Tag Archives: 1916 rising

Forge unity to create Irish Republic – a moral duty

In a recent video interview, Liam Sutcliffe, veteran republican activist with the IRA and Saor Éire, and one of those responsible for removing the blight of Nelson’s Column from outside the GPO in 1966, was asked how he felt about the split between the Provisionals and the Officials. His answer was that “I thought the whole thing was wrong…I’d never take part in any split again in my life…the thing about it was there were great men on both sides…in the long run we never got an extra blade of grass, and all the deaths, all the hunger strikers…we’re still twenty-six and six”.

The lack of unity, the tendency to split, the failure to forge suitable alliances, the absence of clear purpose and strategy, the failure to do the nuts and bolts work, the concentration on ending partition by driving the English out of Ireland as if that on its own was the means to some end worth having, has meant that we are still twenty-six and six, two failed statelets, instead of the 32 county Irish Republic that republicans claim to be committed to achieving.

It is not as if Irish republicans have not had enough time to correct these tendencies, to produce a tangible explanation of the sort of republic they had in mind, and to communicate these ideas in an effective way to all of the people on both sides of the border. It is now almost 98 years since the Irish Republic was proclaimed, 95 years since the National Programme was agreed, and 92 years since the start of the counter-revolution following the signing and ratification of the Treaty.

But it is not just Irish republicans who are at fault. Irish socialists have demonstrated the same propensity for a lack of unity, a tendency to split, a failure to forge suitable alliances, an absence of clear purpose and strategy, and a failure to do the nuts and bolts work to create the sort of society they claim to be in favour of. Presumably the political framework of that society would be, at least until some better model might be found sometime in the future, a republic.

What should bind republicans and socialists are James Connolly, Liam Mellows and other socialist republican thinkers and activists who shared the common vision of the Workers’ Republic. In fact, as Connolly put it – to be a republican is to be a socialist, and to be a socialist is to be a republican. When Connolly signed the Proclamation of the Irish Republic he did so as a socialist republican, and in that document, with his ideological fingerprints all over it, he left the ways and means of achieving the Workers’ Republic to us, republicans and socialists. Thus far we have failed to live up to the task.

In 1897, Connolly published an important piece, ‘Érin’s Hope’, a taste of his writings yet to come. In that, Connolly addressed the issue that some misguided people on the left have found fault with him on, making the spurious charge that he abandoned socialism for nationalism – a risible charge. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin later agreed with Connolly’s position, stating that in history there had never been one example of a ‘pure’ revolution. Discussing the requirements for successful revolution Connolly wrote “we will have based our revolutionary movement upon a correct appreciation of the needs of the hour, as well as upon the vital principles of economic justice and uncompromising nationality; we will, as the true revolutionist should ever do, have called into action on our side the entire sum of all the forces and factors of social and political discontent”.

In 1916, the ‘forces and factors’ were present: republicans, socialists, feminists, militant-separatists, advanced nationalists, cultural nationalists and so on. They united in common cause, and representatives of each of these tendencies share a common plot in Glasnevin Cemetery – the Republican Plot.

Those “forces and factors of social and political discontent” have never been absent during the 92 years of hegemonic right-wing counter-revolution since the signing of the Treaty. They are present today in abundance – various republican parties and groups, socialist parties and groups, social, economic and political grassroots movements, feminists, human rights and peace activists, environmentalists, resources and sovereignty activists, and so on. It is possible to craft a unity of purpose among many or even most of these strands of discontent and dissidence provided a common platform based on a vision of justice, freedom, equality and sovereignty can be agreed. The Irish Republic is the ideal starting point for that.

Today, there is no call for any to sacrifice their lives for the Irish Republic. Instead there is a need to sacrifice: personal pride and ego; rigid political dogma; antagonism based on real or imagined hurt or on misunderstanding or misapprehension; the desire to continue an armed struggle that can achieve nothing of use at this time.

The fight to end partition needs to move south of the border, and needs to move from the physical to the intellectual. It requires the ending of counter-revolutionary misgovernment of the twenty-six and the creation of an ideal model of citizen-driven government to trump colonial government in the six. Who could seriously suggest to the Unionist/Loyalist minority on the island that they should be part of the banana-non-republic of the south? Certainly not any republican or socialist in their right minds. But putting in place a proper republic, with all of the necessary guarantees and all of the obvious advantages in plain view, is the most efficacious strategy for withering partition and uniting the people of the 32 counties. Scottish Independence, if it can be achieved, will help in that.

Achieving a rapid transformation in the twenty-six will require clear communication to the public of both the existence of a workable strategy to put in place a proper republic and of the benefits that would flow to the great majority from such a republic. That requirement entails working around and in confrontation with existing main-stream media using creative communications strategies. That does not present a problem, but is just an important issue to be dealt with.

History has given us a significant centenary in two years time to use to our advantage in moving public opinion towards the development of a proper republic of equals. We can take advantage of that over the two short years leading up to it, or, as has been the case with other opportunities over the past 92 years, we can squander it. It is to our advantage that even among those who have not read the Proclamation yet, or who have forgotten its wording, or who have not had its promises and implications explained to them, there is still a strong emotional bond with it on the part of many citizens.

Taking advantage of the Centenary of the 1916 Revolution requires us to lay out precisely what sort of republic we have in mind. The principles of that republic are contained in the Proclamation and in the National Programme that was created from that template. If we are to demonstrate our serious intent, our openness and our honesty, these principles need to be expanded in a new, comprehensive Peoples’ Constitution of the Irish Republic.

Writing a new constitution is not rocket science, nor should it be a task entrusted to some ‘elite’ group. There are various constitutions already in place elsewhere in the world to be used as examples, but none more suitable as a model or in its content than the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, initiated by Hugo Chavez but drawn up with the input of the people at every stage. Irish republicans and socialists would do well to read that great socialist-republican constitution from the source of the New Enlightenment – Latin America.

In 14 years of dedicated work underpinned by a vision of a better life for all, Chavez and his people transformed the lives of the poor, the oppressed, the abused, the marginalised of Venezuelan society in a way that was unimaginable at the beginning of the revolution. By contrast, in 92 years since quasi-independence, Irish republicans and Irish socialists have failed to lift the poor, the oppressed, the abused and the marginalised of Irish society out of their collective miserable grind – on both sides of the border. That failure is inexcusable. That failure cannot persist.

The first stage in dispelling that failure requires a concerted effort to drive from power the reactionaries who have between them held power in the twenty-six since 1922. Making that effort was never just an option – it was a moral duty, and it is still, today, a moral duty. It demands the putting aside of childish one-upmanship, the spurious notion that ‘my ideas are better than your ideas and my ideas must prevail’, opting instead for the creation of an agreed, shared, broad-left platform designed to complete the revolution for the benefit of all of the people of this island, equally.

Let us take our lead from James Connolly. Let us call “into action on our side the entire sum of all the forces and factors of social and political discontent”. Let us start that work now.


April 24th is Republic Day

Charles Gavan Duffy, editor of The Nation newspaper which he established in 1840 with Thomas Davis and John Blake Dillon, explained why they chose that particular name for the paper, saying “We desired to make Ireland a nation and the name would be a fitting prelude to the attempt.”.

