Remembering the Past: Fenian Col. Michael Corcoran

On October 11, 1860, US army units in New York City were instructed to turn out in parade in honour of the visiting Prince of Wales, the 19-year-old heir to the English throne. One unit refused to do so: The fighting Irish 69th Regiment.

The refusal by leading fenian Col. Michael Corcoran to march led to an significant increase in the recruitment of soldiers into the Fenian movement.

Corcoran himself was an interesing figure. When his father died his pension ceased and Michael joined the Revenue police and worked in Donegal. By 184e he had however joined the Ribbonmen and spent the next two years involved in agitation. Then suddenly he quit the police and went to America. He joined the New York Militia the 69th and became involved in the Irish cause. When the New York branch of the fenians was founded he was the first man sworn in by John o'Mahony

Corcoran later led the Irish legion, an all Irish brigade, in the Federal army. One of the units in that brigade the 155th NY had very significant Fenian Brotherhood. In June, 1866 they took part in the Fenian invasion of Ontario with the aim of using Canada as leverage in negotiations to secure Irish independence. The invasion was not a success and the unit was later forced to withdraw back to New York.  John Corcoran was not involved. He had already passed from a stroke a few years earlier.

One of the most striking tales of his life started on the 6th October 1860..Corcoran had just turned down tickets to a dinner in the Prince's honor as he was not "not desirous of joining in the festivity."
The "festivity" was going to be an undemocratic assembly of the high and mighty. Corcoran would not follow suit. A democratic vote was put to the men who agreed that marching was not an option.

Corcoran stated that the men would not march in honour of "a sovereign under whose reign Ireland was made a desert and her sons forced to exile." making clear that Irish men in New York would not be turning out for "the bald-faced son of our oppressor."

Polite America, ignorant or uncaring of the exploitative and opressive conditions then pertaining in Colonial Ireland, was furious. Corcoran was arrested, stripped of his command and prepared for court-martial. The wider Irish community however appreciated his, and his men's efforts. A green flag remembering the event was presented to the regiment. Before the court-martial was carried out the American civil war had begun and the Federal state had more pressing concerns.

Corcoran died from a stroke in 1863.

Courage of conviction

1996 seems like an eternity away. It must seem awfully close for two families though. Volunteers Ed o'Brien and Diarmuid o'Neill both died in that year. They were both young men when they died and as a young teenager at the time I remember being struck by the level of committment and courage that both men must have had.

Ed o'Brien's birthday was 18th September. Diarmuid o'Neill died on 23rd September.

Our National (Irish) Language - By Thomas Davis

Thomas Davis of Mallow died on the 16th September 1845. In his short life he made a great contribution towards restoring the spirit of Irish nationhood and and remphasing that an Ireland without the Irish language would only be half a country. Davis wrote the following pamphlet urging that the Irish nation have the courage to forge its own path. It called for a sense of courage and purpose that would serve us well today.

MEN are ever valued most for peculiar and original qualities. A man who can only talk commonplace, and act according to routine, has little weight. To speak, look, and do what your own soul from its depths orders you are credentials of greatness which all men understand and acknowledge. Such a man's dictum has more influence than the reasoning of an imitative or commonplace man. He fills his circle with confidence. He is self-possessed, firm, accurate, and daring. Such men are the pioneers of civilisation, and the rulers of the human heart.

Why should not nations be judged thus? Is not a full indulgence of its natural tendencies essential to a people's greatness? Force the manners, dress, language, and constitution of Russia, or Italy, or Norway, or America, and you instantly stunt and distort the whole mind of either people.

The language, which grows up with a people, is conformed to their organs, descriptive of their climate, constitution, and manners, mingled inseparably with their history and their soil, fitted beyond any other language to express their prevalent thoughts in the most natural and efficient way.



To impose another language on such a people is to send their history adrift among the accidents of translation--'tis to tear their identity from all places--'tis to substitute arbitrary signs for picturesque and suggestive names--'tis to cut off the entail of feeling, and separate the people from their forefathers by a deep gulf--'tis to corrupt their very organs, and abridge their power of expression.



The language of a nation's youth is the only easy and full speech for its manhood and for its age. And when the language of its cradle goes, itself craves a tomb.



What business has a Russian for the rippling language of Italy or India? How could a Greek distort his organs and his soul to speak Dutch upon the sides of the Hymettus, or the beach of Salamis, or on the waste where once was Sparta? And is it befitting the fiery, delicate-organed Celt to abandon his beautiful tongue, docile and spirited as an Arab, "sweet as music, strong as the wave"--is it befitting in him to abandon this wild, liquid speech for the mongrel of a hundred breeds called English, which, powerful though it be, creaks and bangs about the Celt who tries to use it?



We lately met a glorious thought in the "Triads of Mochmed," printed in one of the Welsh codes by the Record Commission: "There are three things without which there is no country--common language, common judicature, and co-tillage land--for without these a country cannot support itself in peace and social union."



A people without a language of its own is only half a nation. A nation should guard its language more than its territories--'tis a surer barrier, and more important frontier, than fortress or river.



And in good times it has ever been thought so. Who had dared to propose the adoption of Persian or Egyptian in Greece--how had Pericles thundered at the barbarian? How had Cato scourged from the forum him who would have given the Attic or Gallic speech to men of Rome? How proudly and how nobly Germany stopped "the incipient creeping" progress of French! And no sooner had she succeeded than her genius, which had tossed in a hot trance, sprung up fresh and triumphant.



Had Pyrrhus quelled Italy, or Xerxes subdued Greece for a time long enough to impose new languages, where had been the literature which gives a pedigree to human genius? Even liberty recovered had been sickly and insecure without the language with which it had hunted in the woods, worshipped at the fruit-strewn altar, debated on the council-hill, and shouted in the battle-charge.



There is a fine song of the Fusians, which describes



"Language linked to liberty."



To lose your native tongue, and learn that of an alien, is the worst badge of conquest--it is the chain on the soul. To have lost entirely the national language is death; the fetter has worn through. So long as the Saxon held to his German speech he could hope to resume his land from the Norman; now, if he is to be free and locally governed, he must build himself a new home. There is hope for Scotland--strong hope for Wales--sure hope for Hungary. The speech of the alien is not universal in the one; is gallantly held at bay in the other; is nearly expelled from the third.



How unnatural--how corrupting 'tis for us, three-fourths of whom are of Celtic blood, to speak a medley of Teutonic dialects! If we add the Celtic Scots, who came back here from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries, and the Celtic Welsh, who colonised many parts of Wexford and other Leinster counties, to the Celts who never left Ireland, probably five-sixths, or more, of us are Celts. What business have we with the Norman-Sassenagh?



Nor let any doubt these proportions because of the number of English names in Ireland. With a politic cruelty the English of the Pale passed an Act (3 Edw. IV., c. 3) compelling every Irishman within English jurisdiction "to go like to one Englishman in apparel, and shaving off his beard above the mouth," "and shall take to him an English sirname of one town, as Sutton, Chester, Trym, Skryne, Corke, Kinsale; or colour, as White, Blacke, Browne; or art or science, as Smith, or Carpenter; or office, as Cook, Butler; and that he and his issue shall use this name, under pain of forfeiting his goods yearly."



And just as this Parliament before the Reformation, so did another after the Reformation. By the 28th Henry VIII., c. 15, the dress and language of the Irish were insolently described as barbarous by the minions of that ruffian king, and were utterly forbidden and abolished under many penalties and incapacities. These laws are still in force; but whether the Archaeological Society, including Peel and O'Connell, will be prosecuted seems doubtful.



There was also, 'tis to be feared, an adoption of English names, during some periods, from fashion, fear, or meanness. Some of our best Irish names, too, have been so mangled as to require some scholarship to identify them. For these and many more reasons the members of the Celtic race here are immensely greater than at first appeals.



