a god.

1. Other works always praised Collins, and didn’t seem to point out any flaws.

2. Collins was a great leader, but he was only human, not the idol he is made out to be.

VI. Conclusions

A. Collins was an intelligent and successful leader.

B. No matter one’s opinion on the Irish Civil War, Collins was still a major player.
 Michael Collins and the Irish Civil War:

How One Man Changed the Course of Irish History in the 1900’s.

Ireland had, since the beginning of its formation, been under the rule of the British Empire.

Ireland was one of the major colonies of Britain, and was thus controlled by the British government.

However, this situation did not please the Irish. Understandably, the members of the Irish colony

wanted freedom, and fought for home rule. Eventually, this idea led the country of Ireland to be

divided over the actual means of governing: whether to be fully independent or to still be tied, however

loosely, to the British Empire. The problems brewing in Ireland eventually led to a full out civil war

between the Irish people. Enter Michael Collins: a charismatic young man with a passion for the old

ways of Ireland. This man, unbeknownst to those around him, was to become one of the most well-

known Irishmen of all time. Michael Collins, a major influence in the Irish Civil War, left a lasting

impact not only on the conflict itself but also on Ireland as a whole.

The country of Ireland was originally a part of the United Kingdom, answering to the rule of

the monarch in Great Britain. However it was understandable that many of the Irish people began to

want freedom from their mother country. The majority of Irish citizens wanted at least home rule, but

those in the North-east region of Ireland were afraid that home rule would mean that decisions would

be made solely by the Catholic majority of Ireland.1 Those in the northeast were mostly Protestant, and

the differing religious views was causing major tension within the country. Furthermore, the

northeastern part of Ireland was more connected to the British ways, and wanted to stay under their

political control.2 The Home Rule Bill seemed to be on its way to approval, but then the world was

embroiled in the biggest conflict to date: World War I.3 For the time being, the idea of home rule was

pushed aside as the Irish helped the British in the war efforts.4 Eventually, following World War I,

1
Richard S. Grayson, “First World War: When Enemies United,” History Today 60.3 (2010): 23.
2
Grayson, “First World War,” 23.
3
Grayson, “First World War,” 23.
4
Grayson, “First World War,” 23.
1
guerilla warfare was used in Ireland to attempt to gain freedom from Britain.5 However, in 1921, the

British were willing to sign a treaty to appease the Irish, hoping that they would discontinue the

conflict.6 The treaty gave Southern Ireland independence in affairs of Ireland, but they did have to sign

an oath of allegiance.7 This oath, though it was necessary to the treaty, led to major conflict back in

Ireland. The Civil War arose from disagreements between Pro-Treaty and Anti-Treaty sides, lasting

from 1922 to 1923.8 The Civil War, however horrible it was, brought a new hero to Ireland, a hero by

the name of Michael Collins.

Irish author Eoin Neeson wrote The Life and Death of Michael Collins in 1968, within fifty

years of the Irish Civil War and the death of Michael Collins. Neeson is Irish himself, and hails from

the same county as Collins, County Cork.9 Neeson was a part of the Air Army Corps from 1944-46

and a journalist during the 1950’s.10 Furthermore, Neeson was a member of RTE, a national Irish

broadcasting service, in the 1960’s, and wrote many works throughout his life. All of Neeson’s literary

works are related to Ireland, and many are directly related to Irish history.11 Neeson, having written

Collins’s biography within fifty years of Collins’s death, was able to show the way that the majority of

Irish citizens viewed Collins. He did not yet encounter fully the way that the dead are usually

described, with all wonderful attributes and no faults. Neeson was still able to criticize Collins because

there was more primary information about Collins and his personality. However, any biography

written about Collins will tend to be lacking in first-hand knowledge; many of the primary sources

referencing Collins have gone missing throughout the years.12

The biography accomplishes what Neeson intends; it gives a concise overview of Michael

Collins’s rise to power and analyzes his death. Neeson’s work begins by pointing out that “…he

[Collins] was already a living symbol of Ireland’s struggle… so much so that the image of him which

