Retired Gardai to commemorate RIC

Corruptable

Just happened to stumble across this from several other forums, the users of which were none too pleased with the idea, even on historical rather than political grounds.

RETIRED gardai are seeking permission from the Government to erect a monument in Glasnevin Cemetery to 500 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, including the 'Black and Tans', who were killed by the IRA in the War of Independence .


The Garda Siochana Retired Members Association has written to Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Minister for Justice Alan Shatter seeking the go-ahead to erect a monument in an existing plot in the cemetery, which is famous for its links to 1916 and the War of Independence.


The 100-foot long plot contains the remains of 102 RIC men who died of natural causes. The association backed a motion at its annual conference in August to support and pay for the erection of a memorial to the RIC and the Dublin Metropolitan Police (DMP), including the names of all those killed.
The retired gardai propose to erect commemorative marble headstones bearing the names of 514 RIC members who have otherwise been written out of the official history of the Republic. The list would include policemen like Cornelius Crean, brother of the Antarctic explorer and British Navy sailor, Tom Crean, who has only had national recognition in recent years.
Retired Garda Pat McCarthy, who has headed the campaign to have the RIC commemorated, said the time had come for the State to recognise all who were killed in the War of Independence.


"We have a Garden of Remembrance in Dublin Castle for our 87 members of An Garda Siochana who have lost their lives since the foundation of this State. There is also a Garden of Remembrance in Belfast for 304 members of the RUC and the PSNI.


"Why don't we have a memorial for the RIC and the DMP? Are they a forgotten race? I am appealing to the Government to give the green light and its full approval for this very worthy project."


The Irish Independent columnist and historian Kevin Myers said: "There is this mystique about flying columns of IRA men fighting the British army, but for the most part the killing was of RIC men, some coming out of Mass or in front of their families when off-duty.


"Many were killed on patrol and always in ambushes, where 20 or 30 IRA men were involved in killing these policemen, who were alone or in two-man patrols."


He agreed that they should be remembered.


- JIM CUSACK
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/retired-gardai-to-honour-ric-2940192.html

My own view is that in this country we already have commemorative monuments to British and German casualties of both World Wars, and hundreds of separate monuments to those who have died in pursuit of republican/nationalist objectives since the 17th Century to the present day.

I suppose where this is going to become politically bogged down is the call for the State to recognise the deceased men, as opposed to a private memorial simply erected and maintained from private funds by the Garda Siochana Retired Members Association.

jonniebgood1

I can see grounds for such a memorial in terms of the RIC and DMP. In most cases the members of these forces were simply doing a job with the aim of bettering their own lots and often that of their communities. The DMP existed during the early years after Irish independence as well as beforehand. Where it becomes bogged down is in whether it is a memorial for the black and tans or not. If it is then to my mind it is a slightly different proposition as I see a distinction between the RIC and the 'tans', even though the latter were a supplementary force to the RIC.

Fratton Fred

What were the RIC like? Were they just a symbol if British rule, or were they actually brutal enforcers of it?

There were a number of RIC men killed after the ceasefire, were they really hated that much?

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What were the RIC like? Were they just a symbol if British rule, or were they actually brutal enforcers of it?

There were a number of RIC men killed after the ceasefire, were they really hated that much?

There is some good general background information on the perceptions of the RIC and how they developed up until 1918. See this link pages 16, 17 & 18 for a start. After 1918 it is a whole different ball game and I think the large number of resignations showed that the RIC force had empathy with the general population from which it was made up. I get the impression from most accounts that I read that they were enforcing law and order rather than British rule.

ejmaztec

I don't see the problem in the RIC being commemorated. They were as much upholders of the law as current members of the GS are. Just because some of them had different allegiances during the Civil War, isn't enough to sweep the whole outfit under the carpet. It wasn't as if they were anything like the Gestapo. I think they were just "plods".

I just got my hands on "Memoirs of Constable Jeremiah Mee RIC, by Rev Anthony J Gaughan, and when I read it, I'll report back. I bought it for €2.50 in a second-hand bookshop, not telling them that it's one of the rare ones.:D

One of the incidents that Mee was involved in, the Listowel police mutiny, is mentioned on this site:

http://policehistory.com/listowel.html

I won't copy and paste, because I know that the Rev. is a stickler for copyright.:eek:

Jellybaby1

Corruptable wrote: »

My own view is that in this country we already have commemorative monuments to British and German casualties of both World Wars, and hundreds of separate monuments to those who have died in pursuit of republican/nationalist objectives since the 17th Century to the present day.

I entirely agree. Had a quick look at The Royal Irish Constabulary: A Short History and Genealogical Guide with a Select List of Medal Awards and Casualities by Jim Herlihy

in Gilbert Library recently. It's an excellent book and it explains the introduction of the B & T's and all the whys and wherefors.

Reiver

Saw an interesting book in a store in Killarney there a couple of weeks back. An oral history of the war of independence, albeit from the British side, ex-soldiers and RIC men.

From a personal perspective, doing some research in the family tree on my father's side, we found a couple who had served around 1900 in the RIC. From what I've read, they seemed to be just 'bobbies on the beat' as I guess a British person would say. Hardly comparable to the Black and Tans.

Beir Bua

All the half decent skins in the RIC quit rather than stand against the Irish people by trying to uphold British rule during the Tan War.

The "bobby on the beat" portrayal is an incorrect one in my opinion. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy. They raided, beat, killed and imprisoned republicans and their families on the orders of the British. With their local knowledge they were an integral part of the British intelligence network and provided material support and backup to the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries.

The IRA didn't kill so many of them for no reason. They didn't force the RIC from the countryside by destroying their barracks, the local center of colonial rule, on a whim. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy and an integral part of the British forces. They were traitors in the eyes of the IRA, Irish men who fought against their own, fought for the British against the Irish Republic for the Saxon shilling.

In my opinion I don't see how they can be viewed as anything other than enemies of Ireland.

Were the RIC men killed at Soloheadbeg simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their own lots and often that of their communities"? Where they simply "bobbies on the beat"?

Dan Breen disagrees:

"We intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces. The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected"

In playing down the role of the RIC in the Tan War and calling them such things as "bobbies on the beat", a phrase which conjures images of a simple community policeman, what are you saying about the Irish men who killed said policemen? Did they kill a dangerous enemy or did they murder innocent men? Were they wrong to target the RIC? In my opinion they had every right and justification to attack the RIC.

When the Fenians in the 1800s attacked RIC barracks and officers were they attacking "the most important branch of the enemy’s forces"? Were the RIC in putting down the Fenians simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their communities"? Well, the RIC did such a good job and showed such loyalty to the British crown in helping to put down the 1867 rising (failed in large part due to infiltration by members of the RIC) that Queen Victoria granted them the prefix "royal". Maybe when they were evicting tens of thousands of Irish people from their own land they were trying to better their communities rather than upholding British rule?

They are just a few examples of the RICs long history of fighting against Irish interests and freedom, but they took it to new heights during the Tan War. As I said, they raided, imprisoned, beat, infiltrated and killed. (For example, it was mainly ordinary policemen who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday, albeit under Auxiliary command.)

Now, if people want to commemorate the RIC, I imagine, seen as they are commemorating the IRAs most dangerous enemy, they are probably of the Unionist persuasion which is fair enough. But they should be remembered for what they were and not have their role in the Tan War romanticized as "bobbies on the beat" or "trying to help their community". They were a British force doing their utmost to uphold British rule. They counted among their members men such as Gerard Smyth who said the following which prompted the Listowel mutiny:

“Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads but make across the country, lie in ambush, take cover behind fences near roads, and when civilians are seen approaching shout: 'Hands up!' Should the order be not obeyed, shoot, and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets or are in any way suspicious looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped and you are bound to get the right persons sometimes. The more you shoot the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man and I will guarantee that your names will not be given at the inquest.”

The IRA executed this fine upstanding "bobby on the beat" in 1920. Curious how his name is not mentioned in the article. I don't see why the state would want to sponsor a commemoration for men like him.


BB

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

All the half decent skins in the RIC quit rather than stand against the Irish people by trying to uphold British rule during the Tan War.

The "bobby on the beat" portrayal is an incorrect one in my opinion. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy. They raided, beat, killed and imprisoned republicans and their families on the orders of the British. With their local knowledge they were an integral part of the British intelligence network and provided material support and backup to the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries.