The same thinking guides the campaign to establish April 24th as the new national day in Ireland, and naming it Republic Day is because we desire to remake Ireland as the true republic of the Proclamation, and applying that name to the national day will be an important aid in achieving that bigger objective.

While we may claim to be free citizens of an independent state, it is not the one conceived by both the Revolution of 1916 and the issuing of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. The anniversary of these events on April 24th has always been ignored by the Irish State which has abjectly failed to complete the task of building the progressive, modern republic that was promised in the Proclamation.

The evidence of this failure lies all around us – one of the most unequal societies in Europe, a shambles of a health system, a social-class based three-tier education system largely handed over to the control of religious organisations, State oppression of women over many decades, the systematic cover up by Church and State of rampant abuse of children, business and political corruption and collusion resulting in massive costs to ordinary citizens, the handing over of national assets to private multi-national corporations, divisions deliberately fostered between public and private workers, urban and rural people and between social classes. More troubling is the recent abject surrender of Ireland’s sovereignty to the European Union/European Central Bank/International Monetary Fund Troika. Even worse is the attempt by Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil to dragoon Irish citizens into acquiescing in another disastrous Act of Union to replace the one substantially dismantled by patriotic Irish men and women between 1916 and 1921, this time with an Act of Union with a European Union that has  recently taken on the appearance of being the Fourth Reich.

The newly elected President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, has placed creating a ‘real’ republic at the top of his agenda, while acknowledging that what we have now is not a proper republic. There was never any impediment from the beginning to the creation of that ‘real’ republic, other than the selfish interests of those who never believed in it anyway, were determined that their political class would govern even at the point of a British gun, and who created a counter-revolution in 1922 to crush the ideals contained in the Proclamation. Their political descendants have been, and are, every bit as self-serving, and have never shown the slightest interest in creating a progressive, enlightened republic.

While the Irish State studiously ignored the anniversary of the 1916 Revolution it promoted as our national day what was once St Patrick’s Day, a Christian religious feast-day, but has by now evolved into ‘Paddy’s Day’, a ‘fun’ day which is also a binge-drinking day. The image we send into the world, and to ourselves, fits with the negative stereotyping of the Irish as feckless drinkers who just like to party, hardly an image to sustain a proper national day, or a healthy nation for that matter.

The reasoning behind designating the anniversary of the 1916 Revolution and the Proclamation of the Irish Republic as Republic Day is that it would serve as a day of remembrance, understanding and celebration of that momentous event, and of the selfless heroism and integrity of the women and men involved in that strike for freedom. It is also so as to have at least one day in the year when the citizens might reflect on the sort of republic they live in, and how it might be improved, and on their role as autonomous citizens in shaping that republic. It is strange how, in a country with our particular history, these topics are rarely discussed by citizens in the way that they are in other countries with advanced democracies. While we have ‘Paddy’s Day’, the French have Bastille Day, the British have Armistice Day, the US has Independence Day, and India, inspired in its quest for independence by our 1916 Revolution and War of Independence, celebrates its Republic Day as the most important date in its calendar.

We cannot rely on the State to acknowledge the significance of that date, April 24th, and to make it our national day. On the contrary, the evidence is that the State, and the parties of permanent power, Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil, will resist any calls to support this proposal. Therefore it must fall to the citizens, acting outside the institutional framework of the State, to apply pressure by acting in common cause and by pressing home the legitimate arguments in favour of establishing Republic Day as Ireland’s national day. In the meantime, acting in the spirit of the founders of The Nation we can make Republic Day a reality by making it our reality. If we say it is, then it is. We just need to spread that belief to the citizens in general.

This campaign, organised as a Citizens’ Initiative for Republic Day, is independent of all political parties, whose members are welcome to take part in or lend their support to the campaign as citizens. It is an inclusive campaign, and its banners will be the the Tricolour, the flag of the Irish Republic, and the Starry Plough – the three flags flown during the Revolution.

To mark this year’s Republic Day in Dublin, citizens are invited to join in the campaign by attending a ceremony at the graves of the executed 1916 leaders at Arbour Hill Cemetery (at the rear of Collin’s Barracks Museum) at 10.30am, from where participants will proceed to the GPO for 12 Noon where a commemorative ceremony will be held. Please attend if possible, and please spread the word on behalf of the campaign.

Interested citizens in other parts of the country are invited to create their own commemorations locally using monuments or other sites associated with the Revolution.

By working together to establish Republic Day as our national day we will help to bring the progressive, enlightened Irish Republic to life again.

See also – https://www.facebook.com/pages/Republic-Day-Ireland/117038468321983

“The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.”

(Paragraph four of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, April 24th 1916)

April 24th is Republic Day

A Most Seditious Lot: The Feminist Press 1896-1916

The concluding article in this three-part series looks at the feminist movement and the feminist press and their role in the lead-up to the 1916 revolution.

The Irish Feminist Movement 1896-1916

It is easy to imagine that the subordinate status of women in post-independence Ireland was just an extension of the past, the result of a slower development of feminist thought and activism in Ireland than in, for example, Europe or the USA, but nothing could be further from the truth. That mistaken belief arises from a defective and twisted official historical narrative influenced in no small part by the ‘special position’ accorded to the ultra-conservative Catholic Church, post-independence. In fact, the feminist movement in Ireland between the late 19th century and the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921 was among the most advanced in the world at that time. While some Irish feminists were simply looking for the extension to women of the franchise – the right to vote, many feminists were looking for more profound change than that, including the right to equal status with men, better access to education, better health provision for women and children, an end to discriminatory laws and practices as they affected women, alleviation of poverty and disease, etc.

During that period, many women sought out causes and campaigns to become active in. Right from the start, women had become involved in organisations that were open to them, for example in the Gaelic League and the Literary Societies, and many engaged in writing for, and producing too, a wide range of newspapers and other publications. Often it was women who provided the energy to put ideas into action and put organisations into place, organisations which would later be of pivotal importance for the separatist and labour causes. They campaigned against recruitment during the Boer War and the First World War, and against visits by members of the British royal family.

It was arising out of just such a visit that a number of women gathered on Easter Sunday 1900 in the rooms of the Celtic Literary Society, and formed an ad hoc committee, later to be known as the ‘Patriotic Children’s Treat Committee, with Maud Gonne as the unanimous choice for president. The committee was formed to provide a treat for children who had stayed away from an official function during the visit of Queen Victoria some weeks earlier. By the 30th of June, 25,000 children had registered for inclusion, and the event was held in Clonturk Park on the Sunday following the Wolfe Tone commemoration at Bodenstown. In The Workers’ Republic, James Connolly had this to say – “Last week we witnessed in Dublin the first political parade of the coming generation. Between twenty-five and thirty thousand children turned out and walked in processional order through the streets of the city, to show the world that British Imperialism had cast no glamour over their young minds. And that in the person of Her Britannic Majesty they recognised only a woman – no better than the mothers who bore them, if as good. It was a great sight to see the little rebels taking possession of the city – a sight more promising for the future of the country than any we can remember”.

