In the 18th century an organisation known as the Defenders were prevalent and active in County Armagh.
The Defenders a were predominantly Catholic secretive society found initially to defend, as the name suggests, as local defensive organisations opposed to the Protestant Peep o Day Boys. However, by the late 18th century they had become an oath-bound fraternal society made up of lodges. By 1796, the Defenders had allied with the multi-denominational and largely Protestant led United Irishmen and participated in the 1798 rebellion. The Society of United Irishmen were the first organisation to advocate ‘physical force republicanism’ a tradition which survives to this day in many quarters. With the defeat of the United Irishmen the British government imposed the Act of Union 1800, enacted January 1801, bringing Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland governing the land directly from London.
Across Europe in 1848 – the ‘year of revolutions’ – uprisings sprang up throughout the continent. Ireland, despite suffering terrible hunger also had her secretive organisation; Young Ireland. Young Ireland fought many sporadic battles perhaps the most famous being Ballingarry in County Tipperarry in what became known as ‘the Battle of Widow McCormack’s Cabbage Patch’.
Across Europe in 1848 – the ‘year of revolutions’ – uprisings sprang up throughout the continent. Ireland, despite suffering terrible hunger also had her secretive organisation; Young Ireland. Young Ireland fought many sporadic battles perhaps the most famous being Ballingarry in County Tipperarry in what became known as ‘the Battle of Widow McCormack’s Cabbage Patch’.
With their defeat many leaders of young Ireland fled across Europe, one being James Stephens who, while in France, made contact with many revolutionaries and groups learning the art of insurrection by some of the masters of the art. On his return to Ireland Stephens in 1858 formed the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), Saint Patricks Day 1858. This book written by John O’Berne Ranelagh, published by Irish Academic Press 2024, takes an intrusive and revealing look at this secretive organisation and the many contradictions which it contained.
The book begins with an erroneous claim made by many writers and historians including RTE that the Irish Citizen Army was created by James Connolly as a worker’s defence force. Although this subject is only peripheral to the main theme it is important to point out that James Connolly did not form the Irish Citizen Army, though it was formed by others as a worker’s defence force. He was certainly sympathetic to the idea of the ICA, initially called just the Citizen Army, but was not a member when it was formed in November 1913. Neither was he a member of the first Army Council in 1914 when the name was changed to the Irish Citizen Army.
The book begins with an erroneous claim made by many writers and historians including RTE that the Irish Citizen Army was created by James Connolly as a worker’s defence force. Although this subject is only peripheral to the main theme it is important to point out that James Connolly did not form the Irish Citizen Army, though it was formed by others as a worker’s defence force. He was certainly sympathetic to the idea of the ICA, initially called just the Citizen Army, but was not a member when it was formed in November 1913. Neither was he a member of the first Army Council in 1914 when the name was changed to the Irish Citizen Army.
This leads us to the second questionable analysis, again held by many as well as the author, and that is ‘without the IRB there would have been no Easter Rising and no IRA’. I believe this to be incorrect because when Connolly finally joined the ICA in late 1914, taking the place of Jim Larkin who had gone to the USA, as Commandant he had ideas and plans in motion for a rising of his own using the ICA as the vanguard. Such a rising would have been different to the one which occurred and would have involved organised labour in withdrawal of labour with the aim to seize the means of production, distribution and exchange by the working-class along with expelling the British.
When the IRB heard of the trade union leader’s plans they approached Connolly and in January 1916 he joined the IRB. This position on the IRB placed Connolly at the head of all Irish forces in Dublin, the Irish Volunteers heavily infiltrated by the IRB, and the Irish Citizen Army. Connolly had plans to use trade union labour to offload the cargo of the Aud at Fenit Harbour consisting of 20,000 rifles and over one million rounds of ammo. He despatched William Partridge of the ITGWU and the ICA to supervise the unloading making sure the Irish Citizen Army received their quota and more. There was to be no repeat of the 1914 Howth gun landings supervised by IRB man, Bulmer Hobson, who stated “none of the weapons must reach the Irish Citizen Army”.