The IRA didn't kill so many of them for no reason. They didn't force the RIC from the countryside by destroying their barracks, the local center of colonial rule, on a whim. The RIC were a very dangerous enemy and an integral part of the British forces. They were traitors in the eyes of the IRA, Irish men who fought against their own, fought for the British against the Irish Republic for the Saxon shilling.

In my opinion I don't see how they can be viewed as anything other than enemies of Ireland.

Were the RIC men killed at Soloheadbeg simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their own lots and often that of their communities"? Where they simply "bobbies on the beat"?

Dan Breen disagrees:

"We intended to kill some of the police whom we looked upon as the foremost and most important branch of the enemy forces. The only regret that we had following the ambush was that there were only two policemen in it, instead of the six we had expected"

In playing down the role of the RIC in the Tan War and calling them such things as "bobbies on the beat", a phrase which conjures images of a simple community policeman, what are you saying about the Irish men who killed said policemen? Did they kill a dangerous enemy or did they murder innocent men? Were they wrong to target the RIC? In my opinion they had every right and justification to attack the RIC.

When the Fenians in the 1800s attacked RIC barracks and officers were they attacking "the most important branch of the enemy’s forces"? Were the RIC in putting down the Fenians simply "doing a job with the aim of bettering their communities"? Well, the RIC did such a good job and showed such loyalty to the British crown in helping to put down the 1867 rising (failed in large part due to infiltration by members of the RIC) that Queen Victoria granted them the prefix "royal". Maybe when they were evicting tens of thousands of Irish people from their own land they were trying to better their communities rather than upholding British rule?

They are just a few examples of the RICs long history of fighting against Irish interests and freedom, but they took it to new heights during the Tan War. As I said, they raided, imprisoned, beat, infiltrated and killed. (For example, it was mainly ordinary policemen who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday, albeit under Auxiliary command.)

Now, if people want to commemorate the RIC, I imagine, seen as they are commemorating the IRAs most dangerous enemy, they are probably of the Unionist persuasion which is fair enough. But they should be remembered for what they were and not have their role in the Tan War romanticized as "bobbies on the beat" or "trying to help their community". They were a British force doing their utmost to uphold British rule. They counted among their members men such as Gerard Smyth who said the following which prompted the Listowel mutiny:

“Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads but make across the country, lie in ambush, take cover behind fences near roads, and when civilians are seen approaching shout: 'Hands up!' Should the order be not obeyed, shoot, and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets or are in any way suspicious looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped and you are bound to get the right persons sometimes. The more you shoot the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man and I will guarantee that your names will not be given at the inquest.”

The IRA executed this fine upstanding "bobby on the beat" in 1920. Curious how his name is not mentioned in the article. I don't see why the state would want to sponsor a commemoration for men like him.


BB

They upheld the law existing at the time, and people don't have to be of the "unionist persuasion" to appreciate this. If there was ever a threat from dissidents on a grand scale now, the GS would probably act in the same way that the RIC did then.

Dan Breen was bound to disagree, simply because he was on the opposing side.

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

They upheld the law existing at the time, and people don't have to be of the "unionist persuasion" to appreciate this. If there was ever a threat from dissidents on a grand scale now, the GS would probably act in the same way that the RIC did then.

Dan Breen was bound to disagree, simply because he was on the opposing side.

That would be the AGS which are answerable to an Irish government yes?

One would hope that AGS would answer to a democratically elected Irish government and not serve a foreign power in suppressing the Dáil like the RIC did. They did not serve the Irish people, they served a foreign power, Britain.

The upheld law yes, the law of a foreign power, British law. They fought against an army which had an overwhelming democratic mandate. One would hope AGS would not try to suppress the Irish peoples sovereignty and fight to subjugate them to a colonial power.

AGS and the RIC are utterly different. One is controlled by and answerable to the Irish people. The other was not and tried (and succeeded in doing so for a long time) to suppress the Irish people and keep them subjugated.

Dan Breen and company during the Tan War were on the other side yes, the Irish peoples side.

Your hypothetical situation is nonsensical I am afraid.

As I said I don't mind if Unionists, or whoever, want to commemorate and celebrate the RIC, but their role should not be revised and played down, in doing so it casts Irish freedom fighters in a bad light (perhaps thats the aim, I see Myers is all over it, Harris can't be far behind) and as such the Irish government should have no part in celebrating the RIC who committed many crimes in the name of the Crown against the Irish people.


BB


EDIT: There was a police force answerable to the Dáil in case you are wondering, the IRP (Irish Republican Police), these acted, in as much as they could, as "bobbies on the beat" keeping law and order.

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

That would be the AGS which are answerable to an Irish government yes?

One would hope that AGS would answer to a democratically elected Irish government and not serve a foreign power in suppressing the Dáil like the RIC did. They did not serve the Irish people, they served a foreign power, Britain.

The upheld law yes, the law of a foreign power, British law. They fought against an army which had an overwhelming democratic mandate. One would hope AGS would not try to suppress the Irish peoples sovereignty and fight to subjugate them to a colonial power.

AGS and the RIC are utterly different. One is controlled by and answerable to the Irish people. The other was not and tried (and succeeded in doing so for a long time) to suppress the Irish people and keep them subjugated.

Dan Breen and company during the Tan War were on the other side yes, the Irish peoples side.

Your hypothetical situation is nonsensical I am afraid.

As I said I don't mind if Unionists, or whoever, want to commemorate and celebrate the RIC, but their role should not be revised and played down, in doing so it casts Irish freedom fighters in a bad light (perhaps thats the aim, I see Myers is all over it, Harris can't be far behind) and as such the Irish government should have no part in celebrating the RIC who committed many crimes in the name of the Crown against the Irish people.


BB


EDIT: There was a police force answerable to the Dáil in case you are wondering, the IRP (Irish Republican Police), these acted, in as much as they could, as "bobbies on the beat" keeping law and order.

Let's see how many others think my hypothetical situation is nonsencical.
Your saying that the AGS and RIC being totally different is nonsensical. Both were created to uphold the law of the land, no matter which authority created those laws.

Had Britain won, the RIC would have been commended for its work, and the rebels, Dan Breen included, would have been charged with treason under the laws of the land.

The IRP was an illegal force in the eyes of the British and treated accordingly. Whose laws they were keeping, I haven't a clue.

Beir Bua

Just so it's clear, what exactly are you saying? Is it that the RIC where just simple policemen like the Gardaí and in the same situation (which simply cannot come about unless we are invaded or somehow the Gardaí fall under the control of some other state and not the south) the AGS would act in the same way as the RIC? It would suppress the Dáil, fight against a democratically mandated army? It doesn't matter who made the laws? Really?

This is a rather preposterous, fanciful suggestion which really has no place in a history forum. It's derailing the thread.

I suggest mentioning your theory to a Garda.

Even after the civil war when the IRA posed a threat, during the troubles and whatnot, AGS behaved in a fashion no where near the behavior of the RIC. (thats not to say that on occasion AGS didn't let themselves down by acting like thugs, but never in the same league of thuggery and violence as the RIC)

The IRP where illegal in the eyes of the British, NOT in the eyes of the democratically elected Irish government, the Dáíl! The RIC where fighting against the Irish government in order to preserve the domination of a foreign power, you must have had some seriously bad experiences with AGS to believe they would do something like that! I am confident that AGS would side with the Irish people and government unlike the RIC.

Had Britain won (well, they kinda did in the end but thats an issue for another day) I am sure that just as in 1867 the British would have heralded their armed forces, RIC among them (remember the Tans and Auxies were supplementary forces to the RIC) for another bloody suppression of the Irish. As for Dan Breen, many Irish patriots like him where beaten, tortured and killed by the RIC. Some 'plods'. Where they just 'plods' when they gunned down spectators at a GAA match? <insert countless other examples here> Were the IRA wrong in targeting the RIC? If they were simply 'plods' the answer must be yes? Do you regard them as Dan Breen, the IRA and the Dáil did, as forces of the crown fighting against the Irish people?