When the committee had completed this work, they realised that they had skills and talents which should be further utilised. A National Women’s Committee was formed which led, at the beginning of October, to the inaugural meeting of Inghinidhe na hEireann (Daughters of Ireland). The Inghinidhe had as their aims: to re-establish the independence of Ireland; to actively promote the study of Irish language, literature, music, history and art; to discourage interest in English popular culture; to support Irish industry. Besides pursuing their aims, and in the process influencing the way Irish people thought of themselves, the Inghinidhe also gave many women the opportunity to find and use their talents in public speaking, and as organisers, leaders, teachers and journalists. They provided free classes in Irish, history and music to children over the age of nine. Historian Margaret Ward quotes a friend of Maud Gonne’s, who taught history in such a class, describing a typical scene – “In a room perched at the head of a rickety staircase and overlooking a narrow street, I have about eighty denizens of untamed Dublin: newsboys, children who have played in street alleys all their lives, young patriot girls and boys who can scarcely write their own names. Outside there is a continuous din of street cries and rumbling carts. It is almost impossible to shout against it if the windows are open, and more impossible to speak in the smother of dust if the windows are shut. Everyone is standing, closely packed – no room for chairs!”.

In 1902, the Inghinidhe voted to join Cumann na nGhaedheal. In 1907 the Dungannon Clubs unified with Cumann na nGhaedheal as the Sinn Fein League; a year later, after merging with the National Council, the group became Sinn Fein. From its beginning, women were voted onto the executive of Sinn Féin and although Sinn Féin was promoting a conservative social policy, members of the Inghinidhe pursued their own. Helena Molony, for instance, adopted an increasingly socialist stance, and as time passed she moved over into the Connolly camp and later into the Irish Citizen Army. She devoted much of her energy to the women’s labour movement and to the Irish Women Worker’s Union (IWWU), which was affiliated to the ITGWU having been started by Jim Larkin’s sister, Delia. Helena Molony took over as leader of the IWWU in 1915.

Cat and Mouse Act poster IWFLThere was also in Ireland a strong women’s franchise movement, with the Irish Women’s Franchise League (IWFL) the most militant of a large number of groups throughout the country. It was founded by Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington and Margaret Cousins in 1908 and was pledged to: non-party independent action; vigorous agitation; organisation of women; education of public opinion. Although most of the members were nationalists, women of all political persuasions were welcomed. Within a short time 800 members were on the register. The League organised militant action on a regular basis, both in Ireland and in England, and members of the League were regularly imprisoned. They adopted the tactic of the hunger strike, which the authorities countered first through forcible feeding, and also through early release and re-arrest, or the ‘cat and mouse’ tactic.

The other main women’s organisation which requires mention is Cumann na mBan, formed in April 1914, and affiliated to the Irish Volunteers. Each branch of the Cumann was under the military orders of a corresponding Volunteer branch, and this led to acrimony between the IWFL and the Cumann. The IWFL maintained that the women’s franchise issue should not be subjugated to the separatist cause, whereas the Cumann believed that the franchise would be won through independence which must be the priority.  Unlike the Irish Citizen Army, the members of Cumann na mBan were not trained as soldiers, but were there to support the men of the Irish Volunteer army. The members, many of whom were or had been members of the IWFL accepted that, but the split must have damaged both organisations. It was a pity that in the last years before the revolution of Easter 1916, women, who had done so much to bring together various strands within the separatist and labour movements should have found themselves in conflict with one another. But in its own way, it illustrates other difficulties which would lie ahead.

Stephen Browne SJ, who provided an index of Irish print media in 1937 wrote – ‘It is interesting and may be profitable to trace through the course of Irish history those various currents of tradition and thought whose confluence (without commingling) makes the Ireland of to-day. One can distinguish many such currents – religious, political, social, cultural. Some of them may, at certain periods of our history, be hard to trace: they seem to lose themselves in the sands, yet may still be flowing beneath the surface, to well up at future time. Sometimes two or more currents seem to merge and blend, but again it is only in appearance. Sooner or later they reappear as separate streams…Some have their sources far back in Irish history; others take their rise from some movement, some upheaval, perhaps, at some definite and not far distant period of the past. Some again have their perennial well-springs in human nature itself.’

The Feminist Press

Shan Van Vocht 1897The Shan Van Vocht

The Shan Van Vocht was founded in Belfast in January 1896 by two poets, Alice Milligan, who also wrote under the name Iris Olkyrn, and Anna Johnson  who wrote using the pen name Ethna Carberry. Alice Milligan was the daughter of a Protestant clergyman, while Anna Johnson was a Catholic. The paper pulled together in its articles many aspects of life in Ireland – cultural, social, political and historical – and its approach was from within the cultural/nationalist/separatist camp, drawing inspiration from the same political well that James Connolly drew on, including Wolfe Tone, James Fintan Lalor and John Mitchel. It provided a platform for writers such as Connolly, although in his case the editors disassociated themselves from his socialism, and for Douglas Hyde and Arthur Griffith. It also provided a valuable outlet for women writers, and it publicised women’s groups and their campaigns and views.

It championed the work of the literary societies, the Gaelic League, and the Amnesty Association for prisoners in British jails. One of its primary functions was to re-awaken interest in Irish patriots – especially, in readiness for the centenary, the patriots of 1798. It promoted the tending of the graves of patriots, regularly publishing articles such as, in its first issue on page 14,  ‘The Neglected Shrines and Sepulchres of Ireland’s Illustrious Dead’.

The Shan Van Vocht was a good read at 20 pages per issue, containing plenty of well-written material, and costing two pence. A typical issue contained the following: ‘The Captain’s Daughter’ (serial); ‘The Lonely One’ (poem); ‘The Rise and Fall of the Fenian Movement of ‘67’ part iv’; ‘Manus O’Mallaghan and the Fairies‘; ‘On Inisheer’ (poem); ‘Willie Kane of the “Northern Star”: How He Escaped the Scaffold’; ‘Irishmen in the Transvaal’; ‘The Burial-Place of the Sheares’; ‘Our National Language’; ‘James Clarence Mangan’; ‘Reviews – The life of Owen Roe O’Neill, The Life and Writings of Fintan Lalor’; ‘Our Notebook’ (Diary and Announcements); ‘The Moonlighters Hound’ (poem); ‘For the Old Land’ (review of the work being done to advance the nationalist cause).

In an editorial ‘Why Must We Strive For Freedom’ on the 7th August 1896, the paper set out what was required of the Irish – ‘…the freedom of Ireland can never be granted as a boon; it must be worked for, prayed for, longed for, night and day unceasingly, and in the end be nobly won by the courage and self reliance and strong arms of her sons from north and south, and east and west, aye, and from the far world’s end, banded together to achieve that aim in steadfast trust and brotherly unity’.

And in February 1897, we get a preview of the policy of Sinn Fein – ‘If we do not set and keep the ball of patriotism rolling ourselves, it is impossible for our nearest and dearest exiles to achieve anything for us. The work is ours and ours alone. To ourselves belong the initiation, control, and direction of whatever movement we consider best adopted to attain our ends’.

While the paper was successful, the editor, in a number of articles, complained of the lack of support that it was getting from the nationalist papers in Dublin. Dr. Mark Ryan of the Irish Republican Brotherhood in London convinced Alice Milligan and Anna Johnson that it was an opportune time to hand on the project to others. He arranged for Arthur Griffith to return from South Africa to take over as editor. From then on the paper was known as the United Irishman.

