Madam, - The great advantage of historical perspective is that it enables us to transcend tragic conflicts and confrontations of the past, while showing empathy to the extent possible towards those involved.
The reputations of those who worked together, then opposed each other, such as Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera, whatever their own views, should not be treated by later generations as a zero-sum exercise, rising or falling in inverse proportion to each other.
W.T. Cosgrave surely had it right when, during the Treaty debate, he gave equal credit in the independence struggle to de Valera, for his political leadership, and to Collins, for his military genius. The post-Treaty period was mishandled by nearly everyone, including the British, who were determined to veto any accommodation. De Valera had substantial, not petty-minded, grievances against Collins in this period of intense power struggle. By signing the Treaty, without further reference back, it was a short step to ousting de Valera from power within a month.
Later, Collins abandoned without notice the Collins-de Valera pact, the main chance of averting civil war. The reverse argument, that Collins had legitimate grievances against de Valera, can equally be made. Dev went on to be a substantial shaper of independent Ireland, especially its present republican Constitution. His contribution and reputation are not defined just by the 1916-22 period.
Tim Pat Coogan's claim (Opinion & Analysis, January 31st) that Dev said in private conversation that Collins had it "coming to him", while very interesting, is once again a report at third hand, and therefore cannot have the same weight for historians as properly and contemporary recorded direct or directly witnessed, authenticated and corroborated statements.
I note that Mr Coogan can only repeat his own arguments, casting a question mark not just on the legitimacy but the paternity of de Valera, without dealing with the arguments put forward by Terry de Valera. For example, Terry de Valera states that under New York law there is a prima-facie presumption that the parents are lawfully married where a child is registered in a father's name. Also, the hospital where Dev was born was not primarily for the destitute, as is claimed.
The slight misspelling of the name (de Valero) and indeed a change in Christian name between registration and baptism are surely irrelevant. How easily could Kate de Valera have carried a false married name for years without detection? In the culture of the times, would her brother Ned Coll have been so ready to bring up in Ireland a child born out of wedlock in New York? Would Eamon de Valera have called his eldest son Vivion, after his own father, if he had any doubts about who his father was or about his parents' marriage?
Much is made of the failure to track down the marriage entry because of a confusion over the church, though details of the date, the officiating priest and witnesses are available. Vivion Juan de Valera's death certificate has not been found either, but that hardly means he is not dead. The absence of any known question mark, even at an early stage, in the minds of Spanish relatives and the fact that President de Valera received the family coat of arms from the Council of Nobility of Spain in the conservative era of General Franco are also telling points.
Dev left very little money in his will, and had to seek a rise in his State pension that had been frozen for years to cover his wife's nursing costs. He was not comfortably well off towards the end of his life, which was the only point I wished to make on the topic of the Irish Press and self-enrichment.
I admire Tim Pat Coogan's biography of Collins, which I regularly consult, and acknowledge the value of a lot of his other contributions to 20th century history, including his history of the IRA. I just regret that he does not do the same justice to Eamon de Valera. I wished to highlight Terry de Valera's memoir, which is in part a response to his book, and which should not be ignored by the general public. - Yours, etc.,
MARTIN MANSERGH,
Seanad Éireann,
Dublin 2.