After the Free State was set up many ex RIC men joined AGS. Typically these were members who had quit the RIC early on, perhaps switched sides or at least didn't stand against the Irish. Many other ex RIC men where hounded out of their communities because of what they did during the Tan War. Others went north and joined the RUC. Others kept their heads down and raked in pensions from the Free State. (quite a lot of aggro over that, was part of the treaty)

As for whose laws the IRP were 'keeping', they were the laws of the Irish Republic. You are aware I assume that the Dáil set up Courts for instance, civil authorities etc, and these where an integral part of the war effort and undermining British rule?

As I said in the beginning, the decent skins left the RIC rather than stand against the Irish people. Many joined the IRA in fact. I sense you have a degree of admiration for the RIC so I suspect we may go around in circles on this issue, something I have no interest in doing.




BB

johnny_doyle

Beir Bua wrote: »

(For example, it was mainly ordinary policemen who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday, albeit under Auxiliary command.)

Could you expand on this?

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

Just so it's clear, what exactly are you saying? Is it that the RIC where just simple policemen like the Gardaí and in the same situation (which simply cannot come about unless we are invaded or somehow the Gardaí fall under the control of some other state and not the south) the AGS would act in the same way as the RIC? It would suppress the Dáil, fight against a democratically mandated army? It doesn't matter who made the laws? Really?
This is a rather preposterous, fanciful suggestion which really has no place in a history forum. It's derailing the thread.
I suggest mentioning your theory to a Garda.
Even after the civil war when the IRA posed a threat, during the troubles and whatnot, AGS behaved in a fashion no where near the behavior of the RIC. (thats not to say that on occasion AGS didn't let themselves down by acting like thugs, but never in the same league of thuggery and violence as the RIC)
The IRP where illegal in the eyes of the British, NOT in the eyes of the democratically elected Irish government, the Dáíl! The RIC where fighting against the Irish government in order to preserve the domination of a foreign power, you must have had some seriously bad experiences with AGS to believe they would do something like that! I am confident that AGS would side with the Irish people and government unlike the RIC.
Had Britain won (well, they kinda did in the end but thats an issue for another day) I am sure that just as in 1867 the British would have heralded their armed forces, RIC among them (remember the Tans and Auxies were supplementary forces to the RIC) for another bloody suppression of the Irish. As for Dan Breen, many Irish patriots like him where beaten, tortured and killed by the RIC. Some 'plods'. Where they just 'plods' when they gunned down spectators at a GAA match? <insert countless other examples here> Were the IRA wrong in targeting the RIC? If they were simply 'plods' the answer must be yes? Do you regard them as Dan Breen, the IRA and the Dáil did, as forces of the crown fighting against the Irish people?
After the Free State was set up many ex RIC men joined AGS. Typically these were members who had quit the RIC early on, perhaps switched sides or at least didn't stand against the Irish. Many other ex RIC men where hounded out of their communities because of what they did during the Tan War. Others went north and joined the RUC. Others kept their heads down and raked in pensions from the Free State. (quite a lot of aggro over that, was part of the treaty)
As for whose laws the IRP were 'keeping', they were the laws of the Irish Republic. You are aware I assume that the Dáil set up Courts for instance, civil authorities etc, and these where an integral part of the war effort and undermining British rule?
As I said in the beginning, the decent skins left the RIC rather than stand against the Irish people. Many joined the IRA in fact. I sense you have a degree of admiration for the RIC so I suspect we may go around in circles on this issue, something I have no interest in doing.
BB

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, they have to be a unionist, or have an admiration for the RIC? This is complete nonsense. I like to examine a situation from the point of view of both sides, and the reality of the situation as it existed at the time.
It also seems to me that anything that you don't agree with “has no place in a history forum”, or is "derailing the thread".

You failed to understand my AGS/RIC comparison, so I suggest you read it again. I made no mention of the AGS being controlled by another state, or anything else you seem to have added into the equation to suit your purpose. If there was a threat to the Irish state from internal dissident forces, the AGS would act in the same way that the RIC did in attempting to bring the insurrection to an end. It's completely naive to think otherwise.

Anything that was set up outside the remit of the law at the time of the War of Independence was illegal, and that's the reality. This included the First Daíl and anything springing from it, including the setting up of the IRP.
The MPs were democratically elected, but they also acted outside of their remit, again based on the laws at the time.

Your one-sided view tells us that people left the RIC because they supported the Nationalist struggle, or didn't want to fight their fellow Irishmen, but because you don't want to see beyond that, you don't mention that an indeterminate number of them left because they valued their lives more than their jobs. I think the vast majority of them never signed up to become members of a paramilitary police-force, which is probably what it evolved into when the War of Independence took hold.
In the end, it was a free-for-all, with both sides using whatever means at their disposal to survive.

Even after the truce, and before the independent state came into being, the RIC was still the only legal police-force in the land, despite your views.

Beir Bua

johnny_doyle wrote: »

Could you expand on this?

I don't have my books at hand so I will have to get back to you on this with exact references but the raiding party was made up of Auxiliaries, with Major Mills in overall charge, some Black and Tans and then regular police. The initial lorries were Black and Tans, these men burst into the ground reportedly chasing ticket sellers who did a runner when they saw the trucks. Subsequent trucks contained regular RIC men who upon hearing the commotion started firing indiscriminately at those clambering over walls out of the ground or running away. If you are ever outside the entrance to Hill 16 on St Josephs Ave take a look at the railway bridge, you can still see the bullet holes. I believe those bullet holes are from the "regular" RIC (of course they were all RIC men, caps and all, though not all natives) when they started firing at civilians fleeing. The Tans where mainly in the GAA ground at this point.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

Just so it's clear, what exactly are you saying? Is it that the RIC where just simple policemen like the Gardaí and in the same situation (which simply cannot come about unless we are invaded or somehow the Gardaí fall under the control of some other state and not the south) the AGS would act in the same way as the RIC? It would suppress the Dáil, fight against a democratically mandated army? It doesn't matter who made the laws? Really?

This is a rather preposterous, fanciful suggestion which really has no place in a history forum. It's derailing the thread.

I suggest mentioning your theory to a Garda.

Even after the civil war when the IRA posed a threat, during the troubles and whatnot, AGS behaved in a fashion no where near the behavior of the RIC. (thats not to say that on occasion AGS didn't let themselves down by acting like thugs, but never in the same league of thuggery and violence as the RIC)

If we exclude the period 1918 until 1923 then what exactly do you see the large difference in role as being? Both forces in normal times fulfilled a very similar role. Many members who served up until resigning in 1917-20 went back to the same roles in the new force post independence. Pensions were paid by the Irish government to retirees of AGS for their time spent in the RIC.

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, they have to be a unionist, or have an admiration for the RIC? This is complete nonsense. I like to examine a situation from the point of view of both sides, and the reality of the situation as it existed at the time.
It also seems to me that anything that you don't agree with “has no place in a history forum”, or is "derailing the thread".

You failed to understand my AGS/RIC comparison, so I suggest you read it again. I made no mention of the AGS being controlled by another state, or anything else you seem to have added into the equation to suit your purpose. If there was a threat to the Irish state from internal dissident forces, the AGS would act in the same way that the RIC did in attempting to bring the insurrection to an end. It's completely naive to think otherwise.

Anything that was set up outside the remit of the law at the time of the War of Independence was illegal, and that's the reality. This included the First Daíl and anything springing from it, including the setting up of the IRP.
The MPs were democratically elected, but they also acted outside of their remit, again based on the laws at the time.

Your one-sided view tells us that people left the RIC because they supported the Nationalist struggle, or didn't want to fight their fellow Irishmen, but because you don't want to see beyond that, you don't mention that an indeterminate number of them left because they valued their lives more than their jobs. I think the vast majority of them never signed up to become members of a paramilitary police-force, which is probably what it evolved into when the War of Independence took hold.
In the end, it was a free-for-all, with both sides using whatever means at their disposal to survive.

Even after the truce, and before the independent state came into being, the RIC was still the only legal police-force in the land, despite your views.

This is the last I'm saying on this point as I don't feel like going round and round in circles with you, but I didn't add things into the equation to suit my purpose, I was pointing out that AGS will never find themselves in a situation like the RIC were in, as if there was a popular uprising of the scale of the Tan War the revolution would come through the ballot box rather than on the battlefield.

The "Republic of Ireland" has faced internal threats, the IRA. They introduced internment, censorship and a host of other measures. However they did not send AGS around the country massacring people at football games or burning homes for example. I suggest you ask over on the Garda forum if the members of the force there would act in the same way as the RIC did, summary executions and all, if they were faced with a popular uprising on the same scale as the Tan War. Ask them as well if they would associate with and welcome force like the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries. Ask them would they assist those forces in raping the country and burning down towns.