The Shan Van Vocht had helped to foster interest again in the separatist cause. It had provided Connolly with one of his first opportunities, since coming to Ireland, to present his case to other than a labour audience. It had also linked up with Maud Gonne in Paris and her paper L’Irlande Libre and exchanged material for publication. It had helped to establish an understanding of the work of various cultural and political groups and to encourage participation in them. The two women had done their work well, in the process inspiring other women who would take the work forward.

Bean na hEireann frontpage

Bean na hEireann (The Woman of Ireland)

The idea of producing a monthly journal as the organ of Inghinidhe na hEireann came from Helena Molony, the organisation’s secretary. At a meeting attended by Constance Markievicz and Sydney Gifford, the decision was taken to produce what they advertised as the first Irish women’s paper. Published between 1908 and 1911, Bean na hEireann (The Woman of Ireland) stood for the ‘freedom for Our Nation and the complete removal of all disabilities to our sex’.  It would describe itself in a later issue as ‘the first and only Nationalist Woman’s paper’. Maud Gonne was the publisher, and Helena Molony was editor. She, having drawn closer to the labour position, had difficulties with Cumann na nGhaedheal with which the Inghinidhe was linked, and this had given her the impetus to propose the launching of Bean na hEireann. She is quoted by historian Margaret Ward on this issue – ‘The United Irishman, starting as a physical force, separatist journal, had gradually changed its policy to one of reactionary social and dual-kingdom ideas…We wanted a paper to counter-act this. We wanted it to be a women’s paper, advocating militancy, separatism and feminism‘.

The Bean included short stories and poems, usually with a nationalist flavour, articles on aspects of patriotism or history, a cookery column, a children’s page, fashion notes, Irish language features, and a gardening feature ‘Woman with a Garden’ by Constance Markievicz (writing as ‘Maca’) which included tips on the extermination of slugs, but with a comparison drawn to British soldiers. The paper also carried ‘Labour Notes’ by ‘A Worker’ (Helena Molony) and increasingly carried contributions on women, their working conditions and their need to be equally organised and represented by the Labour movement. Some members of the Inghinidhe, including Helena Molony and Constance Markievicz, drew ever closer to involvement with James Connolly and the Labour movement and ultimately with active service in the 1916 revolution with the Irish Citizen Army.

There was no doubting the militant tone of the Bean. In response to an article on ‘The Police and the Nation’, a correspondent replied – ‘The article on street-fighting in Bean na hEireann a couple of months ago struck the right note…I would go further and say that in every town and parish in Ireland in which there is some national spirit left, the art of fighting the police should be assiduously cultivated and perfected’.

The Bean took the line that women’s emancipation would come with national independence, a nationalist-feminist line very similar to what that of Cumann na mBan members would be. This led to difficulties with suffragettes such as Mary McSwiney and Hanna Sheehy Skeffington, difficulties which got an airing in a lively debate over a period of time in the pages of the Bean. The paper was able to sustain its own argument, but its life was drawing to a close in any event. Maud Gonne’s prolonged absence in France threw too much onto Helena Molony’s shoulders and she had other work to do elsewhere, particularly in the women’s labour movement. The paper issued its last edition in February 1911. By then, the I.R.B. had launched their new militant separatist paper Irish Freedom thus ensuring that their message would continue to counter the moderate line taken by Arthur Griffith’s publications.

The Irish Citizen mastheadThe Irish Citizen

Following the demise of Bean na hEireann in 1911, leaving a gap in the market for a feminist newspaper, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington and Margaret Cousins launched the feminist newspaper The Irish Citizen which carried the motto – ‘For Men and Women Equally The Rights of Citizenship; For Men and Women Equally The Duties of Citizenship’.

Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington was among the first Irish female university graduates, achieving a BA in Languages in 1899 and later an MA in Modern Languages in 1902. A year earlier she had founded the Women Graduates’ Association, and in 1903 married Frances Skeffington, a university registrar and a journalist with socialist and pacifist views. They each adopted the other’s surname as a mark of equality. She was a contributor of articles on education and feminism to both Bean na hEireann and The Nation, and was also a founding member of the Irish Women Workers’ Union and a close associate of James Connolly. During the 1913 Lockout she worked in the soup-kitchens in Liberty Hall.

The labour movement provided a meeting place for radical women before, during and after the Lockout in which Hanna, Constance Markevicz, Helena Molony, Madeleine ffrench-Mullen and Dr Kathleen Lynn played prominent roles and all became close to Connolly who was himself a committed feminist. The Irish Citizen described him as “the soundest and most thoroughgoing feminist among all the Irish labour men”, a comment that is hardly surprising given his work for women workers and his writings on the subject of women’s rights, for instance; “None so fitted to break the chains as they who wear them, none so well equipped to decide what is a fetter. In its march towards freedom, the working class of Ireland must cheer on the efforts of those women who, feeling on their souls and bodies the fetters of the ages, have arisen to strike them off.” The close relationship between the Irish Women’s Franchise League which Hanna co-founded, and the labour movement, is summed up in the League’s Annual Report for 1913 in which is said ‘The working classes particularly have shown themselves friendly, and have rallied to our support whenever called upon’. It was mainly the labour movement that provided protection for the feminists at public meetings when they came under attack from mobs.

The Irish Citizen promoted more than the vote for women in campaigning for equal citizenship – a concept that was later firmly embedded in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. Hanna, and the Irish Women’s Franchise League that she co-founded, supported militant feminist activity, although she was opposed to militarism. An advocate of window smashing as a form of protest, she pointed out that men who disapproved of this tactic “only applaud the stone-thrower as long as the missile is flung for them and not at them”. Hanna was herself imprisoned for five days in 1912 for breaking windows at the War Office after women were excluded from the franchise in the Home Rule Bill. She was later jailed  after attempting to push a leaflet on the British conservative leader Bonar Law but was released after five days, having gone on hunger strike.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What is clear from an examination of the feminist movement and the various publications associated with it is that Irish women were from the late 19th century increasingly involved in the move towards revolution as authors, publishers, educators, activists, agitators, thinkers, prisoners, hunger-strikers, allies and, ultimately, as revolutionary soldiers.  What is also clear from this series of articles is that the three strands that came together in that revolution – advanced-nationalist, advanced-feminist and organised labour – had one prominent common denominator, James Connolly. It is difficult to imagine the revolution taking place without his capacity to straddle those three movements and draw them to a common cause, the creation of an independent republic of equal citizens with guarantees of religious and civil liberties, equal opportunities, and sovereign ownership by the citizens of the national territory and its resources.