Connolly intended arming a force four times that of the present ICA to fight the socialist revolution after the British had been expelled. Of course this did not happen, the Aud did not land its cargo and the Easter Rising was not won, the British were not expelled. Before Connolly was co-opted onto the IRB he was going it alone with the ICA and organised labour. On joining the IRB his plans were given an extra impetus with the possibility of arms from the Aud for the ICA. Connolly’s message to the ICA was that the aims of themselves and those of the Volunteers were somewhat different. They were for “economic” aa well as “political” liberation, should we win; “hold on to your rifles”. These plans were between Connolly and the Irish Citizen Army unknown to either the IRB or the Irish Volunteers, therefore the analysis there would have been no rising without the IRB is flawed.
The IRB considered itself the natural inheritors of the ‘physical force republicanism’ espoused by the United Irishmen sixty years previous. The IRB considered itself to be the government of the Irish Republic, something which it maintained after the Treaty of 1922 was ratified by the Dail. It gave special consideration to the political position of the Dail while maintaining itself as the government of the Irish Republic. It viewed the IRA as its own army and in the 1869-73 constitution states:
The IRB considered itself the natural inheritors of the ‘physical force republicanism’ espoused by the United Irishmen sixty years previous. The IRB considered itself to be the government of the Irish Republic, something which it maintained after the Treaty of 1922 was ratified by the Dail. It gave special consideration to the political position of the Dail while maintaining itself as the government of the Irish Republic. It viewed the IRA as its own army and in the 1869-73 constitution states:
That the Military authority shall at all times be and remain subject to the civil government, and shall never be permitted to arrogate to itself the power of legislating, or restraining in any way the constitution, of the Irish Republic, as promulgated by the Supreme Council, and that all or any infraction of said constitution, shall be deemed treason (ibid).
That civil government was the IRB.
The book moves on and becomes more and more interesting exposing the splits within the IRB and different interpretations of the rules. For example, Bulmer Hobson an IRB man, did not come out for Easter week claiming the people had not voted for such a rebellion as laid down in the rules. Others argue, with equal justification, the ‘Supreme Council’ in accordance with IRB rules had given the command to all IRB men to participate in the rebellion. Such ambiguities would plague the IRB throughout its existence.
The book moves on and becomes more and more interesting exposing the splits within the IRB and different interpretations of the rules. For example, Bulmer Hobson an IRB man, did not come out for Easter week claiming the people had not voted for such a rebellion as laid down in the rules. Others argue, with equal justification, the ‘Supreme Council’ in accordance with IRB rules had given the command to all IRB men to participate in the rebellion. Such ambiguities would plague the IRB throughout its existence.
In contrast to Hobson, Cathal Brugha fought in the Easter Rising, leaving the IRB afterwards because, he claimed, many IRB men did not come out. He remained critical of the Brotherhood for the rest of his life. The dislike, even hatred of Michael Collins held by Cathal Brugha is well documented.
Collins on his release from the Frongoch prison camp in Wales swept through the IRB holding positions of power and influence within. Collins was Minister for Finance in the First Dail while Brugha was Minister for Defence. Despite this Collins often bypassed Brugha in military matters during the ‘War of Independence’ 1919-21. Collins was highly ranked in the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and had his own intelligence unit, the Squad often termed the Twelve Apostles, based in Dublin. This caused even more antagonism between the two men with Brugha being the short fused fiery of the two men. The Author highlights the feud between the two men magnificently.