But this is not all; for even the Saxon and Norman colonists, notwithstanding these laws, melted down into the Irish, and adopted all their ways and language. For centuries upon centuries Irish was spoken by men of all bloods in Ireland, and English was unknown, save to a few citizens and nobles of the Pale. 'Tis only within a very late period that the majority of the people learned English.



But, it will be asked, how can the language be restored now?



We shall answer this partly by saying that, through the labours of the Archaeological and many lesser societies, it is being revived rapidly.



We shall consider this question of the possibility of reviving it more at length some other day.



Nothing can make us believe that it is natural or honourable for the Irish to speak the speech of the alien, the invader, the Sassenagh tyrant, and to abandon the language of our kings and heroes. What! give up the tongue of Ollamh Fodhla and Brian Boru, the tongue of M'Carty, and the O'Nials, the tongue of Sarsfield's, Curran's, Mathew's, and O'Connell's boyhood, for that of Strafford and Poynings, Sussex, Kirk, and Cromwell!



No! oh, no! the "brighter days shall surely come," and the green flag shall wave on our towers, and the sweet old language be heard once more in college, mart, and senate.



But even should the effort to save it as the national language fail, by the attempt we will rescue its old literature, and hand down to our descendants proofs that we had a language as fit for love, and war, and business, and pleasure, as the world ever knew, and that we had not the spirit and nationality to preserve it!



Had Swift known Irish he would have sowed its seed by the side of that nationality which he planted, and the close of the last century would have seen the one as flourishing as the other. Had Ireland used Irish in 1782, would it not have impeded England's re-conquest of us? But 'tis not yet too late.



For you, if the mixed speech called English was laid with sweetmeats on your child's tongue, English is the best speech of manhood. And yet, rather, in that case you are unfortunate. The hills, and lakes, and rivers, the forts and castles, the churches and parishes, the baronies and counties around you, have all Irish names--names which describe the nature of the scenery or ground, the name of founder, or chief, or priest, or the leading fact in the history of the place. To you these are names hard to pronounce, and without meaning.



And yet it were well for you to know them. That knowledge would be a topography, and a history, and romance, walking by your side, and helping your discourse. Meath tells its flatness, Clonmel the abundant riches of its valley, Fermanagh is the land of the Lakes, Tyrone the country of Owen, Kilkenny the Church of St. Canice, Dunmore the great fort, Athenry the Ford of the Kings, Dunleary the Fort of O'Leary; and the Phoenix Park, instead of taking its name from a fable, recognises as christener the "sweet water" which yet springs near the east gate.



All the names of our airs and songs are Irish, and we every day are as puzzled and ingeniously wrong about them as the man who, when asked for the air, "I am asleep, and don't waken me," called it "Tommy M'Cullagh made boots for me."



The bulk of our history and poetry are written in Irish, and shall we, who learn Italian, and Latin, and Greek, to read Dante, Livy, and Homer in the original--shall we be content with ignorance or a translation of Irish?



The want of modern scientific words in Irish is undeniable, and doubtless we should adopt the existing names into our language. The Germans have done the same thing, and no one calls German mongrel on that account. Most of these names are clumsy and extravagant; and are almost all derived from Greek or Latin, and cut as foreign a figure in French and English as they would in Irish. Once Irish was recognised as a language to be learned as much as French or Italian, our dictionaries would fill up, and our vocabularies ramify, to suit all the wants of life and conversation.



These objections are ingenious refinements, however, rarely thought of till after the other and great objection has been answered.



The usual objection to attempting the revival of Irish is, that it could not succeed.



If an attempt were made to introduce Irish, either through the national schools or the courts of law, into the eastern side of the island, it would certainly fail, and the reaction might extinguish it altogether. But no one contemplates this save as a dream of what may happen a hundred years hence. It is quite another thing to say, as we do, that the Irish language should be cherished, taught, and esteemed, and that it can be preserved and gradually extended.



What we seek is, that the people of the upper classes should have their children taught the language which explains our names of persons or places, our older history, and our music, and which is spoken in the majority of our counties, rather than Italian, German, or French. It would be more useful in life, more serviceable to the taste and genius of young people, and a more flexible accomplishment for an Irish man or woman to speak, sing, and write Irish than French.



At present the middle classes think it a sign of vulgarity to speak Irish--the children are everywhere taught English and English alone in schools--and, what is worse, they are urged by rewards and punishments to speak it at home, for English is the language of their masters. Now, we think the example and exertions of the upper classes would be sufficient to set the opposite and better fashion of preferring Irish; and, even as a matter of taste, we think them bound to do so. And we ask it of the pride, the patriotism, and the hearts of our farmers and shopkeepers, will they try to drive out of their children's minds the native language of almost every great man we had, from Brian Boru to O'Connell--will they meanly sacrifice the language which names their hills, and towns, and music, to the tongue of the stranger?



About half the people west of a line drawn from Derry to Waterford speak Irish habitually, and in some of the mountain tracts east of that line it is still common. Simply requiring the teachers of the national schools in these Irish-speaking districts to know Irish, and supplying them with Irish translations of the school books, would guard the language where it now exists, and prevent it from being swept away by the English tongue, as the Red Americans have been by the English race from New York to New Orleans.



The example of the upper classes would extend and develop a modern Irish literature, and the hearty support they have given to the Archaeological Society makes us hope that they will have sense and spirit to do so.



But the establishment of a newspaper partly or wholly Irish would be the most rapid and sure way of serving the language. The Irish-speaking man would find, in his native tongue, the political news and general information he has now to seek in English; and the English-speaking man, having Irish frequently before him in so attractive a form, would be tempted to learn its characters, and by-and-by its meaning.



These newspapers in many languages are now to be found everywhere but here. In South America many of these papers are Spanish and English, or French; in North America, French and English; in Northern Italy, German and Italian; in Denmark and Holland, German is used in addition to the native tongue; in Alsace and Switzerland, French and German; in Poland, German, French, and Sclavonic; in Turkey, French and Turkish; in Hungary, Magyar, Sclavonic, and German; and the little Canton of Grison uses three languages in its press. With the exception of Hungary, the secondary language is, in all cases, spoken by fewer persons than the Irish-speaking people of Ireland, and while they everywhere tolerate and use one language as a medium of commerce, they cherish the other as the vehicle of history, the wings of song, the soil of their genius, and a mark and guard of nationality.

Raising the Red Flag at the Rotunda. The workers occupation of January 1922.

The seizure of the Rotunda concert hall by a reasonably large group of unemployed workers, and the hoisting of the red flag over the premises, remains one of the most bizarre and understudied events of the Irish revolutionary period.

The story of this event is enjoyably recounted on the Come Here to Me website which covers the political, social, and radical history of Baile Atha Cliath. The article is reproduced with the kind permission of the author. Go raibh maith agat Donal.

The seizure of the Rotunda by unemployed people had as one of its leaders a man called Liam o'Flaherty who like many unemployed was in an Irish unit of the British army in WW1 before entering radical left politics, the Citzen Army and eventually seeing action with the anti-treaty forces in the civil war. 

In his excellent history of the ITGWU, The Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union: The Formative Years C. Desmond Greaves wrote that, early in 1922 “….industrial conflict took the form of individual struggles rather than a concerted class war.” The occupation of the Rotunda came two days after the foundation of the new state, and was perhaps the earliest example of class anger within it, a direct response to the existing high levels of unemployment. One of the leading figures of this occupation was Liam O’ Flaherty, today well-known as the author of The Informer, the classic novel, but then acting as a dedicated socialist.

He, like so many other unemployed men in Dublin, had served in the Great War, serving with the Irish Guards. He had been on a strange journey before returning to Dublin, and Emmet O’ Connor notes in Reds and the Greens that “After being invalided out of the British Army he set off trampling about the Mediterranean and the Americas, joining the Wobblies in Canada and the Communist Party in New York. He returned to settle in Ireland in December 1921….”