BB

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

This is the last I'm saying on this point as I don't feel like going round and round in circles with you, but I didn't add things into the equation to suit my purpose, I was pointing out that AGS will never find themselves in a situation like the RIC were in, as if there was a popular uprising of the scale of the Tan War the revolution would come through the ballot box rather than on the battlefield.

The "Republic of Ireland" has faced internal threats, the IRA. They introduced internment, censorship and a host of other measures. However they did not send AGS around the country massacring people at football games or burning homes for example. I suggest you ask over on the Garda forum if the members of the force there would act in the same way as the RIC did, summary executions and all, if they were faced with a popular uprising on the same scale as the Tan War. Ask them as well if they would associate with and welcome force like the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries. Ask them would they assist those forces in raping the country and burning down towns.


BB

It's not sinking in is it?

This is more stuck in a cul-de-sac than going round in circles.

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If we exclude the period 1918 until 1923 then what exactly do you see the large difference in role as being? Both forces in normal times fulfilled a very similar role. Many members who served up until resigning in 1917-20 went back to the same roles in the new force post independence. Pensions were paid by the Irish government to retirees of AGS for their time spent in the RIC.

But that is the exact time period under examination here is it not? It is a state sponsored commemoration for men killed by the IRA during that period that is being requested is it not?

As for the bold points, yes, I have said as much already, however you neglect to mention that the Free State paid those pensions because they had to (well, the British demanded they do), not because they wanted to. It was quite a contentious issue as all ex RIC people qualified no matter what degree of thuggery they engaged in. Anecdotally my own grandfather who was quite a senior Garda was disgusted that the "enemy" which acted so brutally against the Irish populace, were being paid quite large sums of cash by the Irish people. Of course as I already said the real bad eggs where not allowed join AGS, typically as you said those who joined AGS had left the RIC early on and perhaps switched sides.

Those who could not join AGS in some cases emigrated (in many instances they had no choice, their community didn't want them based on the treatment they received from them), others who hadn't had their fill of serving British interests in Ireland went north and joined the RUC, (surprisingly at its inception a large amount of the RUC were Catholic, the sectarian and violent nature of the RUC from its foundation insured that percentage, around 40% IIRC, rapidly dwindled) others internally migrated to different parts of the Free State and started a new life.

Now, outside the time period you mentioned the RIC perhaps did act as an ordinary police force, however as I already mentioned they strove to suppress any struggle for Irish freedom, 1867, 1916 etc. At all times they were a British force whose primary aim was to serve British interests, a task they did admirably for many years. At all times they were a foreign police force controlled by a foreign government, this is a huge difference as they did not serve the Irish people.

Now, the elephant in the room is of course the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries who were a part of the RIC. Now, lets pretend that certain posters here are right and that the RIC were simple policemen, plods, bobbies on the beat (in reality of course those posters are wrong and are engaging in historical revisionism although I understand why, one doesn't like to think about traitors, its shameful and embarrassing, thats why typically the historical narrative focuses on the foreign wings of the RIC), these men offered huge logistical support and intelligence (this is what made them such dangerous enemies to the IRA, they knew the local terrain and populace) to the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries. This in itself, leaving aside the physical actions the RIC took, murdering, burning, beating etc, qualifies them as enemies.



BB

jonniebgood1

In considering the original article it seems that some of the facts were distorted or exagerated

The Garda Síochána Retired Members Association wishes to disassociate itself from this article which is a distortion of the real facts in this matter. http://www.gardaretired.com/news/163-article-in-the-sunday-independent-20-november-2011-concerning-a-memorial-to-deceased-members-of-the-royal-irish-constabulary.html

Also raising some inaccuracies was the chief executive of Glasnevin trust:

the report said that the cemetery "is famous for its links to 1916 and the War of Independence". In fact, Glasnevin Cemetery is also famous for being a shared burial place for people from all traditions in Irish society since it was established in 1832 by Daniel O'Connell to "bury people of all religions and none".

People who fought for Irish independence lie side by side with those who fought for the Commonwealth in various wars. It is also known as the resting place of victims of cholera, famine and infants who had a very short life and are laid to rest in the Angels' Plot. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/city-of-the-dead-2946929.html

It seems from these points of view that the article was over emphasising its story. This is unfortunate given the type of story. None the less it is interesting to consider what type of memorial to RIC would or would not be acceptable.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

As for the bold points, yes, I have said as much already, however you neglect to mention that the Free State paid those pensions because they had to (well, the British demanded they do), not because they wanted to. It was quite a contentious issue as all ex RIC people qualified no matter what degree of thuggery they engaged in. Anecdotally my own grandfather who was quite a senior Garda was disgusted that the "enemy" which acted so brutally against the Irish populace, were being paid quite large sums of cash by the Irish people. Of course as I already said the real bad eggs where not allowed join AGS, typically as you said those who joined AGS had left the RIC early on and perhaps switched sides.

Do you have any evidence that the Irish government objected to the payment of pensions that involved time served by Garda in the RIC?
Also do you have any information on people not allowed join AGS due to their former roles? This would be interesting.

Beir Bua wrote: »

Now, the elephant in the room is of course the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries who were a part of the RIC. Now, lets pretend that certain posters here are right and that the RIC were simple policemen, plods, bobbies on the beat (in reality of course those posters are wrong and are engaging in historical revisionism although I understand why, one doesn't like to think about traitors, its shameful and embarrassing, thats why typically the historical narrative focuses on the foreign wings of the RIC), these men offered huge logistical support and intelligence (this is what made them such dangerous enemies to the IRA, they knew the local terrain and populace) to the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries. This in itself, leaving aside the physical actions the RIC took, murdering, burning, beating etc, qualifies them as enemies.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the RIC had a normal policing role during 1919-23. For most of them though the job changed beyond recognition in this time period. I would agree that the Auxiliaries and Black and tans are a different consideration and I'm not sure I would be happy with commemoration of them. I am sure a convincing argument could be made for both sides.

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that the Irish government objected to the payment of pensions that involved time served by Garda in the RIC?
Also do you have any information on people not allowed join AGS due to their former roles? This would be interesting.

As I said earlier I don't have access to books at the moment (staying with family over Christmas) but under the Anglo Irish treaty the Free State had to pay the pensions of many ex British public servants, not only those who served in the RIC but a whole host of people. Now many of these would have, like the RIC, aided the British in every way they could and would have made the lives of many Irish people miserable, they may have even killed, beat or harassed the local populace. I think it is obvious how many Irish people would object to their tax payments going to people like that.

Now, as I said it was a general rule that all public servants pre Free State got a pension. The anger was generally not focused specifically at ex RIC who joined the Garda but people who had fought for the British and then did nothing to aid the Free State. Say an Ex-RIC man who didnt join the Gardaí and started a new life on the other side of the country. It's kinda like the way there is anger at politicians like Bertie and Cowen getting pensions, politicians who greatly harmed Ireland, and not at other politicians who served their country well.

Now, as for the "bad eggs"... Remember, the IRA would have had blacklists with the names of the most notorious RIC members. These men were either shot after the truce or simply forced to leave the country, in fact I recall reading an account which detailed how when the RIC gathered to surrender their arms the IRA escorted many of the worst among them to the ports and railway stations. Local IRA units also issued ultimatums to some RIC members following the truce giving them 24hrs to leave the area forever or be shot. Many fled to England, IIRC many went to Cheshire. Many others fled to the North, as I previously said many joined the RUC. (40% Catholic when it was founded, the RIC was around 70% Catholic).

There was huge animosity between recruits of the new "Civic Guard" and their instructors (many recruits were ex-IRA, instructors were ex-RIC. This led to the so called "Kildare Mutiny", recruits rebelled against their instructors because of their actions in/association with the RIC). As an aside, the "Civic Guard" was headed by Michael Staines, the former head of the IRP. He had to resign after the mutiny and Duffy took over.

Following the mutiny the force was reorganized as the unarmed AGS which was organized in a much more civilian fashion than the RIC, which was styled as an army both in rank and practice(military structure, housing, drilling, weapons etc, it was paramilitary in nature). The selection process for AGS was also subsequently more stringent in light of the reason for the mutiny.

A further point, as you are no doubt aware many of the RIC men killed were executed in their homes, pubs and in some cases even outside churches. A great deal of these RIC men were deliberately targeted (not killed in ambushes for instance where any member of the RIC could have been killed) based on IRA intelligence, they were the worst of the worst, the most vindictive, the most violent, the blacklisted. Men like Gerard Smyth. A state sponsored commemoration for these people? No thanks.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the RIC had a normal policing role during 1919-23. For most of them though the job changed beyond recognition in this time period. I would agree that the Auxiliaries and Black and tans are a different consideration and I'm not sure I would be happy with commemoration of them. I am sure a convincing argument could be made for both sides.

Personally, like the Fenians and others did I would regard the RIC at any time in its history as a major tool which the British State used to keep the Irish subjugated. Enforcing mass evictions and the like.

I would ask that seen as you don't think a memorial for the Black and Tans would be suitable, why do you think a memorial for a group of people who did the exact same things as the Black and Tans, and helped the Black and Tans do what they did, is suitable?

As I alluded to earlier a major reason why people focus almost exclusively on the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries is that they like to think that all the native Irish were decent sorts, even those who sided with the British. It is a nice thought, and I wish it were true, but throughout Irish history there have always been people who betrayed their own and served the oppressor. Their role, though it is uncomfortable and perhaps shameful in some peoples eyes, should not be revised, ignored or played down.

Its like the informers, you don't hear much mention of the huge problem the IRA had with informers selling the Irish people out, you hear even less about the brutal ways in which the IRA dealt with those traitors.

Now people can commemorate these people all they want, however I feel that the government should not support it in the Irish peoples name or supply any tax money to aid this venture. (many Irish patriots memorials are erected, cleaned and repaired by fantastic organisations like the NGA and not the govt for example) If they have their hearts set on building some sort of memorial they should do it privately off their own backs and not get any aid from the government.


BB

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

Let's see how many others think my hypothetical situation is nonsencical.
Your saying that the AGS and RIC being totally different is nonsensical. Both were created to uphold the law of the land, no matter which authority created those laws.

Oh but this very much is the heart of the matter. For all the obvious reasons, starting with that minor issue of representative democracy free from a foreign occupation that was based entirely upon the military conquest of Ireland/mass murder and dispossession of the native Irish by the British state.

To wilfully brush aside this rather germane difference in legitimacy between AGS and the forces of the British crown in Ireland is, at best, disingenuous.

johnny_doyle

Beir Bua wrote: »

Men like Gerard Smyth. A state sponsored commemoration for these people? No thanks.

other than the Listowel speech and then being shot, what did Gerald Smyth do during his time with the RIC? I'm aware of his service in the "Great War" but vague on his time with the RIC.

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

Oh but this very much is the heart of the matter. For all the obvious reasons, starting with that minor issue of representative democracy free from a foreign occupation that was based entirely upon the military conquest of Ireland/mass murder and dispossession of the native Irish by the British state.
To wilfully brush aside this rather germane difference in legitimacy between AGS and the forces of the British crown in Ireland is, at best, disingenuous.

I'll try not to mention the name of the previous owner of Ireland more than once, in case you come out in a rash.:D

The Irish state pretty much inherited all of the laws and legal trappings from the British, so basically the AGS has been upholding the same laws as the RIC. The only difference that I can see is the body to which each swore its allegiance.

Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'd also assume that the laws upheld by the IRP were exactly the same as those upheld by the RIC (with certain obvious exceptions e.g. The treason laws).

ejmaztec

johnny_doyle wrote: »

other than the Listowel speech and then being shot, what did Gerald Smyth do during his time with the RIC? I'm aware of his service in the "Great War" but vague on his time with the RIC.

I'm wondering whether any information pertinent to his appointment is still under lock and key in London, with any other official documents that still haven't been disclosed. I think that there are a lot of War of Independence papers that are still regarded as too sensitive to be released.

They obviously thought it a good idea to appoint an ex-military man to control the RIC in Munster, and the fact that he was a military mean makes me think that he was trying to turn the RIC into something that it was not i.e. a para-military police-force as I mentioned in an earlier post.

laoch na mona

a monument to the black and tans in Ireland would be on par with a statue of Hitler in Israel

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm wondering whether any information pertinent to his appointment is still under lock and key in London, with any other official documents that still haven't been disclosed. I think that there are a lot of War of Independence papers that are still regarded as too sensitive to be released.

They obviously thought it a good idea to appoint an ex-military man to control the RIC in Munster, and the fact that he was a military mean makes me think that he was trying to turn the RIC into something that it was not i.e. a para-military police-force as I mentioned in an earlier post.

How do you define paramilitary and how does the RIC not satisfy that definition?

Remember the RIC unlike the police in Britain were organized along military lines. Their ranks were based on British military ones (unlike the Police in Britain). They lived in Barracks like the army. They were armed with rifles/carbines. They engaged in military drills and wore military style uniforms (resembled those of the Rifle Brigade in the British army).

No offense intended but you seem to have an erroneous impression of what the RIC actually were, they were not like the police in Britain at the time, is that the impression you are under? That they were like Victorian police portrayed in stories like Sherlock Holmes? It's not an unreasonable thing to assume, but due to Ireland's long, proud history of rebellion it was necessary that the RIC not be like police in Britain but be a pseudo military force.

That is why it was imperative that AGS be unarmed and civilian.

BB

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

How do you define paramilitary and how does the RIC not satisfy that definition?

Remember the RIC unlike the police in Britain were organized along military lines. Their ranks were based on British military ones (unlike the Police in Britain). They lived in Barracks like the army. They were armed with rifles/carbines. They engaged in military drills and wore military style uniforms (resembled those of the Rifle Brigade in the British army).

No offense intended but you seem to have an erroneous impression of what the RIC actually were, they were not like the police in Britain at the time, is that the impression you are under? That they were like Victorian police portrayed in stories like Sherlock Holmes? It's not an unreasonable thing to assume, but due to Ireland's long, proud history of rebellion it was necessary that the RIC not be like police in Britain but be a pseudo military force.

That is why it was imperative that AGS be unarmed and civilian.

BB

At the time, the RIC wasn't the only armed police-force.

The nearest a mainland British police force ever came to being routinely armed was in 1884 in London, following the murder of two officers. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner of the day gave officers permission to carry revolvers on night patrols. This persisted until 1936 when guns were required to be kept in a locked cupboard at police stations.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/police-arms-and-weaponry

I think it a safe bet to say that there weren't (and still aren't) many police-forces on the planet that didn't involve themselves in military-style drilling.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

It's not an unreasonable thing to assume, but due to Ireland's long, proud history of rebellion it was necessary that the RIC not be like police in Britain but be a pseudo military force.

That is why it was imperative that AGS be unarmed and civilian.

BB

This is not why AGS are unarmed. There predecessors, the Civic guard that were formed in 1922 were initially armed.

The Civic Guards were initially armed and trained at the Royal Dublin Society Showgrounds, Ballsbridge, Dublin and transferred from there to Kildare Military Barracks on 25 April 1922. Following a mutiny in Kildare the first commissioner, Michael Staines, T.D. tendered his resignation on 18 August and he was succeeded as by General Eoin O'Duffy on 10 September. Dublin Castle and nearby Ship Street Barracks was taken over by the Civic Guards on 17 August 1922. It was here that 19 year old Charles Eastwood, Civic Guard 1017 was accidentally shot dead by a colleague, Leo Herde, Civic Guard 1498 on 20 September. It was decided that the Civic Guards would henceforth be an unarmed police force. http://www.policehistory.com/issues.html

The new organisation became an unarmed force following the accidental shooting of 19-year-old member 1017 Charles Eastwood by a colleague at Ship Street Barracks on 20 September 1922, leading to the decision that the force would now be unarmed.

The name An Garda Síochána was adopted on 8 August 1923, with the amalgamation of the Dublin Metropolitan Police taking place in 1925.
http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/392/itemId/10945/Our-Garda-and-army-special-forces.aspx

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

At the time, the RIC wasn't the only armed police-force.



http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/police-arms-and-weaponry

I think it a safe bet to say that there weren't (and still aren't) many police-forces on the planet that didn't involve themselves in military-style drilling.

Correct- The London Metropolitan police actually used the same Webley revolver as the RIC for night time patrols.

Guns start to sell again by 1909 and all the Webley factories now specialize in their own guns. Revolvers are made at Weaman Street, shotguns are made at Scott's factory, the Premier Works in Lancaster Street. and shotguns at the Ellis concern. During this time, up to the Great War, Webley revolvers were taking honors at the shooting matches in England, specifically the NRA matches at Bisley. The company had developed automatic pistols, and after the Sydney Street Outrage a .32 model was adopted by the London Police departments among others http://oldbritishguns.com/webley-a-scott

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

At the time, the RIC wasn't the only armed police-force.



http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/police-arms-and-weaponry

I think it a safe bet to say that there weren't (and still aren't) many police-forces on the planet that didn't involve themselves in military-style drilling.

What is the point?

Why cherry pick one aspect (they were armed) and ignore everything else I said and asked?

How were they not paramilitary? I think I have demonstrated that they clearly were and were different to the police force in Britain who were more civilian in nature (like AGS are) and not a pseudo military force, which you say that the RIC were not, why do you hold that opinion in the face of the facts? Do you have a different definition of paramilitary than I do?


BB

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is not why AGS are unarmed. There predecessors, the Civic guard that were formed in 1922 were initially armed.

It is part of the reason, people, especially the recruits at the Kildare Mutiny were wary of the ex-RIC elements so the AGS was intrinsically different than the RIC in organization and operation, this was essential so the populace would have faith in the new police service especially seen as a number of members were ex-RIC men, they had to be seen as reformed, being unarmed was a central part of this.


BB

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

It is part of the reason, people, especially the recruits at the Kildare Mutiny were wary of the ex-RIC elements so the AGS was intrinsically different than the RIC in organization and operation, this was essential so the populace would have faith in the new police service especially seen as a number of members were ex-RIC men, they had to be seen as reformed, being unarmed was a central part of this.
BB

But was it intrinsically different outside of 1917-22? I understand the problems people have with commemorating this period but outside of that time I do not see any proof that the RIC function was different to other Police services in other countries. They were based in the community, not aloof in separate areas in most rural places and their role was keeping the peace, not making trouble. For the most part this would have been in the general agreement of the community.

Due to their ubiquity from the 1850s the RIC were tasked with a range of civil and local government duties together with their existing ones, closely tying the constables to their local communities. By 1901 there were around 1,600 barracks and some 11,000 constables. The majority of the lower ranks in rural areas were of the same social class, religion and general background as their neighbours. Through their enforcement of evictions in rural Ireland and their approach to Land league leaders, the RIC had attracted widespread opprobrium among the Irish Catholic population during the nineteenth century. However, during the relative calm of the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, the RIC won general acceptance as an efficient organisation which served as a model for similar forces elsewhere in the British Empire and was no more unpopular at home than effective police forces generally are.

..............

The comparative ease of the RIC's existence was however increasingly troubled by the rise of the Home Rule campaign in the period prior to World War I.
http://www.royalirishconstabulary.com/

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

What is the point?

Why cherry pick one aspect (they were armed) and ignore everything else I said and asked?

How were they not paramilitary? I think I have demonstrated that they clearly were and were different to the police force in Britain who were more civilian in nature (like AGS are) and not a pseudo military force, which you say that the RIC were not, why do you hold that opinion in the face of the facts? Do you have a different definition of paramilitary than I do?


BB

All police forces have to be based along military lines, or how on earth can one expect uniformity or a sense of discipline. Just because a police force carries guns doesn't make it paramilitary. If the RIC were a paramilitary organisation, there would never have been Black and Tans or Auxiliaries, as they would have all been members of the RIC, and they clearly weren't.

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

But was it intrinsically different outside of 1917-22? I understand the problems people have with commemorating this period but outside of that time I do not see any proof that the RIC function was different to other Police services in other countries. They were based in the community, not aloof in separate areas in most rural places and their role was keeping the peace, not making trouble. For the most part this would have been in the general agreement of the community.

Ok, I'm growing bored with this topic now, I've written thousands of words in this thread, however I will entertain you one last time.

The RIC was organized in a military way as I have already said. It was a pseudo military force designed to suppress any rebellion without the help of the army. (this failed hence the need for the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries, but remember that these were part of the RIC and NOT the British army, they supplemented the RIC and carried out the same role they did but in higher numbers and with greater brutality [not that the regular RIC were not brutal, they undoubtedly were])

The RIC were very aloof, by design. Recruits could not marry for seven years and were sent to a distant part of the country where they had no relatives. When they married they were then sent to a part of the country where neither spouse had any relatives. They were purposefully kept at arms length from the general populace. They even lived in barracks like the army did. Some even lived with their families in the barracks. They were not like the police of the day in Britain and were hugely different to AGS. They were not community based, they were strangers shipped into an area.

They played a brutal role during the Land League and Land War eras backing up the British State and evicting tens of thousands of Irish men, women and children from their homes.

Finally, why on earth would you cite such a biased source to back you up? You are the mod I would expect better in all honesty. From memory that site describes the IRA killing of RIC men as "atrocities". It is a thoroughly unreliable site and due to it's biased nature you cannot take what it says like you have at face value, for instance it claims that the RIC where the "finest police force in the 19th and 20th century".


BB

Beir Bua

ejmaztec wrote: »

All police forces have to be based along military lines, or how on earth can one expect uniformity or a sense of discipline. Just because a police force carries guns doesn't make it paramilitary. If the RIC were a paramilitary organisation, there would never have been Black and Tans or Auxiliaries, as they would have all been members of the RIC, and they clearly weren't.

You seem to be struggling, let me detail it more clearly. Lets define "paramilitary"

: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force <a paramilitary border patrol> <paramilitary training>
— paramilitary noun

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) denoting or relating to a group of personnel with military structure functioning either as a civil force or in support of military forces

A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces.

The rank structure was paramilitary in nature, similar to that of the British Army of the period:
Inspector-General (insignia of a Lieutenant-General)
Deputy Inspector General (insignia of a Major-General)
Assistant Inspector General (insignia of a Brigadier-General)
Commissioner (insignia of a Colonel)
County Inspector (insignia of a Lieutenant-Colonel)
District Inspector 1st Class (insignia of a Major)
District Inspector 2nd Class (insignia of a Captain)
District Inspector 3rd Class (insignia of a Lieutenant)
Head Constable Major (insignia of a Warrant Officer)
Head Constable (insignia of a Warrant Officer)
Sergeant
Acting Sergeant (insignia of a Corporal)
Constable

They drilled like an army, they lived like an army, they looked like an army, they acted like an army, all in contrast to how the police in England for example were organized and operated. It is simply inaccurate to maintain that the RIC were not a paramilitary force, other police were armed yes, but they did not have the military structure or modi operandi the RIC did.

Finally, the Auxiliaries and Black and Tans were part of the RIC, the RIC didn't have sufficient numbers so these men were drafted in to supplement the RIC.

The AGS were, in contrast (like police in England), a civilian force and not a pseudo military one like the RIC.


BB

johnny_doyle

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'm wondering whether any information pertinent to his appointment is still under lock and key in London, with any other official documents that still haven't been disclosed. I think that there are a lot of War of Independence papers that are still regarded as too sensitive to be released.

They obviously thought it a good idea to appoint an ex-military man to control the RIC in Munster, and the fact that he was a military mean makes me think that he was trying to turn the RIC into something that it was not i.e. a para-military police-force as I mentioned in an earlier post.

He appears to have been seconded to the RIC and was still a serving officer. As a result he has a Commonwealth War Graves Commission grave. Auxiliaries and Black and Tans killed weren't eligible for CWGC graves as they were not serving soldiers/sailors/airmen.

I understand the controversy about his comments at Listowel and why he might be deemed a high profile target as a result. Given the good propaganda and publicity machinery that SF/IRA had there should be more information in the public domain about his activities.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

Ok, I'm growing bored with this topic now, I've written thousands of words in this thread, however I will entertain you one last time.

The RIC was organized in a military way as I have already said. It was a pseudo military force designed to suppress any rebellion without the help of the army. (this failed hence the need for the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries, but remember that these were part of the RIC and NOT the British army, they supplemented the RIC and carried out the same role they did but in higher numbers and with greater brutality [not that the regular RIC were not brutal, they undoubtedly were])

The RIC were very aloof, by design. Recruits could not marry for seven years and were sent to a distant part of the country where they had no relatives. When they married they were then sent to a part of the country where neither spouse had any relatives. They were purposefully kept at arms length from the general populace. They even lived in barracks like the army did. Some even lived with their families in the barracks. They were not like the police of the day in Britain and were hugely different to AGS. They were not community based, they were strangers shipped into an area.