5
Michael Morrogh, “The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921,” History Review (2000): 34.
6
Morrogh, 34.
7
Morrogh, 34.
8
Morrogh, 34.
9
Anne M. Brady and Brian Cleeve, A Biographical Dictionary of Irish Writers (New York: St. Martin’s Press Inc., 1985), 175.
10
Brady and Cleeve, A Biographical Dictionary of Irish Writers, 175.
11
Brady and Cleeve, A Biographical Dictionary of Irish Writers, 175.
12
Eoin Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins (Cork: The Mercier Press, 1968), 146.
2
grew into a legend while he was still in his twenties has come down to these later generations as a

distortion of the real man”.13 Neeson uses the work to reveal that, while Collins was a strong leader, he

was not the man of legend that everyone assumes he was. Neeson is careful to be impartial, which may

be hard as someone who was taught to look up to Michael Collins. Neeson wrote, “Collins was no

demi-god with the gift of omniscience. He made mistakes like everybody else, though perhaps less

often and perhaps with the power to turn his mistakes to his advantage”.14 Furthermore, Neeson wrote

of the struggle which he believed Collins could have resolved, had he not been killed during the

aforementioned conflict.15 Neeson wrote The Life and Death of Michael Collins to analyze the life of

the renowned leader, and to see if the reputation he held, even after his death, was deserved.

The Life and Death of Michael Collins is a chronological account of Michael Collins’s life and

his rise to power during Irish unrest. The biography details concisely the early life of Collins, and his

love for the old Irish ways. Collins’s first job was working for the same postal service in London as his

sister Johanna. From there, he began to get involved in the Irish independence movements, hoping to

achieve a free Ireland.16 Collins also played a role, though not a major one, on the Easter Sunday

uprising.17 As a consequence of this, Collins spent time in an internment camp, where he began his rise

to power.18 Michael Collins then became a major part of the Pro-Treaty side in the civil war, which

eventually led to his death. The biography paints a picture of the actual man Michael Collins, not the

idol that time has made him out to be. The biography also goes into great detail about the death of

Michael Collins. Neeson analyzed three different viewpoints on Collins’s death to attempt to figure out

what exactly happened. It is interesting to view three different possibilities of his death, without actual

explanation.19 Neeson wrote well about the differences, analyzing each one closely to come to

conclusions about Collins’s death. According to Neeson, Collins was either killed by accidental

friendly fire, or by the enemy. However, no official autopsy report can be located, so the origin of the

13
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 9.
14
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 10.
15
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 10.
16
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 15.
17
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 22.
18
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 25.
19
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 113.
3
bullet that killed Michael Collins is still unknown.20

Eoin Neeson’s The Life and Death of Michael Collins is a well written and intelligently

structured biography of a very influential Irish leader. Neeson was able to write about the most

important aspects of Michael Collins’s life, in regard to his political career, in a relatively short

biography, and he did so without cutting out paramount details in the rise of Collins’s career. However,

some of the details are confusing especially if one is not well-versed in Irish history. Some of the

people are hard to keep track of, unless some history is already known. Numerous important people

were part of the Civil War, and the majority were named in the biography. Without prior knowledge, it

is a little difficult to follow all of the people. Furthermore, Neeson excelled in his writing, for he

acknowledged several views of Collins. Neeson did not just stick to the idea of Collins being a

wonderful leader, matched by no one. He was fair in his description of Collins, explaining that the

British saw him as “…a gunman and ‘murderer’”.21 Neeson was fair in his judgment of Collins,

writing that making him a demigod would “…do an injustice to a great man, by making of him a little

god”.22 The biography contains several primary sources, including three different primary accounts of

Collins’s death.23 Furthermore, there are four different appendices, with additional information about

the death of Michael Collins, among other things, and a detailed bibliography.24 The biography aims to

show the human Michael Collins, instead of the god-like individual that pervades the memory of

Collins. Neeson does this well, by adding anecdotes about Collins, such as his love for wresting, even

during important meetings.25 The biography is very informative, especially for the length of the work.

It is a good biography for background on Collins, as long as the reader already has some background

on the Irish Civil War.

Neeson seemed to view the Civil War in the favor of Collins. The way that the information

about the Civil War was written leads to the conclusion that Neeson understood the conflict between

20
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 125.
21
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 44.
22
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 147.
23
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 113.
24
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 148.
25
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 41.
4
the Pro-Treaty and Anti-Treaty sides, but did not really like that it had happened. However, Neeson

wrote, “Collins did not believe, what was becoming essentially obvious, that the Republic and the

Treaty which had been signed could not exist together”.26 Through this, it is shown that Neeson

understood that the war was imminent, but this did not mean that he approved of the way that the

conflict occurred. The war can also be seen as having “completed the Irish national revolution”.27

Furthermore, the war was seen as crucial to Ireland because “Since the Rising a situation of ‘multiple

sovereignty’ had existed, and only the complete victory of the Free State ended that situation by

locating sovereignty exclusively in the people”.28 Bill Kissane, the author of The Politics of the Irish

Civil War, believed that the Civil War was necessary to achieve the final goals of a Free Ireland. He

felt that the Civil War was just a means to an end, a way in which Ireland could finally be free and

independent.29

The majority of authors felt approximately the same about the Civil War and its impact on

Ireland as a whole. For the most part, the war was seen as a necessary evil. Both Neeson and Kissane

view the war as a conflict that could not have been avoided to reach the final goal of the uprising.