Connolly had laid out that project of drawing the various radical strands together in 1897; “we will, as the true revolutionist should ever do, have called into action on our side the entire sum of all the forces and factors of social and political discontent”. The evidence of history is that the support of radical feminist women was absolutely crucial to the success of his project, and he certainly repaid their trust by making explicit the feminist content of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. The feminist women, in turn, repaid the trust he displayed in them in being the most ardent defenders of that Irish Republic long after many of the men had fallen away and joined the brutal counter-revolution which began with the signing of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. It was, of course, the triumph of that counter-revolution over progressive forces that determined the fate of Irish women, that effectively silenced or exiled them, and that cast them into the role of second-class citizens in what purported to be a republic, for most of the 90 years since independence. But they rose again, and the work continues! It is worth re-reading that quote from Stephen Browne SJ again –

‘It is interesting and may be profitable to trace through the course of Irish history those various currents of tradition and thought whose confluence (without commingling) makes the Ireland of to-day. One can distinguish many such currents – religious, political, social, cultural. Some of them may, at certain periods of our history, be hard to trace: they seem to lose themselves in the sands, yet may still be flowing beneath the surface, to well up at future time. Sometimes two or more currents seem to merge and blend, but again it is only in appearance. Sooner or later they reappear as separate streams…Some have their sources far back in Irish history; others take their rise from some movement, some upheaval, perhaps, at some definite and not far distant period of the past. Some again have their perennial well-springs in human nature itself.’

A Most Seditious Lot: The Militant-Separatist Press 1896-1916

In this, the second of a three-part series on the radical press in Ireland in the run-up to the 1916 revolution, the focus is on the militant-separatist, or advanced-nationalist press.

The Irish separatist movement was by no means an homogeneous one. It contained conservative and progressive wings, and different shades in between. The conservatives, Arthur Griffith being an example, were prepared for independence, but under a dual monarchy with the English King at the head, much like the position at the time of Grattan’s Parliament (pre-Act of Union) in 1782. They were not republicans calling for Enlightenment republican principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, and they were disinclined to encourage militant action to achieve independence, whatever they might claim when standing on political platforms. The radical wing, on the other hand, drew their inspiration from a revolutionary lineage stretching back through the Fenians, and the Young Irelanders, to Wolfe Tone and the republican United Irish movement in the 1790s.

What drew these groups together were a disillusionment among the conservatives with the Home Rule policy of the Irish Parliamentary Party particularly after Parnell’s fall from grace and his death, and the opportunities which presented themselves in the 1890s and thereafter. Many among them were involved in the literary societies, the Gaelic League, and even the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), of which even Arthur Griffith was a member at one stage. It was, though, the commemorations of the centenary of the 1798 Rising which created the conditions for a coalition between the conservatives and the radicals. According to historian Kevin Whelan ‘It was the I.R.B. who organised the first structured Bodenstown commemoration in 1891, and by the middle of the decade crowds of up to 5,000 gathered there each June on the Sunday closest to Tone’s birthdate. In 1898 a bust of Tone was placed on the grave by John O’Leary, already an iconic figure.’

Various organisations and committees were set up in the years immediately prior to the centenary in 1898. Again, it was often at the instigation of the IRB, usually acting in the background. Local ‘98 Centennial Clubs were set up, including many in Dublin, which were used to educate their members in the history of the 1798 Rising, and also to illustrate the political linkages between that period and present circumstances. The clubs were named after the patriots of 1798, and would usually hold pilgrimages around the sites associated with their particular hero, often ending up at his grave. The membership of the clubs was mainly male and working class. The Dublin socialists, with James Connolly at the head, named their club the ‘Rank and File ‘98 Club’.

This effort at remembrance was not, though, the preserve of men. The Irishwomen’s Centenary Union organised the decoration of neglected graves, not just of the 1798 heroes, but of other patriots as well. They also created a cottage industry producing home-made goods around the theme of the 1798 Rising.

Throughout the country a rising tide of fervor saw the erection of monuments to the patriots of ‘98. Dedication ceremonies for monuments or foundation stones drew huge crowds. It was obvious that the centenary had caught the imagination of the people and there was a scramble for control of the Centenary Committee between the IRB and the constitutional politicians which eventually led to a compromise solution, but not without considerable acrimony. The proposal, put forward by Dublin socialist E.R.Stewart on behalf of the socialist-republican Rank and File ‘98 Club, that membership of the Committee should be restricted to those who accepted the political principles of the United Irishmen, was rejected. For a period, the Irish people were treated to the sight and sound of members of the conservative Irish Parliamentary Party posturing as physical force men! Addressing a gathering in his native Mayo, the arch-conservative constitutional politician John Dillon said – ‘We will, by every constitutional and physical means, follow in the footsteps of the gallant men of 1798, until Ireland shakes off the bonds of slavery, and her sons make her a Nation’. Pure humbug, of course.

The dedication of the foundation stone for a monument to Wolfe Tone at the Stephen’s Green end of Grafton Street, right in the Unionist heart of Dublin, was the high point of the Centennial. Quarried from Cave Hill outside Belfast where Tone and the United Irishmen had, in 1795, pledged themselves to their revolutionary cause, the huge stone was brought to Dublin by train, lay in state as would an eminent corpse for two days, before being transported in a ‘funeral’ procession around all of the places in the city connected with the Risings of 1798 and 1803 on its way to the prepared site. Dublin had shut down for the day, and the huge procession took three hours to cover the three-mile route. The crowd was estimated to number 100,000.

Arthur Griffith wrote that the ’98 commemoration was “the beginning of all modern efforts towards a return to ideals of independence”. A journalist of considerable ability, he launched his own newspaper, the United Irishman, in 1899. The paper became a vehicle for putting Griffith’s ideas on passive resistance and obstructionism into the public arena, and also his stance against recruitment by the British for the Boer War. He also pushed for the development of Irish manufacture, agriculture and commerce in general, ring-fenced by tariffs. This was the ‘Sinn Féin’, or ‘Ourselves’ policy. He founded Cumann na nGaedheal in 1900, which merged with the Dungannon Clubs, Inghinidhe na hEireann (Daughters of Ireland) and other organisations in 1908. The new entity was itself called ‘Sinn Féin’.

The IRB was relatively inactive for the ten years or so after the ‘98 Centennial but with the prospect looming of a war in Europe which would involve Britain, began to see that as an opportunity for militant action which might present itself. Militant separatists now began to organise. In 1910 they published a newspaper, Irish Freedom, which was instrumental in attracting new recruits to the cause, including Patrick Pearse, Thomas McDonagh, Joseph Plunkett and Eamonn Ceannt, who would each play a central role in the 1916 Rising. After the suppression of the newspaper in 1914, the Irish Volunteer took its place, reflecting the formation of the Irish Volunteers in that year. The war in Europe was by then underway, and the experience gained from the anti-enlistment drive of the Boer War period was now put to good effect. The project from here on would be to recruit Irishmen to the ranks of Ireland’s army, not Britain’s – and Irishwomen too, not into the Irish Volunteers, but into their own women’s group, Cumann na mBan ( Irishwomen’s Council).

Cover, L'Irlande Libre, 1900

L’Irlande Libre

Irish women had, of course, played a significant role in raising awareness through the press and through protests and campaigns, stretching back to the 1890s, and beyond. Maud Gonne, who had played a very active role in fighting the practice of evictions of tenants in Ireland, had to leave Ireland for Paris to escape prosecution. While in Paris, she edited L’Irlande Libre, a radical separatist journal that was engaged in disseminating ideas, and which gave James Connolly one of his early opportunities to reach an audience. His article, Socialism and Irish Nationalism, published in 1897, laid out his socialist-republican thinking and its links with and inspiration from the revolutionary United Irishmen.