They played a brutal role during the Land League and Land War eras backing up the British State and evicting tens of thousands of Irish men, women and children from their homes.

Finally, why on earth would you cite such a biased source to back you up? You are the mod I would expect better in all honesty. From memory that site describes the IRA killing of RIC men as "atrocities". It is a thoroughly unreliable site and due to it's biased nature you cannot take what it says like you have at face value, for instance it claims that the RIC where the "finest police force in the 19th and 20th century".

You may have written thousands of words but if you want to convince people of your opinions you need to substantiate them. You have said that you have evidence to back up your opinion but it is not with you at the moment. So I have been patient but now you are seeming to be impatient in your insistence that the RIC were a wholely paramilitary organisation whereas it seems clear to me that for the greater part of their existence they fulfilled a role of law and order in the same way as other police services in the late 19th century. You have discounted the first source I gave that suggested the role of the RIC for quite a period of time was standard rather than military. Diarmaid Ferriter suggested similar in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000', pg 65. "policing was perhaps not to arduous of a task" He also refers on the same page to the contributions of ex-RIC men to the military bureau of the 1940s and 50s where a number of contributions were "adamant that there was nothing incompatible between their membership and a nationalist identity". He goes on to refer to one RIC man, JJ O'Connell who noted "that even his Fenian father approved of him joining. Regarding his duties in the early days he remembered a quiet time, occasionally punctuated by drink-induced disorder".
Hardly the paramiltary organisation or 'brutal' behaviour that you are suggesting even by the widest stretch of imagination. So before you get to "bored with this topic" you might properly back up your propositions.

Respectfully I would say that your contributions are welcome but you need to substantiate them better (sources) for them to be accepted.

Rebelheart

johnny_doyle wrote: »

I understand the controversy about his comments at Listowel and why he might be deemed a high profile target as a result. Given the good propaganda and publicity machinery that SF/IRA had there should be more information in the public domain about his activities.

:rolleyes:. Spot the anti-Irish, europhobic rightwing British nationalist.

jonniebgood1

Rebelheart wrote: »

:rolleyes:. Spot the anti-Irish, europhobic rightwing British nationalist.

Enough of this. The conversation is good and anymore of this or any response by other posters to this will result in an infraction. If there is any problem with this send me a PM as a response here will get an infraction.

Moderator.

johnny_doyle

Rebelheart wrote: »

:rolleyes:. Spot the anti-Irish, europhobic rightwing British nationalist.

where?

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You may have written thousands of words but if you want to convince people of your opinions you need to substantiate them. You have said that you have evidence to back up your opinion but it is not with you at the moment. So I have been patient but now you are seeming to be impatient in your insistence that the RIC were a wholely paramilitary organisation whereas it seems clear to me that for the greater part of their existence they fulfilled a role of law and order in the same way as other police services in the late 19th century. You have discounted the first source I gave that suggested the role of the RIC for quite a period of time was standard rather than military. Diarmaid Ferriter suggested similar in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000', pg 65. "policing was perhaps not to arduous of a task" He also refers on the same page to the contributions of ex-RIC men to the military bureau of the 1940s and 50s where a number of contributions were "adamant that there was nothing incompatible between their membership and a nationalist identity". He goes on to refer to one RIC man, JJ O'Connell who noted "that even his Fenian father approved of him joining. Regarding his duties in the early days he remembered a quiet time, occasionally punctuated by drink-induced disorder".
Hardly the paramiltary organisation or 'brutal' behaviour that you are suggesting even by the widest stretch of imagination. So before you get to "bored with this topic" you might properly back up your propositions.

Respectfully I would say that your contributions are welcome but you need to substantiate them better (sources) for them to be accepted.

What part of anything I said was incorrect? I can assure you it is not, rather pitiful you berate me for not substantiating claims (which are obviously true to anyone with any understanding of the area, my claims have all been of a general nature, I have refrained from making specific claims [except about Bloody Sunday] because I can't currently supply references from primary or reliable secondary sources, however if you want me to back up anything in particular feel free to mention it and I will work from memory and supply a source) when in backing up your own you post excerpts from a pro unionist, self proclaimed revisionist website. If you feel that is a reliable source I see no point in conversing with you. Your quotes don't even contradict what I said!

I have explained how they were paramilitary in set up, do you dispute this? (Compare them to police in Britain, observe how their set up did not change greatly during the tan war, they mainly just got extra men). As for their "brutality" yes of course there were lulls but when the Irish people attempted to rise in any fashion they were brutally put down by the RIC on the orders of the British. That was their primary function, to maintain British rule in Ireland. It was in fulfilling that function they got the prefix Royal. That is why the British were confident the RIC could deal with the uprising, they were not just ordinary bobbies. See the 1867 rising and the land league/war for prime examples of their brutality outside the 1917-21 period.

I never said they were constantly running around the country acting like they did during the tan war throughout their history, but whenever British domination was threatened they acted brutally in suppressing the native populace. They were the main tool of the British in Ireland and they were the single most important tool in maintaining control over Ireland.

Great Irish patriots like Dan Breen recognized this and that is why they felt the RIC were the Irish peoples greatest enemy. Do you think they felt this way for another reason? What do you think of the IRA and before them the Fenians, targeting them in that case?


BB

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

What part of anything I said was incorrect? I can assure you it is not, rather pitiful you berate me for not substantiating claims (which are obviously true to anyone with any understanding of the area, my claims have all been of a general nature, I have refrained from making specific claims [except about Bloody Sunday] because I can't currently supply references from primary or reliable secondary sources, however if you want me to back up anything in particular feel free to mention it and I will work from memory and supply a source) when in backing up your own you post excerpts from a pro unionist, self proclaimed revisionist website. If you feel that is a reliable source I see no point in conversing with you. Your quotes don't even contradict what I said!

I have explained how they were paramilitary in set up, do you dispute this? (Compare them to police in Britain, observe how their set up did not change greatly during the tan war, they mainly just got extra men). As for their "brutality" yes of course there were lulls but when the Irish people attempted to rise in any fashion they were brutally put down by the RIC on the orders of the British. That was their primary function, to maintain British rule in Ireland. It was in fulfilling that function they got the prefix Royal. That is why the British were confident the RIC could deal with the uprising, they were not just ordinary bobbies. See the 1867 rising and the land league/war for prime examples of their brutality outside the 1917-21 period.

To simplify this you have said they were paramilitary. This means their function was military. The evidence I see (as per the passage I typed from Diarmaid Ferriters book) suggests that the role was in the main not military and it seems that the more militant approach was only apparant in times of uprising. I am quite open to looking at evidence that day to day RIC activity was similar to military but I just have not seen this thus far.

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

You seem to be struggling, let me detail it more clearly. Lets define "paramilitary"





They drilled like an army, they lived like an army, they looked like an army, they acted like an army, all in contrast to how the police in England for example were organized and operated. It is simply inaccurate to maintain that the RIC were not a paramilitary force, other police were armed yes, but they did not have the military structure or modi operandi the RIC did.

Finally, the Auxiliaries and Black and Tans were part of the RIC, the RIC didn't have sufficient numbers so these men were drafted in to supplement the RIC.

The AGS were, in contrast (like police in England), a civilian force and not a pseudo military one like the RIC.


BB

That definition of paramilitary is too weak in my opinion, because if that's the universal definition, it must mean that the English police-force was also of a paramilitary nature, because it too was developed along military lines. My idea of a paramilitary police-force would be for a group like the B&Ts, which did have military training. Military training to me isn't just beeing shown how to fire a weapon, and marching up and down.

When Sir Robert Peel decided to set up a police-force for London (7 years after the RIC was founded), he wanted the London Metropolitan Police to be similar to the RIC.
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/SirRobertPeel.htm

Following the success of the Royal Irish Constabulary it became obvious that something similar was needed in London, so in 1829 when Sir Robert was Home Secretary in Lord Liverpool’s Tory Cabinet, the Metropolitan Police Act was passed, providing permanently appointed and paid Constables to protect the capital as part of the Metropolitan Police Force.

It seems to me that the RIC was seen as a model, and the same model was used to set up any Crown police-forces afterwards.


You say that the RIC “looked” like an army and “acted” like an army. I'd say that, despite your thinking that they wore military style clothing, they couldn't act like an army. If, as the statistics of post 1900 are accurate, i.e, there were 11000 barracks for 1600 RIC men, that would mean an average of 7 men at each, which couldn't “act” like an army even if they tried (unless it was a Hollywood movie).

Ireland was riddled with army barracks, so I don't think the country needed military actors, not with those men available.


By the time the War of Independence kicked off, Ireland hadn't seen much in the way of trouble for a long time, so the RIC got on with the same kind of mundane police-work that its English colleagues got on with. Some other statistics maintain that the RIC was no more disrespected than any other police-force at the time. This was of course years after it was involved in enforcing thousands of evictions from the estates, at which time it was hated with a vengeance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Constabulary


Even in times of insurrection, I think they acted in the same way as their English counterparts. The Sidney Street siege is a prime example of this. The police started out trying to bring the situation under control, but then had to call in the army because the people they were up against were armed to the teeth and the police couldn't win on their own.


I know this is Wiki, but it does give a good account of the action that took place in 1911, which is relatively close to the start of the Irish War of Independence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street


Nothing that you've come up with has proven to me that the RIC acted in a completely different way to the English police-forces of that time. And I still think, despite your assertions otherwise, that the AGS would act in exactly the same way now as the RIC did then, were a large group of Irish insurgents to decide that the ballot box wasn't going to get them the desired result.

Beir Bua

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To simplify this you have said they were paramilitary. This means their function was military. The evidence I see (as per the passage I typed from Diarmaid Ferriters book) suggests that the role was in the main not military and it seems that the more militant approach was only apparant in times of uprising. I am quite open to looking at evidence that day to day RIC activity was similar to military but I just have not seen this thus far.

Do some digging yourself, I'm sure you are capable.

Check how the Irish Constabulary during the famine served Britain by protecting and assisting Bailiffs in evicting tens of thousands of Irish people to their deaths. I've already mentioned the 1867 rising and the Land League/War eras. Their aim was always to protect Britain's interests, often at the expense of the native Irish.

Yes you are right, that role may only have been more apparent during times of struggle against colonial rule, but that role was always there. Perhaps I have given the impression that I think they went around behaving like thugs and murderers 24/7, if so I apologize. The point I have made is that their primary function was to maintain British rule by any means necessary, and that their organization reflected this in that they were a pseudo military force. That does not mean they were massacring people 24/7, it means that they were quite unlike AGS who were much more civilian in nature, this was to differentiate them from the RIC so the Irish people would accept them.

If you still believe I am lying or making things up then I am afraid you will have to wait until after Christmas when I return to my house, then I will supply quotes etc from some other academic.

Again I ask, why do you think the RIC deserve a state sponsored memorial dedicated to those who died during the Tan War? Please articulate why, I'm curious.

Again I ask what you think of the IRA, and in particular the Fenians before them, targeting and killing RIC members? Opinion on Soloheadbeg?

FInally I'll just say I won't lose any sleep if you don't believe me, for the benefit of the audience I felt obliged to confront the revisionism/errors in this thread, which I have done so, people will not be left with the exclusive impression that the RIC behaved like ordinary bobbies on the beat during the Tan War, which was the suggestion before I arrived.

And I still think, despite your assertions otherwise, that the AGS would act in exactly the same way now as the RIC did then, were a large group of Irish insurgents to decide that the ballot box wasn't going to get them the desired result.

Delusional. (look at how the free state dealt with the IRA, look at how the RUC behaved during the troubles while being utter thugs they were not as bad as the RIC. If you removed the sectarian nature of the RUC their behavior would have been better still, and I just can't imagine AGS being leagues worse than the RUC! The UDR were more reminiscent of the RIC)



BB

ejmaztec

Beir Bua wrote: »

Delusional. (look at how the free state dealt with the IRA, look at how the RUC behaved during the troubles while being utter thugs they were not as bad as the RIC. If you removed the sectarian nature of the RUC their behavior would have been better still, and I just can't imagine AGS being leagues worse than the RUC! The UDR were more reminiscent of the RIC)



BB

In relation to how the IRA was treated, I don't think you can ignore the atrocities of the Civil War. I live in Kerry, the home of the Ballyseedy massacre to name but one. I'm not surprised they kept a low profile after the Civil War, they must have been completely demoralised and washed up. The Free State kept a very close eye on their activities.

There is no doubt that RUC were a complete bunch of sectarian bastards (to put it into layman's terms), but this thread has nothing to do with them. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve any commemoration.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

Again I ask, why do you think the RIC deserve a state sponsored memorial dedicated to those who died during the Tan War? Please articulate why, I'm curious.

Where did I suggest that "the RIC deserve a state sponsored memorial dedicated to those who died during the Tan War?"

If you have taken this view of my posts then you are not reading them properly. I refer you back to posts 2 & 4 of this thread to clarify my view.

Beir Bua wrote: »

Again I ask what you think of the IRA, and in particular the Fenians before them, targeting and killing RIC members? Opinion on Soloheadbeg?

There are nuances in the answers to all these questions but in general I would admire those who put their lives on the line to fight for Irish freedom. I would be biased towards this position though as my family has ties to the IRA in the war of independence. I like to look at these things from both sides of the argument, there are always 2 different sides with 2 different views and often this can be understood.

For example I would say it was entirely possible to have an Irish man serve in the RIC and love his country (Ireland) passionately. You may say he was mistaken in the role he chose but it is a likely situation. Would you accept this suggestion?

Judgement Day

ejmaztec wrote: »

In relation to how the IRA was treated, I don't think you can ignore the atrocities of the Civil War. I live in Kerry, the home of the Ballyseedy massacre to name but one. I'm not surprised they kept a low profile after the Civil War, they must have been completely demoralised and washed up. The Free State kept a very close eye on their activities.

There is no doubt that RUC were a complete bunch of sectarian bastards (to put it into layman's terms), but this thread has nothing to do with them. As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve any commemoration.

This is quite an appalling generalisation in my opinion and a topic for a separate thread. While there were bad eggs in the RUC - as there were in the Gardai - in general they held the line against anarchy as did the RIC in their day. Today the PSNI and the Gardai continue to do their best to keep a lid on things. I find it offensive in the extreme for somebody to describe the whole force in this way. Happy Christmas.

ejmaztec

Judgement Day wrote: »

This is quite an appalling generalisation in my opinion and a topic for a separate thread. While there were bad eggs in the RUC - as there were in the Gardai - in general they held the line against anarchy as did the RIC in their day. Today the PSNI and the Gardai continue to do their best to keep a lid on things. I find it offensive in the extreme for somebody to describe the whole force in this way. Happy Christmas.

I withdraw my wild generalisation. Merry Christmas.

I look forward to having my eyes opened in another thread.

Seanchai

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'll try not to mention the name of the previous owner of Ireland more than once, in case you come out in a rash.:D

Oh no; please do. It's been a while since I've heard a British nationalist try to legitimise British rule in Ireland by instancing some nebulous past. I look forward to the specifics.

ejmaztec wrote: »

The Irish state pretty much inherited all of the laws and legal trappings from the British, so basically the AGS has been upholding the same laws as the RIC.

I don't believe anybody is saying otherwise. It would be an odd turn of events if AGS were to arrive and centuries of legislation had been overturned the night before. Why bother with the strawmen arguments?

ejmaztec wrote: »

The only difference that I can see is the body to which each swore its allegiance.

And herein lies your problem, and it seems to be a particularly British problem: you don't appear to understand the importance of legitimacy to rule. In Ireland, Britain did not have it; the government of the First Dáil did have it, as testified to by the 73 Sinn Féin TDs who were elected in 1918 standing upon an 'independent sovereign Ireland' platform, out of 105 TDs/MPs for the entire island. When this inconvenient reality happened, the British state overthrew democracy in Ireland and partitioned the country. In typical British hypocrisy, they've since been rabbiting on about "respecting democracy" in Ireland.

This lack of understanding of Max Weber's most famous thesis, the basis of political legitimacy, is all the more depressing because British nationalists so love to quote his "Protestant work ethic" thesis.