However, Neeson seems to feel regretful for the extent of the fighting, and the toll that it took on

Ireland and its people.30 Kissane understands the necessity of the war, though, and doesn’t seem to

mind the toll it took on Ireland, because to him it was ultimately beneficial for a free Ireland.31 There is

some difference of opinion about the final outcome of the war, but mostly it is seen as a necessary part

of the Irish uprising.

Numerous authors have commented on the view of Michael Collins throughout the years.

When he died in 1922, it was headline news all over Ireland. In the Freeman’s Journal, Collins’s death

was called a “tragedy” and Collins was seen as a “Freedom fighter”.32 The Irish Times lamented that

26
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 69.
27
Bill Kissane, The Politics of the Irish Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 235.
28
Kissane, The Politics of the Irish Civil War, 235.
29
Kissane, The Politics of the Irish Civil War, 235.
30
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 69.
31
Kissane, The Politics of the Irish Civil War, 235.
32
Ian McKeane, “Michael Collins and the Media: Then and Now,” History Ireland 3:3 (1995), 24, JSTOR, http://0-
www.jstor.org.library.lemoyne.edu/stable/27724266.
5
“no full appreciation of the effects of Collins’ death on Irish politics was yet possible.”33 Even the

enemies of Collins were upset about the situation. A paper from the Anti-Treaty side of the conflict,

called Poblacht na hEireann, expressed sadness over the whole war and the fact that Collins was a

victim of the violence.34 More recent papers seem to ignore Collins as a war leader and instead focus

on his possible romantic relations, like the Irish Press from October 12, 1990, which spent 25% of an

article on Collins on his relationships.35 Another recent article has focused on the way that Michael

Collins is described as a military man. The article points out that Collins only had ideals, not real

promises of a future, which led him to be a “timeless political figure”.36 The article then advises that

Collins should be seen as more than a military leader.37 Though this would be less sensational, it could

humanize Collins more than history has previously. Collins was viewed almost unanimously as a

negotiator, war leader, and talented administrator.38 Furthermore, Collins seems to continue to be

viewed as the “archetypal Irish hero”, courageous and willing to give his life for his cause.39 Bill

Kissane points out that, “The biographical approach to this period, which emphasizes the theme of

heroic (Collins) and unheroic (de Valera) leadership, continues to thrive…”40 Therefore, most of the

views on Collins are positive: that he was a war hero, killed too soon. There are some more negative

views on Collins, saying he was not really a great leader and that his promises would have fallen flat in

action, but the majority of views tend to put Collins in a good light.

Eoin Neeson, in writing The Life and Death of Michael Collins, placed the Irish leader in a

good light, as did many of the other authors who wrote about him. Most of the biographies published

about Collins showed him as a hero of war, and the type of person that all Irishmen should aim to be.

He is almost always described as courageous and intelligent, always with a plan of action and big

33
McKeane, “Michael Collins and the Media: Then and Now,” 25.
34
McKeane, “Michael Collins and the Media: Then and Now,” 25.
35
McKeane, “Michael Collins and the Media: Then and Now,” 26.
36
John Regan, “Looking at Mick Again: Demilitarizing Michael Collins,” History Ireland 3:3 (1995): 18, JSTOR, http://0-
www.jstor.org.library.lemoyne.edu/stable/27724265.
37
Regan, “Looking at Mick Again: Demilitarizing Michael Collins,” 22.
38
M.A. Hopkins, “Collins, Michael,” Dictionary of Irish Biography, accessed 11 April 2014, http://0-
dib.cambridge.org.library.lemoyne.edu/quicksearch.do.
39
M.A. Hopkins, “Collins, Michael.”
40
Kissane, The Politics of the Irish Civil War, 238.
6
dreams of freedom. Most authors wrote of Collins’s death as the most tragic aspect of the Civil War.

People from all walks of life mourned over the death of their leader. This mourning was to become

“the cry of Ireland, then and for a generation to come”.41 More often than not, authors viewed Collins

as a sensational leader, without many faults. However, Neeson was more well-rounded in his

description of Collins. He did not completely agree that Collins was an Irish idol, as everyone saw

him. Neeson was successful in humanizing him in his biography of Collins. Nevertheless, Neeson

wrote similarly to many other Irishmen of the time, that is, in awe of Michael Collins.