Another point of animosity within the broader movement was that between John Devoy, head of Clan na Gael in the USA. The Clan na Gael were the sister organisation, formerly and initially known as the Fenian Brotherhood, in the United States of the IRB. De Valera was the assumed President of the Irish Republic but not the IRB. Here is another contradiction because the President of the IRB constitutionally was also the President of the Irish Republic. De Valera was not the President of the IRB but claimed to be President of the Irish Republic and leader of the Irish people! Most confusing and the book must be read to appreciate how Ranelagh slowly examines the conundrum. Devoy thought he should be in charge of US affairs within the Brotherhood, universally known as the Fenians, while de Valera believed he should be the man in charge both in Ireland and the USA. So much was Devoy’s bitterness towards de Valera that when, in 1922, an agreement was signed with Britian leading to a Treaty he voted in favour, even though he personally opposed it, simply because de Valera was opposed to the ‘Terms of the Agreement’ becoming a Treaty after ratification.
Another conundrum arises over who was the President of the Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter Week 1916? It has been broadly accepted that Padraig Pearse, the man who read out the Proclamation outside the GPO, was the President. In fact, according to IRB rules and Pearse was an IRB member and military council leader, the President of the IRB which was Thomas Clarke was President of the Irish Republic? It is argued Pearse may have been President of the Provisional Government but not the Irish Republic, very confusing. Both Pearse and Clarke were executed by the British after the military defeat of the rebels.
The four constitutions of the IRB are reproduced in the appendages and I recommend the reader uses them. It will be noted the wordings differ slightly, though not the meanings, over the course of time.
The IRB constitutions and rules were very intricate and convoluted which for many had different interpretations. Perhaps the IRB was too complicated and convoluted to make any real sense so much so that confusion reigned? When the ‘Agreement’ with Britain was signed in 1922 by, among others, Michael Collins of the IRB it was accepted by the leadership but not the rank and file of the organisation! Again, most confusing and reading the book helps dissect these apparent contradictions.
When describing the Irish Volunteers and Irish Republican Army the Author uses the term; “Volunteers/IRA” to avoid confusion. After the Volunteers became the IRA some officers and men still referred to the organisation as the Volunteers.
John Ranelagh delves very deep into the darkest crevices of the IRB and it is important to read the Appendages and End Notes to get the true level of research which went into the publication and for clarity on less familiar points. Any student of Irish History should read this latest book on the mechanisms of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Not-withstanding the popular belief about Connolly and the ICA the work is well researched and informative.
John O’Beirne Ranelagh, 2024, The Irish Republican Brotherhood 1914-1924. Irish Academic Press. ISBN-13: 978-1785374944.
Another point of animosity within the broader movement was that between John Devoy, head of Clan na Gael in the USA. The Clan na Gael were the sister organisation, formerly and initially known as the Fenian Brotherhood, in the United States of the IRB. De Valera was the assumed President of the Irish Republic but not the IRB. Here is another contradiction because the President of the IRB constitutionally was also the President of the Irish Republic. De Valera was not the President of the IRB but claimed to be President of the Irish Republic and leader of the Irish people! Most confusing and the book must be read to appreciate how Ranelagh slowly examines the conundrum. Devoy thought he should be in charge of US affairs within the Brotherhood, universally known as the Fenians, while de Valera believed he should be the man in charge both in Ireland and the USA. So much was Devoy’s bitterness towards de Valera that when, in 1922, an agreement was signed with Britian leading to a Treaty he voted in favour, even though he personally opposed it, simply because de Valera was opposed to the ‘Terms of the Agreement’ becoming a Treaty after ratification.
Another conundrum arises over who was the President of the Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter Week 1916? It has been broadly accepted that Padraig Pearse, the man who read out the Proclamation outside the GPO, was the President. In fact, according to IRB rules and Pearse was an IRB member and military council leader, the President of the IRB which was Thomas Clarke was President of the Irish Republic? It is argued Pearse may have been President of the Provisional Government but not the Irish Republic, very confusing. Both Pearse and Clarke were executed by the British after the military defeat of the rebels.
The four constitutions of the IRB are reproduced in the appendages and I recommend the reader uses them. It will be noted the wordings differ slightly, though not the meanings, over the course of time.
The IRB constitutions and rules were very intricate and convoluted which for many had different interpretations. Perhaps the IRB was too complicated and convoluted to make any real sense so much so that confusion reigned? When the ‘Agreement’ with Britain was signed in 1922 by, among others, Michael Collins of the IRB it was accepted by the leadership but not the rank and file of the organisation! Again, most confusing and reading the book helps dissect these apparent contradictions.
When describing the Irish Volunteers and Irish Republican Army the Author uses the term; “Volunteers/IRA” to avoid confusion. After the Volunteers became the IRA some officers and men still referred to the organisation as the Volunteers.
John Ranelagh delves very deep into the darkest crevices of the IRB and it is important to read the Appendages and End Notes to get the true level of research which went into the publication and for clarity on less familiar points. Any student of Irish History should read this latest book on the mechanisms of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Not-withstanding the popular belief about Connolly and the ICA the work is well researched and informative.
John O’Beirne Ranelagh, 2024, The Irish Republican Brotherhood 1914-1924. Irish Academic Press. ISBN-13: 978-1785374944.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Yes many writers state James Connolly formed the Irish Citizen Army. Charles Townsend in Easter 1916 lists Connolly as one of the founders. Lorcan Collins, biographer of Collins, names Connolly as a founding member of the ICA in the 1916 Rising Handbook. The Atlas of the Irish Revolution co-written by many eminent historians relates the same history as the many other books I checked. In fact I couldn't find a book which contradicted this. Ann Matthews' book The Irish Citizen Army is a good start if anyone is interested.
ReplyDeleteThe Defence Corps of men arming themselves with hurleys during the lockout as a bodyguard for the pipers' band and striking workers was formed first (within a week of the start of the Dublin Lockout) and became the nucleus of the Irish Citizen Army but Connolly not only was at the meeting in Beresford Place on 12th November 1913, he called it. He then announced the formation of the ICA on 13th November, calling for recruits, in Liberty Hall and became leader in November 1914.
That's true Simon, most historians promote this myth about the ICA being Connolly's creation, possibly because it suits their narrative around the formation of the Irish Citizen Army erroneous as it may be. These are all historians from the bourgeois strata of society who like history to be nice and rounded, all fitting, reformist as it may be. According to Donal Nevin, James Connolly a Full Life, the Citizen Army was born in the rooms of the Reverend R.M Gwynn at 40 Trinity College in November 1913. "Here the idea of a workers defence force was discussed, having been rued out of order at a previous meeting, and arrangements were made for a drilling scheme for the locked out workers and a fund opened to buy boots and staves, with Professor David Houston of the Royal College of Science as Treasurer" (Nevin P553). This was a meeting of the Industrial Peace Committee and among its number was Captain Jack White who would become the Drill Instructor of the embryonic Citizen Army. Connolly, though sympathetic, was not at this meeting or involved with the formation of the 'Citizen Army' later the Irish Citizen Army.
DeleteNora Connolly, James Connolly's daughter, is on record as recounting her father often "remonstrating with Captain White" when he took men away from the drilling on other union business.
When the Dublin Lockout ended in 1914 an Army Council was established present were Jim Larkin, Constance Markievicz, Captain Jack White and others but not James Connolly.
The narrative of trade union historians, which was, after all, where the Citizen Army came from differs it appears from those of the middle-class establishment historians. Nora Connolly's statement gives credence to the claim James Connolly was not involved with the formation of the Irish Citizen Army hence his arguments with a man who was involved, Captain White.
The post of Commandant ran parallel with the ITGWU General Secrertary's post and when Larkin left for the USA in late 1914 Connolly assumed command of the army along with the post of Gen. Sec of the union. Connolly had been monitoring the progress of the army for many months and saw great potential which Larkins departure gave him latitude to put into practice.
As for Connolly being a founding member of the Irish Citizen Army it is more a myth, albeit a very popular one, than reality in my opinion. Perhaps reading trade union literature on the subject would be as good a place as any to start. Nevin's book; James Connolly a Full Life is well worth a read.
Caoimhin O'Muraile
Caoimhin - I don't know the facts of this either way but I was impressed by your take and you had previously discussed this with me. But it seems a very wrong approach to take towards history to simply claim that it is wrong because it was written by bourgeois historians rather than proles. Lots of brilliant history has come from bourgeois pens and some very shoddy stuff from prole pens. It gets to a point where we start thinking science is poor if it comes from bourgeois scientists and not prole ones. Stalin tried that nonsense in the world of science. I trust a history that can be checked and tested by mechanisms other than dismissals because of its origins. It is like Zionist history - it should be rejected on the grounds of wrongfulness rather than it being written by Zionists.
DeleteAnthony, I am not claiming history is "wrong because it was written by bourgeois historians rather than proles" just they may tweak a little to create a picture mainly factual but with a little revisionism painted in. I believe this to be the case here. The meeting Simon alludes to above on the 12th November took place at Trinity College according to Donal Nevin, not Beresford Place. The proposers of the ICA idea at this meeting contained many petit bourgeois professionals including Professor David Houston, Captain Jack White and Professor Tom Kettle and many other prominent citizens and writers. These people formed the Industrial Peace Committee whose brainchild the Citizen Army appears to have been.
ReplyDeleteJames Connolly was not present at Trinity but was enthusiastic about the idea and at a meeting to celebrate Jim Larkin's release from prison at Beresford Place Connolly spoke of "sedition". According to Sean O'Casey Larkin addressed the crowd at Liberty Hall regarding the future and a "military training" to be given by Captain jack White (read chapters 35 and 36 in: Jim Larkin, Lion of the Fold). Training was given by White and war games played at Croydon Park.
Its not so much the bourgeois historians are totally wrong, who knows perhaps Donal Nevin, Nora Connolly and Sean O'Casey are all wrong, I doubt it but you never know. Bourgeois historians do tend to distort history, without lying, to suit the needs of the establishment. For example; they like to give the impression that during Easter Week all was hunky Dory between the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, apparently it was not. It is a variant of history which we are supposed to believe to the word even if it may be wrong. Even when the rebels surrendered the ICA men and women refused to accept Pearce's written order to surrender until Connolly as their then leader issued a separate surrender to the Irish Citizen Army.
There appears much obscurity about the foundations of the ICA, for me Nevin, Nora Connolly, Sean O'Casey who compliments the Larkin address are probably correct and, on this occasion, the establishment historians a little mistaken. I will get to the bottom of this once I'm up and running again but until then, as I quoted in my own work on the Irish Citizen Army, I go with the trade union version of events.
Caoimhin O'Muraile
Given the corruption, nepotism and venality we have witnessed over the years in the trade union movement, there seems no reason to believe that bourgeois historians tweak any more than trade union historians. A historian's professional pride often trumps the ideological stance they bring to any analysis.
DeleteBourgeois historians often differ from each other and fiercely criticise each other's work. There are many different takes from bourgeois historians on Easter Week, so it seems ill judged to imply they had one position about the relationship between the Volunteers and the ICA.
We are all free to go with the trade union version of events if it survives the criticism of its detractors. We should not go with it because it is a trade union version.
That may be true of trade union and bourgeois historians, Anthony, but I am quoting Sean O'Casey and Nora Connolly both of whom were commenting at the time. They were speaking of their own experiences.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile
and for that reason I think you are right. It is always good to have the voices of those present at the moment of creation so to speak. I just felt that to assign more credibility to certain historians simply because of the class they belong to was not the best way to go.
DeleteCaoimhín, none of the books I have referenced contradict Donal Nevin nor Sean O Casey nor Lion of the Fold nor Nora Connolly and neither do the books you've mentioned contradict the books I brought up.
ReplyDeleteThe basic summary which none of the historians disagree with is as follows: The Defence Corps of men armed with hurleys was formed in September 1903. Connolly and others including Larkin had proposed the foundation of an army before the Defence Corps was formed. Captain White proposes the idea of a Citizens Army in Trinity College on 11th November and discusses it with Connolly on 12th November. The Citizen Army is formed and the Defence Corps is subsumed into it.
