Easter Rising -eyewitness accounts

JuliusCaesar

I came across, by accident, on the internet, an eyewitness account of the Easter Rising by a medical student who happened to go for a walk in town that day.

Then I read in some newspaper about some family near Herbert Park who had written letters to the wider family about their experiences during the Rising - I think they were mainly inconvenienced and all had to stay at home.

Now I'd like to look at it again, I can't find it. Anyone got any sources for contemporary accounts?

McArmalite

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I came across, by accident, on the internet, an eyewitness account of the Easter Rising by a medical student who happened to go for a walk in town that day.

Then I read in some newspaper about some family near Herbert Park who had written letters to the wider family about their experiences during the Rising - I think they were mainly inconvenienced and all had to stay at home.

Now I'd like to look at it again, I can't find it. Anyone got any sources for contemporary accounts?

I had a thread Myth and propaganda of the unpopuliarity of 1916 ? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055663938 which I asserted from reading Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( couldn't recommend it enough for anyone who has not read it). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels among the ordinary people and support for the british among the wealthier genteel and ' respectable ' citizens.

Outstanding Guardian journalist Peter Berresford Ellis suggests that it was in the interests of british propaganda to protray the rebellion as been universally unpopuliar and of coure the establishemnt papers to push that lie.

According to Berresford Ellis quotes a Canadian journalist Frederick Arthur McKenzie, who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them. " I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated. "

McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets where people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city."

MarchDub

McArmalite wrote: »

I had a thread Myth and propaganda of the unpopuliarity of 1916 ? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055663938 which I asserted from reading Ernie O'Malley's outstanding On Another Man's Wound ( couldn't recommend it enough for anyone who has not read it). He gives an eye witness account of the public's reaction to when they began occupying the GPO, the fighting and aftermath. In his account of it, the public was split in for support for the Rebels among the ordinary people and support for the british among the wealthier genteel and ' respectable ' citizens.

Outstanding Guardian journalist Peter Berresford Ellis suggests that it was in the interests of british propaganda to protray the rebellion as been universally unpopuliar and of coure the establishemnt papers to push that lie.

According to Berresford Ellis quotes a Canadian journalist Frederick Arthur McKenzie, who arrived in Dublin with the English reinforcements sent to put down the insurrection had no sympathy for the Irish ‘rebels’ and German sympathizers, as he perceived them. " I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days. They are all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was in the better parts of the city, I have no doubt, but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels, particularly after the rebels were defeated. "

McKenzie describing how he watched as people were waving and cheering as a regiment approached, and that he commented to his companion they were cheering the soldiers. Noticing then that they were escorting Irish prisoners, he realised that they were actually cheering the rebels. The rebels he says were walking in military formation and were loudly and triumphantly singing a rebel song. McKenzie reports speaking to a group of men and women at street corners, "shure, we cheer them" said a woman, "why wouldn’t we? Aren't they our own flesh and blood." Dressed in khaki McKenzie was mistaken for a British soldier as he went about Dublin back streets where people cursed him openly, and "cursed all like me strangers in their city."

Thanks McA for this. In fact, Peter Berresford Ellis is more than a journalist when it comes to history - he is a trained historian with an excellent reputation. I have read much of his work. The quote you use is from a book - The Impact of the 1916 Rising among the Nations edited by Ruan O'Donnell. This new collection is viewing 1916 from the view of its impact on the UK, the Brit Empire and somewhat beyond.

Irish history has become so convoluted of recent time and so concerned with "not giving offence" to whoever; as if we have no rights to our legitimate history. The myth of the ordinary people of Ireland being against the aspirations of the 1916 leaders - an independent Ireland - has been propagated in order to fit the new clothes that are being supplied to us. And it goes against many eye witness accounts and even the more recent history of the time.

The Bachelors Walk Massacre of 1914 - which was discussed on another forum I believe[?] , displayed an absolute hostility by ordinary Dubliners to the British army's attempt to stop the Howth gun running. And we are expected to believe that two years later the same Dubliners who were gunned down by the British Army for jeering at the Brits were in support of the British army and against any armed rebellion? It's not credible to me anyway.

brianthebard

Annie Ryan's books on the Rising and the War of Independence are very good for detailed accounts of eyewitnesses and those involved in the events. Afaik there were a series of accounts taken in the 40s or 50s (possibly later) from those who had been involved or witnessed the events but these were not released until a few years ago. This is perhaps one of the reasons why the official history myth of popular hatred for the Rising has not been completely countered yet. MarchDub you make an excellent point about the Bachelor's Walk incident. Also despite the huge number of men who enlisted for various reasons during WWI the war itself was massively unpopular in Ireland at the time and definitely acted as a catalyst towards rebellion.

donaghs

Here's a list of just some of the people who've give eye witness accounts.
http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/easterrising/article16a.htm
James Stephens wrote an entire book on what he saw as a bystander.

Once again another Irish history thread seems to be getting yanked in another direction by McArmalites "anglo-centric" concerns. The 1916 public opinion debate is already on the other thread. It's hard to gauge public opinion without some sort of polling, but a good indicator is the elections which took place. By 1918, Sinn Fein were in control of nationalist Ireland, but in 1910 there was no real opposition to the Irish Parliamentary Party (Redmond). The only other nationalist group elected were of the same origin, but basically emerged from the the post-Parnell feuds.

McArmalite

MarchDub wrote: »

Thanks McA for this. In fact, Peter Berresford Ellis is more than a journalist when it comes to history - he is a trained historian with an excellent reputation. I have read much of his work. The quote you use is from a book - The Impact of the 1916 Rising among the Nations edited by Ruan O'Donnell. This new collection is viewing 1916 from the view of its impact on the UK, the Brit Empire and somewhat beyond.

Irish history has become so convoluted of recent time and so concerned with "not giving offence" to whoever; as if we have no rights to our legitimate history. The myth of the ordinary people of Ireland being against the aspirations of the 1916 leaders - an independent Ireland - has been propagated in order to fit the new clothes that are being supplied to us. And it goes against many eye witness accounts and even the more recent history of the time.

The Bachelors Walk Massacre of 1914 - which was discussed on another forum I believe[?] , displayed an absolute hostility by ordinary Dubliners to the British army's attempt to stop the Howth gun running. And we are expected to believe that two years later the same Dubliners who were gunned down by the British Army for jeering at the Brits were in support of the British army and against any armed rebellion? It's not credible to me anyway.

Thanks MarchDub. As Brain has pointed out, you make some EXCELLENT points " Irish history has become so convoluted of recent time and so concerned with "not giving offence" to whoever; as if we have no rights to our legitimate history. " Great point and very central to the whole way Irish history has been packaged in recent years. Seems, to me anyway, that the offically approved ' opinion makers ' journalists, RTE producers, self declared enlighted academics, have moved on from the 1916 - anarachists, fascists and lawless bandits line - to convoluted BS which ignores any relevance so as "not giving offence" to portion blame to those whose actions and policy's inevitably brought violence about throughout our history. An improvement form the baby eating Irish and the benign, well meaning but clumsy british caught up in a frightfully difficult postion not of their making :rolleyes:. But nevertheless, in a milder form, still seeks to propagate the lies and distortions of our history.

Also another EXCELLENT point about " And we are expected to believe that two years later the same Dubliners who were gunned down by the British Army for jeering at the Brits were in support of the British army and against any armed rebellion? " Indeed thinking about the above I would imagine that anti authority feelings would have been possibly stronger in Dublin that maybe anywhere else in the country, given the 1913 Lockout and the attacks of the RIC on the workers and William Martin Murphy's newspapers and far from the genral population content and happy with Ireland's position.