Shan Van Vocht front page

Shan Van Vocht

Another early separatist newspaper was the relatively small but highly influential Shan Van Vocht, published monthly in Belfast by Alice Milligan and Anna Johnston who wrote her poetry under the pen-name ‘Eithne Carberry’ and was herself the great-granddaughter of a United Irishman and the daughter of a Fenian. The Shan Van Vocht, besides publishing James Connolly, also provided an outlet for the thoughts of Douglas Hyde, founder and president of the Gaelic League, and of Arthur Griffith who later launched the newspaper the United Irishman after the closure of the Shan Van Vocht and whose subscription list he was given by Alice Milligan. In its content, the Shan Van Vocht contained about one third literature and leisure writing, about one third historical writing to do with 1798 and later agitation, plus articles on decolonisation, Irish music and language, and reports and a diary of political and historical meetings and events. The Shan Van Vocht played a major part in publicising the 1898 Centenary commemorations and in educating and informing its readers in the relevance of ’98 to contemporary conditions and radical political movements. Although little known, and often under-rated, it was, quite simply, a crucial organ of the radical press.

The United Irishman masthead March 4th 1899

The United Irishman

Although Arthur Griffith’s newspaper, the United Irishman, was a separatist newspaper, it was by no means a republican paper. Griffith’s preferred solution was quasi-independence using the  model of the ‘Hungarian solution’ which took the form of a dual or shared monarchy – in other words, the old order would just be modified, not transformed. Although he later flirted with membership of the Irish Volunteers in 1914, he did not support the use of physical force to achieve Irish independence, and his actions around the Treaty negotiations and the creation of a counter-revolutionary government in 1922 showed his true colours. His newspaper ran until 1906, when it was suppressed by the government, and he launched the newspaper Sinn Féin.

Of far more importance in the lead-up to the revolution were the Shan Van Vocht, and two newspapers which would be published between 1910 and 1916, Irish Freedom, and The Irish Volunteer.

Irish Freedom - masthead

Irish Freedom

The launch of Irish Freedom in November 1910 precipitated a shift in the controlling body of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Supreme Council. Older and more conservative men like Jack O’Hanlon, Fred Allen and P. T. Daly, who had previously exercised considerable power within the organisation, found themselves edged out in favour of more militant and younger men. The issue was over what the older men saw as the premature launch of the new paper, but also because of its promoters’ more extreme and open militancy. So the new paper almost immediately turned the IRB into a more militant organisation. It was controlled by Tom Clarke and Sean McDiarmada, both of them later signatories of the 1916 Proclamation, and had as its controlling editor Bulmer Hobson. Among its contributors were Patrick Pearse – another signatory of the Proclamation, John Devoy, Ernest Blythe, and Terence McSwiney whose death on hunger-strike in 1920 was instrumental in hastening the end of the War of Independence and the signing of a truce.

In its content the paper was working to the usual formula of inspirational stories based on history and patriots, an Irish language section, anti-British articles, and so on. Its first issue contained articles on ‘Sweating in Ireland’ (poor working conditions), a guide to Irish fiction, recollections of the dedication in 1898 of the Wolfe Tone foundation stone, a review of James Connolly’s ‘Labour in Irish History’, a piece on ‘The GAA – its Value as a National Asset’, and a report of the first meeting of the Students’ National Literary Society.

Progressively signs can be seen in its pages of a developing understanding of, and some sympathy with the labour movement. Writing in 1966, historian Pádraig O’Snódaigh had this to say: ‘Among the papers of the extra-Parliamentary nationalists (“the mosquito press” as they were called), the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) organ, Irish Freedom, had a markedly more pro-Labour attitude from its inception than had, for example, Sinn Fein. In August, 1911, Irish Freedom saw an evolutionary relationship between Labour and Republican ideas: “Mr. Carpenter is a Socialist, but Socialism leads to Republicanism and Republicanism leads to Separatism”.

Mr. Carpenter was a member of the Socialist Party of Ireland. The idea that socialism leads to republicanism which leads to separatism was one that Connolly had stated years beforehand. As time moved on towards the 1913 lock-out, and support for the labour leadership among the working class became apparent, the IRB took more notice. In January 1913 in Irish Freedom, Desmond Ryan made a plea for cooperation between the two movements ‘Both are fighting two distinct phases of one huge oppression and the work of one requires the attainment of what the other seeks’.

Six months earlier, in June of 1912, the paper had offered a welcome to the launch of the radical feminist newspaper, The Irish Citizen. It did refer to the differences between the women’s franchise position and that of the separatists, but as it said, ‘…we want to see every movement in Ireland, those we like and those we don’t like, Irish in their point of view and in everything. We don’t want any tails to English parties here, and that is why we welcome the The Irish Citizen’. It may also have had something to do with the fact that many supporters of the women’s franchise movement were also actively engaged in the nationalist movement, with many who were supporters of militant separatism, and that it was time to lower the tensions and to start building alliances.

1913 was an eventful year, not just because of the lock-out and all that went with it, but also because of the founding of the Irish Volunteers on the 25th of November in response to the creation of the Ulster Volunteers two months earlier whose aim was to oppose, through armed action if necessary, the introduction of Home Rule, and to preserve the Union with Britain. The Irish Volunteers launched their own paper in February 1914. It was as well they did, for within a few months Irish Freedom was suppressed by government order.

Irish Volunteer - front page Dec 5 1914

The Irish Volunteer

There was no doubt what message the new paper, The Irish Volunteer, was selling, or what its advertisers were selling either. In the issue dated July 4 1914 on page 11, there is an advertisement addressed to ‘Comrades!’, in which are offered: Mauser automatic pistols, sighted 1,000 yards, 4 pounds ten shillings; a .22 German target rifle at twenty-five shillings; or a Bull Dog revolver at seven shillings and six pence. Bandoliers, belts and haversacks are also on offer. The July 18th issue sees Hearne and Co. of Waterford selling approved uniforms at twenty-five shillings, and L Deegan of 3 Inn’s Quay offering .22 rifles priced from twelve shillings to four pounds three and six each. The issue of 1st August carries the news stories on ‘Rifles Landed at Howth’; ‘Savage Soldiery’; ‘Women and Children Bayoneted’; ‘Unloading the Rifles: an Eye Witness’s Story’.

Various topics were covered under military training in the pages of the paper: Explosives, care and use of weapons, drilling, first-aid, bilingual military vocabulary, defending positions etc. An advertisement in the January 16th 1915 issue invites customers to ‘Shooting at the City Rifle Range, Talbot Street – an ideal place to practice’. In all of the issues of the paper extensive coverage was given of the many activities of the Volunteers; drilling, manoeuvres, training sessions, inter-company competitions, and so on. It is obvious from looking at the paper that things were moving towards a climax of some sort.