Jack White's idea is struck out of order at the meeting on 11th November but he brings it up again the following day at the next meeting 12th November and speaks to Connolly about it that night (Lion of the Fold pg.257).
The following is from Lion of the Fold (Pg. 44): "As the conflict continued into November, one of its most interesting developments was the establishment of the ICA as a protective force for the strikers, following a call from Connolly that the workers should arm."
Larkin and Connolly were both talking about an army before the meeting at Trinity College.
Donal Nevin in his book James Connolly A Full Life which is excellent states that Connolly on 6th November told a crowd at Liberty Hall "From night until morning I will continue to sign such agreements, until I get hold of the gun myself, and then I will tell the other man what I think. We are at the start of a great revolution, which nothing but our own ineptitude and want of energy in a good cause can withstand". Note he says the gun and not a gun. He means an army.(Page 460). (NOTE- THIS IS THE 6TH NOVEMBER)
Nevin explains that at the last meeting of the Industrial Peace Committee/first meeting of the Civic League in Trinity College on 11th November (the body reconstituted itself on that date) Captain Jack White proposed the Irish Citizen Army and he spoke to Connolly about it afterwards (A Full Life page 466) Jack White discussed it with Connolly about it after the next meeting of the Civic League at Trinity College on 12th November (Lion of the Fold Pg.257).
At a at a welcome home rally for Larkin at Liberty Hall in Beresford Place on the 13 November 2013 Connolly was the main speaker. He spoke to the massive crowd "Listen to me, I am going to talk sedition. The next time we are out on a march, I want to be accompanied by four battalions of trained men. I want them to come with their corporals, sergeants and people who will be able to form fours. Why should we not drill and train our men in Dublin as they are doing in Ulster? But I don't think you require any training. When you come to draw your strike pay this week I want every man who is willing to enlist as a soldier to give his name and address and you will be informed when and where you have to attend for training. I have been promised the assistance of competent chief officers, who will lead us anywhere. I say nothing about arms at present. When we want them, we know where we will find them." Irish Times 14th November 2013. The officer he was talking about was Captain Jack White.
The event at Liberty Hall addressed by Larkin and Captain White and alluded to by Sean O Casey occurred on the day before the first drills at Croydon Park (page 255 Lion of the Fold) which occurred on 23rd November 1913. (Page 329 Lion of the Fold).
Captain White as Commandant had words with Connolly as the latter kept bringing the army to political meetings without his knowledge and Nora Connolly reported how at training how Captain White, his fists white with anger because the men misunderstood an order, was told by Connolly to be "Easy now, Captain, remember they're volunteers". Connolly hardly acted as an uninvolved on-looker when it came to the Irish Citizens Army.
None of the historians are wrong, whether Trade Union leaders or Sean O Casey or the "bourgeoise", they actually concur with each other.
Apologies - a few typos there. All the dates in my last post should be 1913 including the September date of the Defence Corps, and the Irish Times article which should read 14th November 1913.
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed your review, must add this to the list of books to read.
ReplyDelete"So much was Devoy’s bitterness towards de Valera that when, in 1922, an agreement was signed with Britian leading to a Treaty he voted in favour, even though he personally opposed it, simply because de Valera was opposed to the ‘Terms of the Agreement’ becoming a Treaty after ratification."
ReplyDeleteRuairí Ó Brádaigh in his radio interview with Tom McGurk stated that all IRB members were commanded to support the treaty. He reasoned the passing of the 'Treaty of Surrender' twofold; the influence and directives from the Catholic Church and the votes of TD's who were committed IRB members.
Devoy's position was not atypical. It was similar to many of his IRB comrades. At the time of the treaty ratification, the 'Supreme Council' of the IRB had been superseded by a triumvirate including Collins and Eoin O'Duffy!