McArmalite

Well here's some quotes from Ernie O'Malley's On Another Man's Wound in the first few hours -

" Other shops had been looted: Lawerence's toy bazaar and some jewellers......Ragged boys wearing old boots tramped up and down with air rifles on their shoulders or played cowboys and Indians......The boys offered to allow me the use of a pair of primastic glasses to see the snipers firing from Trinity College. " Only tuppence a look".....Rumours and more rumours. The Germans had landed in the south and were marching inland. German submarines had come up the Liffey. The Rebels in the country had surrendered. The Rebels were nearing Dublin. "

MarchDub

donaghs wrote: »

Once again another Irish history thread seems to be getting yanked in another direction by McArmalites "anglo-centric" concerns. The 1916 public opinion debate is already on the other thread. It's hard to public opinion without some sort of polling, but a good indicator is the elections which took place. By 1918, Sinn Fein were in control of nationalist Ireland, but in 1910 there was no real opposition to the Irish Parliamentary Party (Remond). The only other nationalist group were of the same origin, but basically emerged from the the post-Parnell feuds.

I am not sure what you mean by this but you can't simply invalidate "anglo-centric" concerns because you dislike the source. Anglo-centric versions of Irish history go back to the twelfth century and have been challenged by Irish historians and authors since then. In fact, the purpose of these Anglo centric writers was to shore up the initial invasion and justify the continuing English presence on this island. To therefore be concerned about this within Irish historiography is perfectly valid IMO and has precedent in Irish historical writing and in literature.

Geoffrey Keating, The Four Masters and even the poets of the thirteenth century all write with stated intent to counteract the Anglo version of Irish history. Keating names those English authors' "lies" in his preface to his great work and states that he is writing to keep the record straight and uphold an Irish point of view.

As for Sinn Fein – you can’t invalidate their [widespread] appeal in 1918 by saying that they had little support in 1910. You could do this to the origins of any political party – including the Home Rulers who had little support in the early to mid nineteenth century. There are reasons why political parties emerge – and there were sound reasons why Sinn Fein emerged in the 1918 election not merely “in control of nationalist Ireland” but as a majority within the whole of Ireland.

brianthebard

donaghs wrote: »

Here's a list of just some of the people who've give eye witness accounts.
http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/easterrising/article16a.htm
James Stephens wrote an entire book on what he saw as a bystander.

I really don't think much of Stephens' account tbh, he was a novelist first and foremost which shows through, and he knew very little about the Rising or politics for someone who was passing judgment on them. The last few chapters especially are overly romantic and pretty pointless imo. But its still worth a look when those things are kept in mind....

Once again another Irish history thread seems to be getting yanked in another direction by McArmalites "anglo-centric" concerns. The 1916 public opinion debate is already on the other thread. It's hard to public opinion without some sort of polling, but a good indicator is the elections which took place. By 1918, Sinn Fein were in control of nationalist Ireland, but in 1910 there was no real opposition to the Irish Parliamentary Party (Remond). The only other nationalist group were of the same origin, but basically emerged from the the post-Parnell feuds.

If you have an issue with a post report it, but don't comment on it in thread, that's backseat moderating and will earn you an infraction. Mod.

donaghs

brianthebard wrote: »

I really don't think much of Stephens' account tbh, he was a novelist first and foremost which shows through, and he knew very little about the Rising or politics for someone who was passing judgment on them. The last few chapters especially are overly romantic and pretty pointless imo. But its still worth a look when those things are kept in mind....

If you have an issue with a post report it, but don't comment on it in thread, that's backseat moderating and will earn you an infraction. Mod.

When it comes to gauging "public opinion", I think an account like Stephens' is ideal. The general public were surprised by the Rising and had very little knowledge of what was going on until after it was over. As McArmalite's earlier post from Ernie O'Malley shows - it was hard to distinguish fact from rumour. So naturally accounts from the general public show this confusion, but are very revealing for insights into people's feelings towards the Rising, and the actual events they witnessed first-hand.

If Pearse and Connolly had kept very detailed diaries during the Rising we have great accounts of the Rising by people who were familiar with the politics and the ideologies, etc, etc. However these would not be the most useful documents for trying to gauge the public opinion towards the Rising.

My use of the word "anglo-centric" was something of a pun. I meant it literally: "Centered or focused on England or the English, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence". Other reference was the anglo-centric views of history, but I wasn't trying to get bogged-down in a discussion about Irish historiography.