On January 18 1922, a group of unemployed Dublin workers seized the concert hall of the Rotunda. The Irish Times of the following day noted that:

 “The unemployed in Dublin have seized the concert room at the Rotunda, and they declare that they will hold that part of the building until they are removed, as a protest against the apathy of the authorities.”

“A ‘garrison’, divided into ‘companies’, each with its ‘officers’ has been formed, and from one of the windows the red flag flies”

Liam O’ Flaherty, as chairman of the ‘Council of Unemployed’, spoke to the paper about the refusal of the men to leave the premises, stating that no physical resistance would be put up against the police and that the protest was a peaceful one, yet they intended to stay where they were.

“If we were taken to court, we would not recognise the court, because the Government that does not redress our grievances is not worth recognising” O’ Flaherty told the Times.

A manifesto was issued by the occupiers, the first publication of O’ Flaherty. O’ Connor notes in his study that “Their manifesto was O’ Flaherty’s first publication. One could say that Phelan (A reference to a CPI comrade of O’ Flaherty, Jim Phelan) was impressed. ‘It’s language has not, I think, been approached since the days of the American War of Independence and the first French Revolution’ “

A later Irish Times report gives some idea of the level of organisation involved in such an occupation. On January 20 the paper noted that a man had been court martialed and reduced to the ranks. “…we reduced him to the ranks for disobeying orders” the paper quoted the “leader of the men” as saying. By that stage, two days into the occupation, around 200 men were present.

The paper noted a maintainance fund had been established, with Bolands bakery on Capel Street making a grant of 500 loaves to the men. The paper also noted that sporadic concerts had taken place inside the occupation, and that “A meeting of the unemployed was held during the day yesterday, and the “garrison” paraded Parnell Square”.

Of course, many Dubliners were extremely hostile to the sight of the red flag in Dublin. Angry demonstrations occurred each night during the occupation, and the Irish Independent noted (January 21) that “About 8.30 last night a hostile crowd of about 500 assembled in Cavendish Row, and indulged in shouts and derisive cheers. About 10pm a young fellow made an attempt to reach the red flag hung out from a window, but fell to the ground. He was taken to Jervis St. Hospital, but he was not detained.” When the flag was removed, the crowd cheered loudly.It was only thanks to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Republican Police that those inside the Rotunda were unharmed, as the crowd stormed the building. It was becoming clear the occupation was not sustainable. On the Thursday night, a member of the occupying group had been attacked collecting money near the premises, and since then tensions had been high.

The occupation, which had begun on Wednesday, was to end late on Saturday night. As the hatred outside intensified, shots were fired over the heads of the mob from inside the hall. Just before midnight, and under the protection of the combined police forces, the occupiers left the building and the crowd soon departed without incident. O’ Flaherty took off for Cork.

The Gate Theatre, site of the occupation today.

O’ Flaherty would later fight in the Irish Civil War, one of the socialists present in Vaughan’s Hotel, a republican seizure of note owing to the fact it was a favourite meeting place of a certain Michael Collins during the War of Independence! O’ Flaherty is not the only Irish writer of note to have partaken in the Civil War of course, with Sean O’ Faoláin just one other example. The early parts of 1922 saw much industrial unrest, and a number of creameries in the south of Ireland were sized in May. Greaves noted in his prior mentioned study of the history of the ITGWU that the Labour Party and TUC had attempted to “…ensure the neutrality of the Citizen Army by incorporating it into a ‘Workers Army’ that would cover the whole country….But no army can fight for neutrality, and the project soon fell through”

Still, the physical battles between two armed factions and the class conflict remained more or less disconnected from one another. An editorial in the Workers Republic, printed on July 22 1922, noted
“What will attract the masses to support the Republicans? At present, they cannot see any benefit in fighting for it! At present the Free State offers them more economic and social advantages. At the moment it seems as if the Labour Party, representative of the masses, can find its salvation in the Free State rather than in the Republic”

Liam Mellows, perhaps the republican figure who fought hardest for republicanism to add a real social dimension to its goals, was to be executed in a hail of bullets. His now famous prison notes noted that “In our efforts now to win back public support to the Republic we are forced to recognise whether we like it or not- that the commercial interest, so-called, money and the gombeen men are on the side of the Treaty”

The occupation of the Rotunda remains an often overlooked piece of the history of the period. Before Mellows penned the above, O’ Flaherty and a small band of followers had demanded a Workers Republic, and nothing short thereof. In Irish history, the Rotunda is seen as being of great importance as the site of the foundation of the Irish Volunteers. Sadly, no plaque marks the workers occupation of the site in 1922.

An unbroken chain - The escape of Vol. Tom Malone from Spike in 1921

At age 8 Tom Malone from Westmeath stood on a land league platform with Davitt. His mother was dismissed  from her school job for teaching Irish. He was out in 1916, and went on to become a key Volunteer in the Tan war and throughout the 30s. In 1921 Vol. Tom Malone and two comrades audaciously escaped from Spike Island, becoming the first to do so.

As we approach the 27th anniversary of the Great Escape planned by Volunteers in the north of our country it is fitting to consider 3 volunteers in the south of our country who performed an equally daring escape.

An unbroken chain, an unbroken tradition, linking many generations in one continous struggle.

The story of Tom Malone

Video Part 1 

Video Part 2:

Video Part3:

Its the True spirit of Republicanism Roysh.

Only a few days ago we were wondering why in God's name would the Irish Times be a recruiting Sgt. for Afghanistan. Some redemption for the self styled paper of record today. Fintan o'Toole is amazed at the strange spectacle of a former PD talking about the idea of a Republic. Bear in mind that while Fintan might not be all that bad he is apparently not the flavour of the month at the Irish Times who find his left wing leanings at odds with their own agenda.

Fintan writes:

I WAS very disappointed to read Ross O'Carroll-Kelly in The Irish Times on Saturday. It's not that Ross hasn't been in flying form of late. It's just that I was hoping to confirm that the author had pulled a fine satiric stunt and persuaded Madam to move the column to the front page on Friday.

The idea of Michael McDowell addressing a private audience at the Kildare Street and University Club about "true republicanism" just had to have been dreamt up by Ross's father and his sidekick Hennessy. It has all the hilarious absurdity of their myopic south Dublin self-regard.
But alas, no. There was Ross on his usual Saturday pedestal. Michael really was thrilling the private diners with flirtatious intimations of his own patriotic duty to save the Republic

And isn't it so typical of the PDs and their ilk that plans to save the country are worked out at private dinners with no doubt champagne, stories about who pulled a mulligan on the 18th hole and how the country was too small for all of us.

Fintan correctly identifies what will be one of the central themes of the next 5 years - the idea of the Republic. Already there has been a ongoing debate in the Times about a new Irish Republic. A discussion which Gerry Adams has been part of. The idea of the Republic is pervasive through out the south's political vocabulary with everyone claiming a piece of the action - even Fine Gaelers and the PDs. Imagine how bad it will get once Fianna Fail go into opposition.

But Fintan spots the one weakness in Republican McDowell's plans:

Michael wouldn't recognise a republic if he shared a cell in Thornton Hall with it for 10 years.

And isnt Thornton hall Prison the place to look for PD/FF Republicanism. At €200k an acre of farmland for a prison that wont be open until about 2014 but still costs 125k a year. €3o million for a site worked €6 million. Shop around as Mary Harney used tell us.

Usefully o'Toole then examines what the essence of a Republic should be and tries to examine recent events against its benchmark.

"A republic is an entity in which reasoned dissent and open debate about public policy are highly valued."

 In contrast look at  how McDowell censored reports, crushed the Center for Public Inquiry.