From December 1914 to the last issue in April 1916, Eoin MacNeill, who would achieve lasting notoriety by attempting to stymie the 1916 Revolution by issuing an order countermanding the previous order to mobilise the Volunteers for military action, served as the titular editor of the paper. During this period, the IRB had infiltrated the Volunteers at officer rank and in staff headquarters. Although MacNeill had not been privy to the plans for the revolution, it is beyond belief that he, or for that matter the authorities in Dublin Castle did not know by reading the Irish Volunteer that some action was imminent. On page three of the  paper dated the 22nd April 1916 an item titled  ‘Equipment Week’ states that the Dublin Brigade Commandant is having a cheap sale this week, offering to match a shilling for every shilling spent, and, further –‘This Easter is for the Irish Volunteers. We should make it impressive. And it is not only Easter: it is the anniversary of Clontarf, April 23rd.’ ‘Clontarf, April 23rd’ refers to the decisive battle in 1014 between Brian Boru, self-proclaimed King of Munster and Leinster, and the Viking Dubliners and their Leinster allies. Although Brian Boru was killed in the battle, the victory by his forces effectively ended the Viking threat to the native aristocracy in Ireland. The article was signed by Thomas McDonagh, who would be another of the signatories of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic.

Two days later, on April 24th 1916, the revolution started.

The final part of this series will deal with the advanced-feminist movement and its publications.

Know the revolutionaries to understand the revolution

I never had personal contact with my paternal grandfather, since by the time I was born he was eight years dead, but in my earliest memories as a young boy he was already becoming to me  a man of mythic stature, a heroic figure in our family, a presence. What I knew of him as I grew was gleaned from snippets of information, often just overheard, sometimes the result of answers to my expressed curiosity about this absent man. It was obvious to me even from my earliest days that he was loved and missed by my father and his siblings, and that they were always proud of him and what he had done in his life. I had no image of him either until much later when I was shown a yellowing newspaper clipping that reported on the circumstances of his death with an accompanying postage-stamp sized photo, too small and too faded to give any real sense of the man.

John Stokes - D Company 3rd Battalion - Boland's Mills Garrison

John Stokes – D Company 3rd Battalion – Boland’s Mills Garrison

That newspaper clipping confirmed what I by then knew, that my grandfather, John Stokes, had died in attempting to rescue a young woman from drowning at the Shelley Banks near Poolbeg on the southern side of Dublin Bay. Other clippings, discovered later, gave greater detail to the story – that the young woman had been cut off on a sand island when the tide started to rise, that John had gone to her assistance and that when she couldn’t swim to shore he went back for assistance but disappeared underwater having suffered cramp. The young woman, Nellie Macken of Parliament Street, was rescued by a boatman. At the inquest into his death John was commended for his bravery. He was 63 years-of-age when he died. That one act of selfless bravery, particularly at a relatively advanced age, would have been enough to establish his heroism, but there was more to him than that one act.

Born in County Wexford, in Bunclody, his people were farmers. But they were, according to family lore, also perpetually rebellious, with an involvement stretching back to the United Irish rebellion of 1798, and the short-lived Wexford Republic of that year. As a young man, John had to flee Wexford to avoid a trial at the Wexford Assizes on a charge of holding off at gunpoint a bailiff who had caught him poaching game on a squire’s land. He made his way to Dublin where he eventually met and married my grandmother, Catherine Finnegan of Slane, County Meath.

By 1913 John was employed as a ‘motorman’ – a driver – with the Dublin United Tramways Company. When he and his co-workers walked off the job because of the company’s refusal to allow them membership of the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union, led by James Larkin and James Connolly, that strike allowed the Employers’ Federation, led by Ireland’s leading industrialist William Martin Murphy, to declare a general lockout of unionised workers, leading to a sustained and highly organised attempt by the employers to starve the workers and their families into submission, a cynical programme that lasted over four months bringing death and sickness to the poorest of Dublin’s poor.

Although records of who was involved in and around Liberty Hall, the headquarters of the ITGWU, are virtually non-existent, it is highly likely that John and Catherine were active there. In our family, James Connolly – a central figure in the Lockout and in Liberty Hall – was revered above other leaders, as was Liam Mellows, a disciple of Connolly’s. And, right up to the time of her death in 1956, Dr. Kathleen Lynn, who had worked for the welfare of the locked-out workers and their families in Liberty Hall and had been appointed by Connolly as  Chief Medical Officer to the Irish Citizen Army that Connolly led, and later as second-in-command of the City Hall garrison during the 1916 revolution, was a frequent visitor to Catherine at her home in Rathmines, as a friend.

John made the journey from striking tram-worker in 1913 to revolution in 1916 in which he fought in the Boland’s Mills garrison as a member of  D Company 3rd Battalion of the Volunteers, under the command of Eamon de Valera. On April 24th, Easter Monday, he turned up for duty with his Howth rifle and was put in charge of four Volunteers to take over the Gas Works and went from there to the Old Distillery (where the flag of the Republic was flown to divert British Army attention) until Wednesday when they were withdrawn back to Boland’s Mills. On Thursday he was ordered home by de Valera due to a back injury he had carried into the fight. Two days after the surrender he was arrested and taken to Richmond Barracks with the other revolutionaries, and then to Frongoch Prison Camp in North Wales via Wakefield Prison in England. He was released in August 1916. While in Frongoch his commanding officer was Terence MacSwiney. During the War of Independence John provided ‘assistance’ to D Company and to the Active Service Unit, and during the Civil War provided a safe house for guns and men to Anti-Treaty republicans with the active participation of my grandmother Catherine.

The Lockout exacted a high price on both John and Catherine. As a black-listed worker due to his union activity, and as a man of principle who would not work for certain employers on his own blacklist, he often found himself struggling to provide for his wife and young family. This evidently led to occasional difficulties between these two strong-willed characters, she who had children to feed and he who had principles to live up to.  On Fianna Fail’s accession to power in government in 1932 Catherine wrote to Taoiseach Eamon de Valera asking if there was any work available for John to which de Valera replied that if John came to the Dáil on a certain date there would be a job as a porter. John’s response was that he hadn’t fought in 1916 to get a job for himself and refused the offer. He continued to find what work he could, mainly around the motor trade and occasionally as a hackney driver.

There is no doubt that John and Catherine made a solid contribution to achieving independence for Ireland from British domination, but they made another lasting contribution. In being active citizens in their everyday lives they passed on a set of worthwhile values and beliefs that they held dear to their children, who passed them on to their own children, and the ripple effect goes on.

They were not unique in this, and that is the impetus behind telling their story for the first time.

On the 24th of April 1916, ‘ordinary’ men and women, estimated to number between 900 and 1200, assembled at Liberty Hall and at various outposts to create a revolution against the mightiest empire in the world at that time. But very little is known about these heroic, generous people who would take extraordinary risks to benefit future generations with little prospect of gain for themselves and a high possibility of death, injury or long-term imprisonment as a result of their actions.

These people, these revolutionaries, do not figure in history books, other than as statistics. In writing them out of the story as individual people, each with a personal story to tell of before, during and after the revolution, we consistently fail the test of understanding what the revolution was really about and how important it was for them to achieve the Irish Republic that was the objective of the revolution.

There is no doubt that it suited what was, and continues to be, the political class in this non-republic, to narrow the focus of understanding the revolution by concentrating on its leaders and on its opponents, including the failed constitutional politicians and those who faltered and fell away from the revolutionary movement at the last minute.