Eoin Neeson’s view of Michael Collins and the outcomes of the Irish Civil War seems to be a

fair judgment of the situation. Neeson does not spend the entire biography lauding Collins, but instead

humanizes him. This is important, as Michael Collins was just a man. He was very influential in the

Irish Civil War, but he was only a man, not the legend that he seems to be in modern times. Neeson

made several strong points about Collins’s character, yet he may still have had the idea of Collins as an

Irish idol in his mind. It is obvious that Neeson admired Collins, as he wrote, “His sincerity and

conviction shine through everything he said or did…”42 Neeson may have been biased in writing

because of this. One can wonder if the biography would have been a bit more critical of Collins had it

been written by someone who is not Irish, or from the same area. If this were the case, it could be

argued that Collins was what Ireland needed to see at the time. Collins was always shown as a strong

military leader, never as an ordinary clerk, as he was in his early days.43 Neeson did include Collins’s

days as a clerk in his biography; however, Neeson did not really focus on Collins as such. In the

biography, Collins was always pictured as a strong military man. This may have been a result of being

inundated from an early age with the idea of Collins as a military leader. Neeson was not wrong in his

description of Collins, but he may have been slightly biased in his writing. Collins seemed to be more

of a symbol to the Irish, a symbol of a fallen hero who died for his beliefs. It would be interesting to

see how Collins would have been remembered had he not fallen in battle, and instead survived to see

the end of the Civil War.

41
Margery Forester, Michael Collins: The Lost Leader (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd, 1971), 355.
42
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 146.
43
Regan, “Looking at Mick Again: Demilitarizing Michael Collins,” 22.
7
 Michael Collins was arguably the most prominent person during the Irish Civil War. He was

clever and intelligent, which allowed him to be an effective leader. Collins showed his clever mind

when he evaded capture by the British police force several times, more than just luck would allow.44

Furthermore, Collins was a very patriotic man. He focused much of his young life on following his

Gaelic heritage, even struggling to learn the language to be more connected with an older Ireland.45

When the Pro-Treaty side of the conflict was looking for a strong leader, they succeeded in finding

Collins. Dedicated beyond belief, Collins was paramount in the organization and administration of his

cause.46 Though somewhat immature and inexperienced, Collins proved himself worthy of praise, and

was well-liked by almost everyone that knew him. An enemy newspaper even mourned the loss of

Collins after his death, signifying that even if they were on opposing sides, the majority of people

admired Collins for his beliefs.47 Though some bad things have been written about Collins, he seems to

have been one of the most loved men of Ireland. No matter which way the situation is viewed, Michael

Collins rose to the occasion during the Irish Civil War and defended his beliefs to the death, which

earned him a lasting legacy in Ireland.

44
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 41.
45
Forester, Michael Collins: The Lost Leader, 54.
46
Neeson, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, 41.
47
McKeane, “Michael Collins and the Media: Then and Now,” 25.
8
 Bibliography

Brady, Anne M., and Brian Cleeve. A Biographical Dictionary of Irish Writers. New York: St.

Martin’s Press, Inc., 1985.

Forester, Margery. Michael Collins: The Lost Leader. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd, 1971.

Grayson, Richard S. “First World War: When Enemies United.” History Today 60:3 (March 2010): 23.

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA221196359&v=2.1&u=nysl_ce_lemoy

&it=r&p=PPWH&sw=w&asid=e0182999a0685e4dd4dcd899b6bd76e5

Kissane, Bill. The Politics of the Irish Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

M.A. Hopkins. “Collins, Michael.” Dictionary of Irish Biography. Accessed 11 April 2014. http://0-

dib.cambridge.org.library.lemoyne.edu/quicksearch.do

McKeane, Ian. “Michael Collins and the Media: Then and Now.” History Ireland 3:3 (Autumn

1995), 23-26, JSTOR, http://0-www.jstor.org.library.lemoyne.edu/stable/27724266.

Morrogh, Michael. “The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921.” History Review (December 2000): 24.

World History Collection. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA68644802&v=

2.1&u=nysl_ce_lemoy&it=r&p=PPWH&sw=w&asid=a02bcb1f42c1d92a472434a960c48236

Neeson, Eoin. The Life and Death of Michael Collins. Cork: The Mercier Press, 1968.

Regan, John. “Looking at Mick Again: Demilitarizing Michael Collins.” History Ireland 3:3

(Autumn 1995): 17-22, JSTOR, http://0-www.jstor.org.library.lemoyne.edu/stable/27724265