"A republic is a system in which public service is undertaken with a certain humility."

Look at the excesses of his former leader Mary Harney and her circle of buddies in Fas who showed all the humility of Marie Antoinette.

But the final nail in the coffin of this dissident Republicans can be seen 'In 2004 – rather deliciously while serving as minister for equality – he told the Irish Catholic that "a dynamic liberal economy like ours demands flexibility and inequality in some respects to function". It was such inequality "which provides incentives".'

So much for the Republic of McDowell. Are Fine Gael daft enough to bring him back? They might as well get Sean Fitz. back into Anglo.

9XYHYCXK7E6W

Remembering the Past - Enigmatic Robert Emmet

On July 23rd 1803 Robert Emmet, with other United Irish men, launched an ill-fated rebellion in the streets of Dublin. This, with other local Irish rebellions, would result in the remilitarisation of Ireland and demonstrate that Ireland would never be anything other than an occupied colony - act of union or no.

A nice side note on the act of union was that it took two runs to get it onto the books. The first vote was defeated but seeing as how they didnt like the result they tried again and eventually succeeded. Whereas the first attempt had been defeated in the Irish House of Commons by 109 votes against to 104 for, the second vote in 1800 produced a result of 158 to 115. Sounds a bit like another modern treaty of union.

In the irish democrat site Historian Ruán O’Donnell assessed the real significance of one of Ireland’s most iconic and misunderstood national heroes, the United Irishman Robert Emmet, who was executed over 200 years ago in the wake of the failure of the 1803 rising :

JULY 2003 marks the anniversary of the rising with which Robert Emmet is widely associated. Emmet’s personal fame, fanned by his rousing ‘speech from the dock’, has ensured a lasting place in the folk memory of Ireland and he was unquestionably the premier nationalist hero figure of the 19th century.

A corollary of this ascendancy, however, has been the eclipsing of many important United Irishmen who fought and died in 1803, not to mention those who escaped detection.


Emmet remains something of an enigma 200 years after his execution in Dublin for high treason. His claim to prominence in the complex historiography of Ireland rests in the first instance from his leadership of the failed rising of 23 July 1803.

This attempt to remove Ireland from the United Kingdom by force of arms was far more serious than the government admitted. Persistent calls for a parliamentary enquiry were strenuously resisted as this would have revealed that the rising had surprised the Dublin Castle regime and exposed the weakness of British security. Britain was then in the grip of an invasion scare as the interminable war against France showed no signs of favourable resolution.

The rising, therefore, undermined the Act of Union which, from 1 January 1801, had incorporated Ireland into the UK. Emmet’s role in re-cementing the United Irish-French alliance had not been anticipated and was poorly understood at the time of his death in September 1803.

Emmet’s father was the State Physician of Ireland, and, ironically, the man responsible for the health of King George III in the unlikely event of a royal visit to Dublin.

The Emmets were wealthy and the future revolutionary graduated with ease from the socially elite academies of the capital, where he was born in 1778, to Trinity College, aged fifteen. Robert Emmet’s youth coincided with the rise of the reform movement in Ireland when pro-American ‘patriotism’ gripped his family.

By December 1796 a French invasion fleet lay off Cork and Emmet was a United Irishman pledged to establish an independent Irish republic with their assistance.

His elder brother, Thomas Addis Emmet, was a member of the organisation’s executive directory from 1797 but had played a key role in shaping its ideology from its inception in six years previously.

Although poorly documented, the younger Emmet’s seditious activities in Trinity resulted in de facto expulsion in April 1798 but he remained in situ when the ‘Great Rebellion’ erupted the following month.

What is known of Emmet’s actions in 1798 points to his close workings with the rump leadership built around Lord Edward Fitzgerald’s highly influential military committee. This coterie was, for all intents and purposes, the Dublin based headquarters of the United Irishmen. Its members included Philip Long, surgeon Thomas Wright, Walter Cox and others who connected the conspiracies of the United Irishmen in the mid-1790s to the rising of 1803.

Robert Emmet advanced to the executive directory in January 1799 by which time several of the original incumbents had been executed and many others jailed. Consequently, the August 1800 arrival of an emissary warning of concern in Paris as to the commitment of the United Irishmen disposed Emmet to accompany Malachy Delaney on a mission to brief Napoleon Bonaparte.

He first travelled to Fort George in Scotland to meet the high-ranking United Irishmen interned there before sailing from Yarmouth to Hamburg. General P F C Augureau received the fiery Emmet/ Delaney petition and forwarded it to Bonaparte.

Arrangements were made to receive the Irish plenipotentiaries in Paris. Foreign minister Tallyrand introduced them to the staff officers drawing up plans for an Irish invasion and Emmet later met Napoleon.

Peace overtures from Britain, however, temporarily stalled these preparations and from March 1802 the treaty signed at Amiens postponed French assistance. Thus thwarted, Emmet waited for the resumption of war by touring centres of Irish emitters on the continent.

He returned to Dublin in October 1802 and assumed the position of chief military strategist of the United Irishmen. Associates arrived secretly from France and England to reactivate dormant cadres ahead of the predicted resumption of the Anglo-French War during the spring.

Co-operation was initially envisaged with British based republicans led by colonel Edward Marcus Despard and this had been discussed in Paris and London in talks attended by Philip Long and William Dowdall.

Any chance of simultaneous strikes was quashed by Despard’s arrest in November 1802, although Dowdall and other militants based in Britain realigned with Emmet.

The conspirators hired numerous premises in Dublin where war material was manufactured and stored. Sophisticated improvised ordnance such as rockets and mines were to be used against the garrison of the capital during the critical mobilisation phase.

This surprise onslaught was to be seconded by an influx of rebels from counties Kildare, Wicklow and Meath. Emmet believed that capturing or isolating the executive would gravely hinder its ability to repel a large-scale French invasion in the provinces.

Supporting uprisings were intended to assist the advance of the French in what was essentially a more efficient reworking of the strategy of 1798.

The majority of United Irish veterans in contact with Emmet’s circle had undertaken to fight alongside the French, or without foreign assistance, if provided with modern weaponry. Failure to deliver either the French or muskets, therefore, was the fatal flow of the rising of 1803.

This was not intentional as the hand of the leadership was forced by the accidental destruction of the Patrick Street depot when loose powder ignited on 16 July 1803. Fearing that all the crucial dumps were in danger of discovery, Emmet unwisely backed those who argued for an immediate insurrection in the hope that the French would sail to their aid without delay.

The date was fixed for 23 July with no provision for cancellation and insufficient time to acknowledge the concerns of regional leaders. Thomas Russell, James Hope, William Hamilton and other senior long standing radicals went to Ulster to warn their allies, while Dublin residents such as Miles Byrne and Arthur Devlin primed their fellow Leinster men.

Their reception was decidedly uneven and exceptionally so when the moment of truth arrived. It must be presumed that the whole effort would have been cancelled had Emmet realised sufficient forces to capture Belfast, Downpatrick and Ballymena would not be fielded on the 23rd.

The first wave of attacks in Dublin was entrusted to cells of heavily-armed men who gathering in private houses close to their objectives. The Castle, Island Bridge artillery barracks, the Pigeon House and other complexes were earmarked for assault. These sudden strikes were to be assisted by around 2,000 auxiliaries hidden in Costigan’s distillery on Thomas Street.

The reserve consisted of thousands of rank and file followers from Kildare and Dublin who were told to mass in Thomas Street to await final instructions at 6.00 pm. A series of ill-disciplined attacks on army officers, magistrates and loyalists, however, threatened to alert the government in the early evening.

Remarkably, misunderstandings between the civil and military command in the capital left Dublin more vulnerable than anyone realised. No troops were deployed. Nevertheless, by 9.00 pm Emmet decided to dismiss rebel units blocking the suburban roads and launched a solitary signal rocket to countermand his previous orders to rise.

The vast majority melted away unchallenged. Emmet then hastily read extracts from the Proclamation of the Provisional Government to ensure that those who had already turned out would be treated as political prisoners if captured.

He then headed a feint on the Castle with a view to bringing his exposed junior associates into the Dublin mountains. The veteran groups were deliberately not deployed and in their stead were low-level activists, unfamiliar with Emmet’s rank and authority.

He and the senior officers present very quickly abandoned Thomas Street for Rathfarnham and the mountains beyond.

Several hundred organised rebels, however, refused to disperse without a fight and confronted companies of the 21st regiment in three linked and bloody skirmishes. Soldiers inflicted far more casualties than they sustained but, nonetheless, retreated to barracks where they remained until the danger had passed.

The rising of 1803 petered out in the capital long before the garrison flooded onto the streets to restore order. Even then, the military response was chaotic and undertaken without specific orders from CIC lieutenant-general, Henry Edward Fox. Rebel movements occurred in several counties, most notably Kildare (where two villages were captured), Antrim and Down but very little of the potential of the United Irishmen was manifested in 1803.

Stunned by the post-Union strength of the United Irishmen, the government shouldered the political embarrassment and considerable expense of remilitarising Ireland. Contrary to the ostensible objective of Union, the country remained (and to a degree remains in the North) a garrisoned colonial entity rather than an equal member of the United Kingdom.

Thomas Russell was one of the more prominent fatalities in the round of judicial executions which followed but over thirty men perished in the treason trails of the Special Commissions.

Emmet, captured in Harold’s Cross on 25 August, refused to make terms and was executed in Thomas Street on 20 September.

Thousands of his comrades then languished in the jails, provosts and prison tenders of the thirty-two counties where many were held until the spring of 1806 when the more liberal incoming government of Charles James Fox restored habeas corpus.

Emmet was already a hero-martyr and his demand to be vindicated by the sole means of Ireland taking its place ‘amongst the nations of the Earth’ has resonated with periodic vigour ever since. His name, for this reason alone, will be associated with the final resolution of the national question in Ireland.

Professor Ruán O’Donnell is head of the history dept. at the University of Limerick He has published a two volume biographical study of Emmet.

Remembering the Past - Napper Tandy, a forgotten patriot.

The United Irishman Napper Tandy was a larger than life figure who was reputed to be nearly seven foot tall and boasted a nose so large that a political adversary once suggested it stand for election in its own right. But political humour aside Tandy was a driven and committed Republican who established a reputation for exposing corruption in officialdom and also played an active part in the 1798 rebellion, though regretfully arriving too late with the arms and ammunition needed to make the rebellion a success.

Ian McKeane of Liverpool University’s institute of Irish studies reassesses the reputation of one of the most colourful figures of the United Irish movement in an article that originally appeared on the Irish Democrat website in 2002.

MOST PEOPLE meet James Napper Tandy in the song the Wearing of the Green. He pops up again, or rather his Dublin residence does, in the ballad The Spanish Lady.

Apart from that he is rather a shadowy figure, one of the United Irishmen but condemned by events to be eternally in the shadow of such as Wolf Tone, Russell and Lord Edward Fitzgerald. He is dismissed as a drunk, a gossip unsuited to conspiratorial activity, another Irish failure without the saving grace of martyrdom.

A Dubliner, born in 1740, he became involved in the political animation of late 1770s Dublin. As secretary of the Dublin branch of the United Irishmen, he was the link between the upper class Protestant leaders and the Catholic rank and file.

When the government proscribed the United Irishmen in 1792, Tandy felt exposed and travelled to America. There he continued his United Irishmen activities which brought him into contact with the French minister plenipotentiary of the French republic, citizen Adet. Adet described him as: “an excellent republican, a man entirely devoted to France and hating England as much as he is attached to our cause”

The French diplomat sought to gain Tandy’s support for a French action in Ireland suggesting that he should “contribute” to the project of an invasion of Ireland with the possible reward of an “honourable situation in France.”

Adet was surprised that Tandy left for Paris in the spring of 1797 without demanding or discussing any personal financial reward. Once there, he joined with Tone in pestering the Directory (French government) to send an invasion force.

Finally, director Carnot gave the orders which set in motion the series of confused, and uncoordinated French military moves against Ireland during 1798. As part of these preparations, Tandy was commissioned in the French army with the rank of brigadier general on 2nd April 1798.

Tandy was appointed second in command of the Dunkirk invasion force under general Rey. They set sail in the brig Anacréon, one of the fastest ships in the French navy, on 4 September.

The Anacréon arrived off Co. Donegal, on the 18th and anchored by Rutland Island. Rey, Tandy and other members of the party, including, James Blackwell, and William Corbett, went ashore. They landed, addressed the locals, distributed a proclamation signed by Tandy and gave out green cockades.

It is suggested that Tandy was rather the worse for drink at the time but, despite the enthusiasm of the moment, he heard confirmation of the defeat of Humbert and therefore advised Rey that their force was unequal to any formal confrontation with British troops and that they should withdraw -- hardly the action of a man in his cups.

Withdraw they did and set sail for Bergen in Norway. On the way the Anacréon met and captured two English ships. One was subsequently lost but the Anacréon eventually reached Bergen with its remaining prize which financed the entire expedition.

Tandy, Blackwell, Corbett and Morris decided to return to France. The first stage was to travel to Hamburg where they arrived on the 22nd November 1798.

Hamburg was a self governing city but relied on the protection of its powerful neighbours, such as Prussia, for defence and the senat’s (city government’s) ability to negotiate with Russia, Britain and France to enable its ships to pass unhindered in the Baltic and the Atlantic.

Hamburg’s position as a neutral port rendered it useful to continental powers and in time of war it provided conduits for communication, both open and illicit, between the larger belligerents.

The Irishmen’s first act was to present their documents to the French consul so as to gain papers to enter French controlled Holland. They then put up at the American Arms hotel.

Sir James Crawfurd, the British representative in Hamburg had been waiting for their arrival from Bergen and had almost given up on them. He acted swiftly and demanded the arrest, pending extradition, of Tandy and Blackwell from the Prätor, the city's chief magistrate.

Crawfurd’s reasoning was simple. Since the Hamburg authorities were dependent on British goodwill to allow their ships to move freely, he felt that there would be little problem in arranging for Tandy and the others to be extradited to Britain where they could be tried for treason and eliminated by execution or, at least, by transportation.

However, Crawfurd forgot that the Hamburg authorities also had French troops not far from the gates of the city, on the Dutch border. Forgot is perhaps ingenuous -- he felt that the pressure that he could bring to bear on the spot far exceeded that available to the French government.

Crawfurd thought that the French might bluster a bit but would consider that Tandy and Blackwell were really of little consequence to them. Even if the Directory, reacted badly to the extradition of the Irish, for Crawfurd, the end would have justified the means.

Good relations with Hamburg were not essential to Britain’s game plan -- useful, but not essential. The war situation was fluid, a cessation of hostilities was a real possibility and new developments would just have to be dealt with. The Irish problem, though, had to be settled.

So, very early on the 23 November, Crawfurd’s arresting party burst in on the Irish who resisted manfully. The French press wrote that Tandy threatened an officer with his pistol while the official report by the French minister at Hamburg stated that it was Blackwell who struck out with his sword but that four marines jumped on him and forced him to the ground. Crawfurd himself then transported the prisoners to jail to await extradition.

he Hamburg magistrature soon began to have second thoughts -- Blackwell and Tandy had valid French commissions and this was no light matter. The Directory had not revoked the commissions and since Tandy and Blackwell had lodged them with the French consul as soon as they had landed the Hamburg government had a problem.

The French consul protested to the Hamburg authorities without success. The French ambassador Marragon argued with Burgermeister, Von Sienen, (who happened to be pro-British) equally fruitlessly. Marragon promptly demanded a meeting of the Hamburg senat the next day. The city elders could not reach any conclusion. Pro-British senators questioned the identities of Tandy and Blackwell. If their identities were false, the argument went, the British had every right to extradite them.

The international situation was changing and Hamburg seemed about to find itself on the front-line in renewed hostilities. Britain would regard a refusal to hand over the prisoners as an excuse for war. France would resist this by taking Cuxhaven, Russian troops were poised to occupy nearby Holstein, Prussia would take Hanover and, all in all, Hamburg would suffer greatly for the imprisonment of two Irishmen.

The senat’s indecision was compounded by rising anti-British public opinion in the city. The French consul was concerned that the British would become impatient and attempt a double cross by ‘springing’ Tandy and Blackwell from jail and tricking them onto an English ship. Suspecting a trick, Tandy kept his nerve and refused to rise to the temptation to escape. Stalemate resulted.

Months passed. British pressure increased and finally in Autumn 1799 the Hamburg senat agreed to the extradition of the Irish. They were taken to London. The French were furious and imposed an Atlantic embargo on Hamburg’s ships. What made this more serious was that the Directory had fallen and the French government’s voice was now that of general Napoleon Bonaparte.

Bonaparte gave the Hamburg senators a piece of his mind and foreign minister Talleyrand warned the British that the whole prisoner exchange programme would be jeopardised and Britain’s reputation would be permanently stained if the commissions held by Blackwell and Tandy were not respected.

The British were highly irritated by all this and shipped Tandy off to Dublin. Despite a trial for treason carrying the death sentence the Lord Lieutenant, Cornwallis, was instructed not to carry it out.

Tandy claimed the protection of the court on a technicality and was acquitted. He was promptly rearrested and taken to Lifford Jail to face charges for his treasonable activities in Donegal. He was found guilty and sentenced to die on 4 May 1801.

It was hoped that Tandy would incriminate his comrades and possibly accept conditions for mercy which would compromise his reputation amongst his associates. Despite months in prison, the Hamburg extradition, two trials and a death sentence Tandy did not weaken.

The British government, realising that his exchange was all that impeded peace with France, ordered Cornwallis to arrange for him to be quietly shipped over to France. He arrived in Bordeaux on the 14 March 1802. On the 24th the Peace of Amiens was signed in London.

Britain had hoped that Tandy would be more or less ignored in France but they were wrong. French propaganda made the most of Tandy’s arrival in Bordeaux. A brilliant dinner was organised to welcome him and he was immediately paid 6000 livres as army pay due to him. He was honoured with a military parade and Bonaparte personally awarded him the pension of a full general, 6000 livres.

He was very comfortably placed as a result. The only restriction was that he was not permitted to travel to Paris. Bonaparte wished to keep him away from the capital where some of his old adversaries, including Crawfurd, were now in residence.

Ostensibly, he was kept quite busy working on a scheme to invade Louisiana -- a cover for an new invasion of Ireland. But Tandy died on 24th August 1803, some two months before Robert Emmet’s attack on Dublin castle and there was no new French invasion.

Tandy was given a huge funeral in Bordeaux. His companions were quietly released and made their way to France. Tandy then slips from history which is an undeserved fate for such a colourful, brave and committed United Irishman and patriot.

Had he been of a higher social class, and perhaps more charismatic, he would be better known. As it was, only the French were prepared to support him -- for their own reasons, of course. In the end they generously provided for him, recognising his qualities in a way that others did not, and have not since.

Remembering the Past - The Rockite rebellion

Famously the proclamation of the Republic states our ancestors asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty "six times during the past three hundred years ... in arms."
But between those leading rebellions and wars were frequent, sometimes highly localised, insurrections. Rural Radicalism provided the engine for transmitting the ideas of '98 onto the next generation.
The historian Peter Berresford Ellis wrote a fascinating account in the Irish Democrat on Ireland's forgotten 'Rockite' rebellion and the militant agrarian movement active in the south west of Ireland in the early part of the 19th century. Radical rural revolt whether by the Rockites (or transmitted into an urban industrial setting via the Molly Maguires) is one of the most fascinating aspects of our history.

Ellis writes:
When I first published my History of the Irish Working Class, in 1972, I wrote in the preface that I was conscious of many aspects of working-class history that deserved to be dealt with in more detail. Indeed, many aspects at that time were largely unexplored territories. In the last thirty years, some of the avenues of research that I mentioned have now been studied and written about.

Among them I felt that the militant agrarian organisations of the 17th to 19th Centuries should be investigated. Movements like the 'Whiteboys', the 'Ribbonmen', and the followers of 'Captain Steel' or 'Captain Right' and so on. In the south-west of Ireland during 1821-1824 there arose a movement, whose leader was a mysterious 'Captain Rock'.

The Rockites caused a serious insurrection in January, 1822, in Limerick, Kerry, Cork and Tipperary. It was so determined that five extra regular regiments had to be sent from England to reinforce the local garrisons. An Insurrection Act, with curfew at night and trial without jury, was proclaimed in the south-west counties and 1,500 Munster men were immediately arrested, more than 200 transported to the Penal Colonies and 36 executed in February, 1822, alone. But raids and ambushes continued.

Who were 'Captain Rock' and the Rockites and what did they want to achieve?

The movement started, like other Irish agrarian movements, initially as a reaction against the great English and Anglo-Irish feudal landlords and their absolute power in Ireland.

In 1776, the English traveller Arthur Young, had observed:

"A landlord in Ireland can scarcely invent an order, which a servant, labourer or cotter dare refuse to execute. Nothing satisfied him but an unlimited submission. Disrespect or anything tending towards sauciness he may punish with his cane or his horse-whip with the most perfect security; a poor man would have his bones broke if he offered to lift his hand in his own defence… Landlords of consequence have assured me, that many of their cotters would think themselves honoured by having their wives or daughters sent for to the bed of their master; a mark of slavery that proves the oppression under which such people must live."
Between 1728 and 1845 the colonial landlord system in Ireland had produced twenty-eight artificial famines in which millions of Irish men, women and children had suffered death while their landlords sent off rich harvests and herds to the English markets.

This was the cause of the agrarian unrest among the rural population. Indeed, in 1822 a major artificial famine was about to occur. We have William Cobbett's horrendous picture of people starving in the midst of plenty in that year. In June, 1822, in Cork alone, 122,000 were on the verge of starvation and existing on charity. How many people died is hard to say. A minimum figure of 100,000 has been proposed. Most likely it around 250,000. At the same time, landowners were able to ship 7 million pounds (weight) of grain and countless herds of cattle, sheep and swine to the markets in England.

Some of the Rockite leaders saw a wider picture. Several notices around Mallow bore the signature of "John Rock, Commander-in-chief of the United Irishmen". Could the Rockites have inherited the United Irishman organisation? A government informer said that 'Captain Rock' was, in fact, "son to one (Arthur) O'Connor who went to France from this country".

John Hickey of Doneraile, who the English authorities suspected of being 'Captain Rock', also tended to use United Irishman rhetoric and mentioned that "assistance was to be given from France" to the Irish insurgents. He also acknowledged that one of the Rockite aims was placing "Catholics upon a level with Protestants".

Among the colonial landlords was Lord Courtenay of Powderham Castle, Devonshire, an absentee whose Irish estate was at Newcastle, Co Limerick. The estate was run with harshness by his agent, Alexander Hoskins. Even the Under Secretary, William Gregory, (the father-in-law of Lady Augusta Gregory), had been forced to comment "nothing can be more oppressive than the conduct of Lord Courtenay's agent".

In July, 1821, Hoskin's son, Thomas Hoskins, was assassinated. The assassin called himself 'Captain Rock'. His real name was Patrick Dillane.

Troops were called out to search for the assassin and cottages broken into, doors smashed with sledge hammers, the people ill-treated. In reaction, rural workers on other estates began to organise and raid for arms were made not only in Limerick but also in north Co. Cork. Between October, 1821, and April, 1822, it was recorded that 223 raids for arms and ammunition had occurred in Co. Cork alone. Raids were also occurring in Limerick and Kerry.

On September 15, 1821, a local magistrate, wrote to Chief Secretary Charles Grant (Lord Glenrig): "this insurrection will turn out more serious than any which has occurred in the south of Ireland for some years past."

Patrick Dillane had gathered a band of followers into the uplands on the Limerick, Kerry and Cork borders. At the time, it was an isolated region with roads too difficult for wheeled vehicles and for mounted troops to negotiate. But soon Dillane had handed his leadership to an elected body. Secret committees were organised with delegates sent to a central committee meeting in Mallow.

In December, 1821, magistrates in north west Cork discovered an oath. The administration soon found evidence of a widespread organisation with co-ordinated groups through the southern counties. By early 1822, the mountains of west Muskerry had become the central guerrilla base.

The insurrection occurred on January 24, 1822. The first major engagement between the Rockites and companies of Yeomanry troops, commanded by Lord Bantry, took place when Bantry, led his troops to the Pass of Keimaneigh. He was ambushed and several of his men were killed before he could retreat.

That same day Lt. Colonel Mitchell, commanding the garrison at Macroom, reported that hundreds of men armed mainly with pikes had surrounded the town, attacked and stopped the mail-coach from Cork City. The Rockites fought with "presumption and boldness although so badly armed".

Colonel James Barry, commanding the garrison at Millstreet, reported that upwards of 5,000 'rebels' had surrounded the town and many houses of loyalists between Inchigeelagh and Macroom were destroyed. The local Millstreet magistrate, E McCarty, added: "The people are all risen with what arms they possess and crown all the heights close to the town …" Cork City and Tralee were cut off for two days before troops fought their way through.

Reports of battles between the insurgents and troops were growing. Colonel Mitchell reported that he engaged some 2,000 insurgents at Deshure, between Macroom and Dunmanway. His men killed six, wounded many and took 30 prisoner for the loss of 'a few' of his own men.

Soldiers were among the casualties although the government reports make light of them and claim high figures for the insurgents. At Kanturk, Captain Stephenson reported his men had attacked a thousand insurgents, killed forty of them for one soldier slain.

It would seem that during this January, according to the local newspapers and military reports, many thousands of people from Limerick, Kerry, Cork and Tipperary were being mobilised by express orders to report to certain rallying points at certain times. This shows an organisation at a time when we are told that the United Irishmen organisation had ceased to exist and agrarian unrest was confined to small groups of 'disturbers' from isolated communities rising without co-ordination against local landlords.

The Rockite oath had the line: "I will plant the Tree of Liberty in as many hearth as I can depend my life upon" according to the Cork Constitution of March 24, 1823.

The so-called Rockite movement was more than just agrarian unrest. It was trying to give birth to another national uprising. The mobilisation of such diverse bodies of people, from such a large area, leads one to the inevitable conclusion that there was a directing committee with a single premeditated plan for insurrection.

In spite of the months of arms raids from loyalist houses and occasional barracks, the main bodies of insurgents seemed to have few weapons other than pikes. Most were unarmed as Reverend J Orpen wrote on February 25, 1822. "… by far the greater part were totally unarmed, driven like sheep to a slaughter house."

The events of January 24 and 25, 1822, constituted the main attempt of the Rockite movement and following the victories of government troops, many people began calling on magistrates for pardon, surrendering what arms they had and accepting a new oath of allegiance to the Crown. This opened the way for the introduction of more repressive policies by England.

The Insurrection Act was hurriedly passed and a new special police force set up in north Co. Cork where a chain of military posts, and two extra regiments to man them, were established.

However, this did not mean that the Rockites had gone away. In the following two years there were over 300 attacks in which arms were either taken or the produce of the great estates. If the produce could not be distributed to the starving people then it was destroyed to prevent it being shipped to English markets for sale.

Patrick Dillane, the first 'Captain Rock', seems to have disappeared. We know that in 1822 there was a trial held at Limerick Assizes of someone who was accused of the murder of Thomas Hoskins but it has proved difficult to find records of who was charged. We do know that in November, 1823, a farmer named Cornelius Curtin of Gortnaskehy, a mountain farm bear Newcastle, had his crops burnt in retaliation for appearing as a witness for the prosecution.

In March, 1823, John Hickey, a gardener by profession, was arrested near his home at Doneraile. According to A. Hill, reporting to Colonel Gough, Hickey had commanded 300 Rockites in committing agrarian outrages in Fermoy. Hickey was questioned with some severity by Major Carter but he refused to reveal the names of his associates and was executed. Hickey had indicated that the Rockites hoped for a national uprising. "When destruction of property and the (colonial) system is established in each county, then there will be a general rising," he assured Major Carter.

Hickey was a senior member of the Rockite leadership but he was not their leader.

David Nagle had been elected to lead the Rockite organisation. He was from Annakissy in the parish of Clenor, barony of Fermoy, and a member of one of the leading Catholic families in the county. The Nagles were moderately wealthy for Catholics at this time but clear in their politics. In 1798 they had their house burnt down by English troops. David's father appears as James Nagle Esquire.

There were many Nagles in the Fermoy area whose names appear on lists of suspected person, including that of David, then living at Ballydraheen.

David Nagle was betrayed by an informer and arrested near Cork City in July, 1823. He was reported to be an outstanding leader and was said to have been seen at the head of his men in a blue coat, a sash and sword and wearing a military hat with a big white feather.

Nagle was reported to have signed a confession before being sentenced to death but without naming anyone. It seems that, unwisely, some papers were found at his home revealing that there was a network of local secret Rockite committees. Mallow was where the central Rockite committee met consisting of sixty delegates, one of which had been Hickey.

The Mallow meeting in late 1822 had discussed ways of collecting money, manufacture and distribution of pikes and how to stage an uprising.

One of the Rockite committees, meeting in Charleville, in May, 1823, was arrested. They were fifteen men of various social backgrounds and professions.

Alas, I have not been able to trace any details so far about David Nagle's execution. The Connaught Journal's Cork correspondent did report, in the 4 September 1823, edition, that "R Nagle and Denis Barrett" were executed at Buttevant. However, they were charged specifically with raiding the home of Thomas Heffernan of Kilbarry for arms and ammunition.

However, there were several Nagles involved in the movement. It is dubious that 'R Nagle' was the same as 'David Nagle'. And there were several David Nagles, one of whom left for Québec in Canada, that very month of July, 1823. But he was only ten years old.

So much more research needs to be done on this hidden working class movement which has been almost ignored by those 'revisionist' historians who would have us believe how Ireland was happy under the 19th Century colonial system.

This essay appeared in the Irish Democrat website

Proud to be a Shinner

Proud to be a Shinner

It is very easy on a blog like this to look only at things in a negative way. However, this is not what this site is meant to be about. For me anyway, this blog is meant to look at things within the party, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Today I’ll look at the good.

I would just like to say that at this time I am very proud to be a shinner and very hopeful for the future of our party. Why you may ask?

Well, to me one of the main strengths of any party is its people and the attitude of the party towards them.

Three reasons I have at this moment to be proud of my connection with SF are the characteristics I see displayed in three different people within the party.

Firstly, I am involved in the election campaign in my area and I have got to know our local candidate very well. In all honestly I could not wish to meet a better man. He works in the care sector, is a family man and genuinely cares for this country and its people. He puts other people first and is in no way involved in an ego trip and I cannot speak highly enough of his wife who supports him in an inspirational manner.

I won’t mention his name because this is not meant to be a “vote for x” exercise, but rather a genuine assessment of a man, his character and the quality of the Sinn Féin candidate in my area. If the party is attracting and selecting people such as him then they are doing something right.

Secondly, I read recently on the Ogra webpage about Ógra Shinn Féin activist Gary McClean who recently spent 3 months as a volunteer worker in Autonomous Rebel Zapatista Territory (Chiapas, Mexico).

For me it is great to see that we have motivated young people involved in Sinn Féin who care enough about world issues to give up their time to work with, and learn from, liberation struggles from other parts of the world.

From reading his article it is clear that he was inspired by what he saw and wishes us to learn from his experience as well.

He wrote
“A movement such as ours has much to learn from the Zapatistas and should be doing everything it can to be a part of this network of international solidarity. We must support the Zapatistas, their cause and their demands, since this also is our cause and these are our demands…”

http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2009/05/everything-for-everyone-nothing-for_10.html


Once again this says to me Sinn Féin are doing something right in attracting committed young people such as Gary McClean.

Thirdly, I wish to comment on our Dublin South Central election candidate, Shaun Tracey.

I watched him on the Vincent Brown show on TV3 and I was worried about what would happen given that he was up against Lee, the FG candidate with years of Media experience, and White the labour candidate who is a trained barrister.

However, I needn’t to have worried. He handled himself really well and it was great to see that SF had not parachuted in some degree educated, media friendly candidate. What the party did was choose a young vibrant local working class man who is a plumber by trade and a genuine Sinn Fein member who is committed to bringing real improvements to the lives of Dublin people.

In my opinion we need more working class people in the Dáil and I hope it will not be too long before we see Shaun there.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knn3KHw4wLI

All of these three people in their different roles in the party are an inspiration to me and as I said at the beginning make me proud to be a shinner.

Just hope now three feckers don’t turn up in SF and make me change my opinion!

FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF EOIN Ó BROIN'S "SINN FÉIN AND LEFT REPUBLICANISM"

I am delighted here to have the first article written by a reader of this website. As I said in my first ever article I have hoped this site would become a place to share opinions and pose questions relating to the development of Sinn Féin. Thank you Jer for taking me up on this.

This article is Jer's initial impressions on Eoin Ó Broin's book "Sinn Féin and Left Republicanism" Title: Sinn Fein and the politics of left Republicanism.

I'd like to explore some of the ideas that I have encountered in o'Broin's book. Specifically the requirement it places on the Republican movement being self-aware and self-critical and then I'd like to extend Eoin's approach into reviewing what it means to be socialist. I'd like to extend the debate on what Irish Republicanism means based on what Eoin has written.



Now to the book. I am still reading it at the moment. Good book, well written, can be a bit academic but not overly so. Quite a rigorous approach. Whether you are for or against SF, pro or anti-republican or any other creed its a worthwhile read even for people who are politically opposed to the Republican project because it demonstrates why constant critical evaluation of your political project, its origins, beliefs and direction is the only way to progress.



I could not help thinking that both FG and FF could usefully apply the same logic to their parties, as could Unionists and just about any party that has built up a type of institutional memory. Critical assessment is key.



Can I also add in reference to a point I saw on the Irish times review by Richard English that o’Broin acknowledges that Republicans misunderstood the role of the British state in the north. I’m only about 1/3 of the way in but so far my reading of that for him the British presence in this country over the last century were symptomatic of societal and political upheavals and changes in attitudes that were happening in Britian. In that sense the British presence resulted from a type of political battleground for interests in Britain more so than a point of view than that Ireland itself was integral to the union. I have not done his point justice but it is nicely built up by Eoin. This point is I think very central to determining the future of the 6 counties and how republicans shape their strategy. I think its fair to say that Republicans have accepted the basic correctness of that idea and have shaped their policy according.



Not having reached the later chapters I am reluctant to comment on the strategy going forward aspect of the book. I wonder how much of a watershed the book is, as some have claimed or sought to portray it, rather than an eloquent setting out of one view of republicanism or a particular strategy that republicanism can employ. Some have claimed the book represents a return to the left for Sinn Fein. Indeed it probably does but its a very rigorous return demanding that Republicans figure out exactly where the project went wrong previously so as not to repeat the same mistakes going forward. He blankly points out that in most instances Republicanism has been a failure. Its an uncomfortable thought but its hard to dispute. While we should praise the strength of those who kept the tradition alive we have to examine why their projects shone brilliantly briefly but ultimately failed. That's not to knock them but to avoid the mistakes that brought them low. That will be an interesting debate worth having. Actually I think it would be fair to say that the book would stress that it has to happen. I look forward to seeing if it determines whether that debate is something that's being ongoing for a number of years, maybe even since 1980. I would regard the development of the dual strategy in the 80's - Army & Politics - was recognition that we need to be flexible if we are to harness the disparate forces in Irish society, who often seek apparently conflicting ends, to the end of building an Irish Republic.



Eoin o’Broin makes some very good points about the need to reevaluate ideas or notions of the past because often they assume their own persona independent of the actual events. Having your own narrative is not a bad thing but it must be constantly referenced to the past in an independent manner to ensure that it does not mislead. Republicanism is fairly old philosophy in Ireland now and while we look back on a single unbroken tradition where each generation renewed their vows to free Ireland its not necessarily the case. The strands that formed each Irish rebellion and local insurrection are different and if we ascribe the same motivations to them then we fail to understand why they rebelled and subsequently why they failed. Its a point worth considering deeply. Recently I saw a statement from a supporter of a dissident group which claimed that while the numbers may be small now they will grow. Republicanism had been here before he claimed and they knew the drill; he remembered the lean 40s. The question is surely obvious - Are we striving to build a Republic or just to hold the course.

Critical assessment quickly yields an answer.While Eoin o'Broin does not mention it, so far anyway, I wonder did he consider that such an approach should also be considered when looking at gender politics, internationalism and socialism itself.For me the language of socialism has become so debased by over 100 years of existence and variation that it is almost impossible to say you are socialist without inviting a whole load of pre-conceptions upon yourself.



To pose some questions following on from that:

What does a worker's Republic mean. Are HSE consultants on a quarter of a million not workers?

While we all have rights as citizens. How must we weight those against our responsibilities as citizens?Are the small rural Farmers struggling to make money with their 40 acres or the Small business with 3 people employed in them on the other side of the fence to workers?



How do we react to the fact the language of socialism was developed in a urban-factory divide while Ireland was until recently a predominantly rural country.



Indeed that last question is one Eoin touches on when he highlights the application of Socialist ideology was never going to take hold in an Ireland that was predominantly rural. Not because of greed on but because it was not built to deal with the particular issues of Irish society and hence it failed.



If SF is to reaffirm its left orientation then it must separately evaluate its socialist policies and notions in a similar manner because while the two elements of the national struggle may be complimentary, a la Connolly, they are both subject to long traditions based on notions of fealty to a certain path and dare I say doctrine.



Hernando deSoto, the man who effectively defeated the shining path and lifted many Peruvians out of poverty, said (and I paraphrase) that people don't want to be socialists they want to be capitalists but they are not being left do so. Despite his use of such language what he achieved in Peru was the equivalent of a full scale socialist revolution. He just did not see the point in calling it that and becoming bogged down in a debate on semantics.



Am I suggesting some type of policy dissimilitude, no, certainly not, only warning that as Republicans the language we use and how we describe our policies has the danger of forcing us to explain the terms away rather than the policies. In the end do we want to build a Republic based on equality which is truly radical in its vision or do we want to be the old men in the corner who came close.



Eoin's book is highly recommended for those interested in history, politics and Republicanism. It makes for uncomfortable reading in places but that's the purpose of the book. Never again should Republicanism fade away just as its about to succeed.