Far easier to present the revolution as a ‘Rising’, or an ‘Insurrection’, or a ‘Rebellion’ if the motivations and the objectives of the rank-and-file men and women do not form part of the evidence of genuine revolution. Far easier to underplay the fundamental importance to the revolution of the 1913 Lockout and trade unionism, of the centrality of socialism to the Proclamation, of the most advanced form of feminism in the world which was revealed at the barricades and in the Proclamation, if the revolution could be sold as a ‘poets’ rebellion’ or some-such nonsense. Far easier to allow the Catholic church to successfully sell the spurious notion that it was behind the ‘rebellion’ and therefore a party to the gaining of independence when the direct opposite was the case. And so, far easier to create a permanent counter-revolution the aim of which was to destroy the Irish Republic so as to preserve a privileged class, to avoid redistribution of wealth, to introduce rigid controls on society and social behaviour, to embed capitalism and its local offshoot, gombeenism, as the hegemonic ideology.

Even at this late stage, when those generations with a direct connection with the rank-and-file revolutionaries are dying off, it is still possible to salvage these stories involving the ‘ordinary’ revolutionaries and their families, but further delay in doing so cannot be entertained. A concerted effort needs to be made to reach out to the remaining families of 1916 rank-and-file revolutionaries to gather the stories and where possible photographs, so that we can better know who they were and what were their personal circumstances, why they did what was extraordinary, and how it impacted their lives thereafter.

There is work to be done, first in finding the descendants, then in gathering the stories, collating the information and analysing it, and publishing the stories and the analysis. Once again that work involves, in a very fundamental way, ordinary people. But, given its potential scale, it will also need to involve local and national organisations and societies, sociocultural historians and researchers, archivists and museums.

After almost 100 years of obscurity we need to think of ways to acknowledge and honour these ‘ordinary’ revolutionaries. Apart from publishing their stories, one other way would be to ensure that included in the commemorations on April 24th 2016, Republic Day, will be a contingent of citizens, each individual – preferably a family-member – representing an identified revolutionary of Easter Week 1916, and assembled according to the garrison that the revolutionary was part of, to take part in the march-past at the GPO in Dublin.

It is time to give these ‘ordinary’ revolutionaries mythic stature, to understand the extent of their heroism, and to make their presence felt once again as we continue the task of completing their revolution by constructing the Irish Republic that they gave so much to bring to life. We owe it to them, we owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the future generations.

1916 – A Workers’ Revolution

The eminent linguist Dwight Bollinger put forward the notion of language as a ‘loaded weapon’, but in terms of describing what the events of Easter 1916 represent it is easy to imagine the language applied then and since as an attempt to unload the weapon. Variously described as a ‘Rising’, ‘Rebellion’, or ‘Insurrection’, these terms describe an event of relatively minor proportions, similar, in a sense, to waving a fist at an opponent. They are, of course, the words that were used by the British to downplay the significance of Easter 1916, and by the established political class in Ireland, including ‘Home Rule’ nationalists.

Revolution! Now there is a word to play with, a loaded weapon of a word. According to Aristotle, revolution is an attempt to effect a complete change from one constitution to another, and as the use of the word developed it has come to represent complete, abrupt change in the social order. A reading of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic confirms its revolutionary intent. No empty fist-waving there!

The consistent application of terms such as ‘The Poets’ Rebellion’ are nothing other than an attempt to take the air out of the Revolution by portraying it as a misty-eyed effete affair, a sentimental thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Several of the leaders did write poetry among their other activities which included radical political activism, but each of the signatories of the Proclamation signed up to revolution knowing they would die for it. And revolutions, in any case, are forged not just by the leaders but also by the rank-and-file revolutionaries who rally to the cause.

One of the few attempts to understand the make-up of the revolutionary forces is an excellent study by Stein Ugelvik Larsen and Oliver Snoddy (Pádraig Ó Snodaigh) titled “1916 – A Workingmen’s Revolution? An analysis of those who made the 1916 revolution in Ireland”. Published in Social Studies in August 1973 it is a historical-sociological approach to the theoretical study of the Revolution. A key conclusion the authors arrived at is that “Altogether the picture of the 1916 revolutionaries indicates that this was a revolution undertaken by workers in alliance with small farmers, many middle and a few upper middle-class people. From the figures it does look like a perfect picture of a socialist revolution in the way Lenin and Marx envisaged it in their writings”.

While the full study is now available on this page under “Linked Articles”, it is worth reproducing, by way of illustration, one table that the authors compiled on the range of occupational groups among the (male) leaders and rank-and-file revolutionaries – 1146 men in total.

Occupation                                                          Number
1     General labourer                                               255
2     Farmer and Class VI General                         174
3     Commercial clerk                                              115
4     On roads                                                               56
5     Plumber and house painter                              54
6     Porter, messenger                                              44
7    Grocer’s assistant                                                43
8    Carpenter, joiner                                                 40
9    Shop assistant                                                      30
10  Tailor                                                                      23
11  Machinist, machine worker                               22
12  Artists                                                                     19
13  Draper                                                                    19
14  Teachers                                                                 19
15  Fitter and turner                                                  18
16  Music, bookbinder, printer                               18
17  Cabinet maker, upholsterer                               17
18  Baker                                                                      17
19  Merchant                                                               17
20  Broker, salesman, commercial traveller        15
21  Electrician, apparatus maker                            14
22  Shoe, bookmaker, dealer                                   13
23  Blacksmith                                                            13
24  Library and scientific                                          12
25  Apprentice, assistant                                           12
26  Coachmaker, motor-car assembler                   11
27  Grocer                                                                      11
28  Hotel servant                                                         10
29  Railway                                                                    10
30  Legal profession                                                      8
31  Medical profession                                                  7
32  Seamen, boatmen                                                   6

In their study, the authors call for further research to be done to establish as complete a picture as possible of the rank-and-file revolutionaries, and one area for research certainly stands out – that of the women participants in the revolution. But looking at that table, incomplete as it is, demonstrates the nature of the revolution. It was that of a workers’ revolution, not  bourgeois ‘rising’ or ‘insurrection’.

Let us take the loaded weapon back from the propagandists who peddle their dubious wares to stifle understanding of the totality of the revolution so that their ‘status quo’ can be maintained. No more talk of ‘The Poets’ Rebellion’ or any such guff. No more linking of the commemoration of the 1916 Revolution with commemoration of the filthy war of 1914-18, with permission to wear the Easter Lily only given if it is accompanied by the Poppy.

We owe a debt of truth not only to the revolutionary leaders but also the revolutionary rank-and-file. We must raise our voices above those, particularly in politics, the media and among the capitalist class, whose only project is to preserve their own interests by setting their own agenda firmly in the public consciousness. That agenda is to stifle understanding of the true nature of the 1916 Revolution and to bury the Irish Republic itself in a lime-filled grave. That agenda will be thwarted by today’s rank-and-file citizens creating streams of thought and creativity that bring back to life the hopes, aspirations and intent, not just of the leaders but especially of the rank-and-file revolutionaries – people just like us.

The 1916 Revolution belongs to us. The Irish Republic belongs to us. We will repossess both using the strength of our collective will and the loaded weapon of language – under our terms.

%d bloggers like this: