what if the 1916 leaders had not been executed?

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

On an aside here, what if any "military" activities did the labour and socialists engage in post the Rising.

Were there other rebels than the IRA/SF operating ?

Milk & Honey

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

That doesn't mean that Sinn Fein were not promising land.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The primary reason for SF's success in 1918 was the decision by the ILPTUC not to stand candidates. William O'Brien's coat-tailing of the nationalist movement allowed SF to assume the mantle of the liberation movement instead of the Labour movement. I it had stood the ILPTUC would probably not have won more than three or four seats in the election but would probably have deprived SF of a significant number of theirs.

Sinn Fein was thus a beneficiary of the threat of conscription, whether deserved or not.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

In the 1920 local elections SF got 27% of the vote on an all island basis - the same as Unionists and the ILPTUC won 19%. SF won 550 seats out of 1,700 - the ILPTUC won 394.

Sinn Fein had set up the First Dail by that time and was prosecuting the War of Independence. The pivotal even was the 1918 election.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I have no graw for the account so if it misses facts then I move on to the next analysis. Can you point me towards reviews, etc where it is discounted, I have read forum opinions on it already.

Here is a snippet. from the IT

Away from the archives, take James Stephens’s The Insurrection in Dublin , published in 1916 (and which we also drew from for our supplement). Dublin had hardly finished smouldering when it was published later in 1916, and no account better captures the confusion in Dublin during that week. Its unreliability is part of its appeal. Here was a writer in a city in flames, filled with fighters, lurkers, looters and rumours. He doesn’t know what is happening any more than anyone else, and his ignorance is what makes it so insightful.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0107/1224309929263.html

Its unreliability is what makes it useless as a source of history.He put out the first account with himself as a bystander and expert and he wasn't.

And lest we forget Arthur Griffith and his dual monarchy and Prince Joachim

HOW come we don't hear more about Prince Joachim? If there's one guy who gets short-changed in this whole 1916 business, it's Prince Joachim Franz Humbert of Prussia. Had the Easter Rising succeeded in giving the Brits the heave-ho, the name Joachim might be as popular in Ireland today as are Padraig, Eamonn, Sean, Michael and the names of all the other heroes.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/codswallop-about-1916-is-our-birthright-128922.html

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

Here is a snippet. from the IT



Its unreliability is what makes it useless as a source of history.He put out the first account with himself as a bystander and expert and he wasn't.

A bystander and not an expert. The same is true of most ordinary men. Thanks for searching the link- I spent some time looking for opinions on this and could not find many. I also checked in Ferriters book of the 20th century and he is not referenced in relation to 1916.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A bystander and not an expert. The same is true of most ordinary men. Thanks for searching the link- I spent some time looking for opinions on this and could not find many. I also checked in Ferriters book of the 20th century and he is not referenced in relation to 1916.

Not quite - the point is he was neither a bystander NOR an expert. He was writing a fictionalised version - it's what he did best. He wasn't even in Dublin city during the time he describes. That's why his work is not much use to historians.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I don't have the time to do that right now and I am aware that he gets quoted in lots of places and probably because it is free on-line.

Yes good old Google, serving up a warped rendition of events.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

A bystander and not an expert. The same is true of most ordinary men. Thanks for searching the link- I spent some time looking for opinions on this and could not find many. I also checked in Ferriters book of the 20th century and he is not referenced in relation to 1916.

It would not get a "look in" in Ferriters work as it is not a reliable source.

Usually in history the idea is you look at sources and debate their accuracy and that's normal. It's not what gets labelled as "revisionism" because it is the history method.

Whereas some writers recommend it as a source.

As recommended by An Phoblacht columnist and historian SHANE MacTHOMÁIS


The Insurrection in Dublin by James Stephens. It is an excellent account of how the average citizen felt during the Rebellion and is highly recommended.


http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/15107

I stopped looking at or reading Irish History for years because of the accuracy of the material.

See what I mean.

MarchDub

The local elections in 1920 confirmed Sinn Fein's position as the dominant nationalist party outside of the Ulster Unionist region securing 41% of the vote. But it was the relatively high showing of Sinn Fein within the Unionists' area that bothered the Unionists.

Proinsias Mac Aonghusa described the part that PR played in this and why the Unionists wanted to - and did - consequently abolish PR for the six county region local elections-

On the face of it it seems probable that the Unionists would have had an overwhelming victory in Belfast, and that Sinn Feiners alone would have been elected in the Dublin municipal elections, if these were held under the old system.

In fact the results achieved through P.R were as follows: Dublin elected 80 members to its Corporation of whom 42 were Sinn Feiners, 15 Labour, 12 Unionists, nine Nationalists and two Independents. Of the 60 seats to be filled in Belfast 35 went to the Unionists; Labour won 12, Sinn Fein and the Nationalists won five apiece and three were secured by Independents. The Republicans in Dublin were quite pleased with the result and said that what they wanted was fair representation for all on elected bodies. The same cannot be said for the dominant party in Belfast, which reiterated its threat to abolish P.R. as soon as it was humanly possible to do so.

Because of its excellent showing in Sligo, local bodies, newspapers and prominent citizens of all political views, apart from Ulster Unionists, all over Ireland, acclaimed it and advocated its introduction in all elections held in the country. Sinn Feiners as well as Southern Unionists. Labour men as well as Tory Nationalists spoke and wrote in its favour and when the Irish Local Government Bill was being drafted later that year, the P.R. principle of election was incorporated in it.

The Bill was bitterly opposed in the Commons by the Unionist representatives of Ulster, who saw in it a danger to their own supremacy. They knew that it would give Nationalists some representation on local bodies in areas where Unionists had majorities and where no other interest could secure seats under the relative majority system.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Not quite - the point is he was neither a bystander NOR an expert. He was writing a fictionalised version - it's what he did best. He wasn't even in Dublin city during the time he describes. That's why his work is not much use to historians.

Thats what I was looking for- "He wasn't even in Dublin city during the time he describes".

Where was he during the Rising week?

He is sourced in encyclopedias (not wiki's) as a source for the Rising which is a fairly serious mistake if it was fully a work of fiction. Even the Times piece quoted by CDfm suggests that he was in Dublin that week.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

It would not get a "look in" in Ferriters work as it is not a reliable source.

Usually in history the idea is you look at sources and debate their accuracy and that's normal. It's not what gets labelled as "revisionism" because it is the history method.

Whereas some writers recommend it as a source.

As recommended by An Phoblacht columnist and historian SHANE MacTHOMÁIS


The Insurrection in Dublin by James Stephens. It is an excellent account of how the average citizen felt during the Rebellion and is highly recommended.


http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/15107

I stopped looking at or reading Irish History for years because of the accuracy of the material.

See what I mean.

Very hard to figure. I started to search MacThomais and then quit- it could go on and on.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Very hard to figure. I started to search MacThomais and then quit- it could go on and on.

I don't see why Ferriter should include James Stephens as it is not a true account. History is based on facts so the Stephens book just does not belong.

MacThomais recommend's it and he has his own reasons and he may have a political agenda. Search him on an Poblacht.

What excludes Stephens is that it just does not fit or conflicts with other accounts on the basis that it is fiction, not fact.

Nobody can be dubbed a revisionist for crossing Stephens of the list as he should never be there.

Edit The Military Archive is going on-line shortly making real first hand accounts more accessable and that is something to look forward to.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I don't see why Ferriter should include James Stephens as it is not a true account. History is based on facts so the Stephens book just does not belong.

MacThomais recommend's it and he has his own reasons and he may have a political agenda. Search him on an Poblacht.

What excludes Stephens is that it just does not fit or conflicts with other accounts on the basis that it is fiction, not fact.

Nobody can be dubbed a revisionist for crossing Stephens of the list as he should never be there.

Edit The Military Archive is going on-line shortly making real first hand accounts more accessable and that is something to look forward to.

I think most people on here, amateur or historian would agree that the basis of our discussions need to be factually correct. It is difficult then to do this if we have recommendations by people who label themselves historians that turn out to be unreliable. If we have to analyse each historians agenda then alot of source material could be written off as is convenient to each ones own. I'm not arguing for any account by the way- just pointing out the obvious.

With regard to the Military archive is there a criteria for accounts to be accepted as 'real'. Is it based only on recorded archives from the 50's?

thecommietommy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Conscription was defeated as a result of a general strike by the ILPTUC - the British couldn't afford disruption to the supply lines by strikes. As for land-allocation - SF and the IRA actively prevented agricultural labourers from taking over landed estates.

Anyone familiar with the background of those who made up SF and the IRA would know that SF and the IRA were the agricultural labourers, as well as dockers, fishermen, construction etc

The primary reason for SF's success in 1918 was the decision by the ILPTUC not to stand candidates. William O'Brien's coat-tailing of the nationalist movement allowed SF to assume the mantle of the liberation movement instead of the Labour movement. I it had stood the ILPTUC would probably not have won more than three or four seats in the election but would probably have deprived SF of a significant number of theirs.

It's possible, it's also possible Labour didn't stand as they feared the back lash of opposing the nationalist SF vote. ( Similiar to the SDLP not standing against Bobby Sands in Fermanagh/S Tyrone in 1981)

In the 1920 local elections SF got 27% of the vote on an all island basis - the same as Unionists and the ILPTUC won 19%. SF won 550 seats out of 1,700 - the ILPTUC won 394.

I had a quick search as those results surprised me that you have there given the landslide SF had just 2 years earlier. Well it's a wiki so not always the most relaible, but the figures you give are for the urban vote. It also says for the rural vote that " The rural elections showed a much greater level of support for Sinn Féin in its core support area. It took control of 338 out of 393 local government bodies, county councils, boards of guardians and rural district councils across the whole island. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_local_elections,_1920#cite_note-3

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Anyone familiar with the background of those who made up SF and the IRA would know that SF and the IRA were the agricultural labourers, as well as dockers, fishermen, construction etc

In 1916 you didn't have the IRA and Sinn Fein was a fringe party.

It would be very interesting to see the emigration figures to Britain in the period and what were deemed as war workers.

The support in West Cork was linked to the Gaelic Revival and the GAA etc which is a bit different.

Peadar Ó Laoire & Roger Casement both had a hand in that in West Cork and I have yet to see a book that ties it up. It was a bit more local than national and neither was it homogenous throughout the country as you can't find the soviets that sprung up mentioned in many places.

How could you account for the likes of John Jinks , nationalist, small businessman and trade unionist ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056064820

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think most people on here, amateur or historian would agree that the basis of our discussions need to be factually correct. It is difficult then to do this if we have recommendations by people who label themselves historians that turn out to be unreliable. If we have to analyse each historians agenda then alot of source material could be written off as is convenient to each ones own. I'm not arguing for any account by the way- just pointing out the obvious.

I often come across sources that maybe MarchDub or Bannasidhe or Jolly Red Giant or others might read differently.

And, someone might put the source in context for me. So if I picked up on an account of the Battle's of the Boyne & Aughrim from Williamite source's(& I have) then whats wrong with getting the heads up from someone on the source.

"It is difficult then to do this if we have recommendations by people who label themselves historians that turn out to be unreliable."

I suppose that's why people study it as a discipline

With regard to the Military archive is there a criteria for accounts to be accepted as 'real'. Is it based only on recorded archives from the 50's?

I don't really want to go there as that is a wider discussion.

All I am saying is that it is generally accepted that James Stephens account is not a reliable "history" source .

That's not being disrespectful to the man or his oeuvre or the reasons behind his publication at that time.

The reason I posted the link on MacThomais was to give you some context for Stephens. Everyone approaches history with a bit of bias and if he was writing in a peer reviewed journal I imagine his approach would be somewhat different.

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

On an aside here, what if any "military" activities did the labour and socialists engage in post the Rising.

The labour movement did not engage in 'military' activities - such activities are counter to the instinctive operation of the labour movement. The 'activies' and 'weapons' of the labour movement are strikes, protests and occupations.

I would argue that these 'activities' were more effective than the IRA campaign during the War of Independence and significantly influenced how both the British and the leaders of the Nationalist movement reacted to the growing power of the labour movement during this period. For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That doesn't mean that Sinn Fein were not promising land.

The Nationalist movement promised a lot - but delivered little.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Sinn Fein was thus a beneficiary of the threat of conscription, whether deserved or not.

In electoral terms only - and that was only because of the abdication of the leaders of the labour movement who should have taken the lead role in the campaign for political, social and economic emancipation.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Sinn Fein had set up the First Dail by that time and was prosecuting the War of Independence. The pivotal even was the 1918 election.

I disagree - even as late as 1922 the potential existed for the labour movement to grab the bull by the horns and wrestle the leadership of the struggle from nationalism. If O'Brien and his cronies had called a general strike in support of the Munster Soviets it would have met with massive support from working class people and the rural poor and placed not just full independence on the agenda - but socialist revolution as well.

MarchDub wrote: »

The local elections in 1920 confirmed Sinn Fein's position as the dominant nationalist party outside of the Ulster Unionist region securing 41% of the vote. But it was the relatively high showing of Sinn Fein within the Unionists' area that bothered the Unionists.

As the dominant nationalist party yes - as the dominant political movement - no way. Sinn Fein got a free run in 1918 - in 1920 it did not - indeed the result would have been a lot closer if Tom Johnson hadn't been sabotaging the establishment of labour branches in many parts of the country in order to prevent Marxist activists winning control of the labour movement in these areas. Indeed given the lack of political action by the labour movement in 1918 it would be reasonable to expect Sinn Fein to consolidate their position in 1920 (less than 14 months later) - they did not. The results in 1920 demonstrated that if the labour movement had moved to take the lead in the struggle it could well have done so. By mid-1920 the leadership of Sinn Fein were absolutely terrified of the potential of the class war replacing the nationalist struggle. Some nationalists even argued that the struggle for independence should be put on the back burner in order to defeat the class struggle being waged at the time.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Anyone familiar with the background of those who made up SF and the IRA would know that SF and the IRA were the agricultural labourers, as well as dockers, fishermen, construction etc

To quote from 'Ministry for Home Affairs', The Constructive Work of Dáil Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, p.12,

"The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons"

Support for the IRA ebbed and flowed in many areas depending on whether the agricultural labourers were engaged in strike action against farmers or not. Many of the farmer's sons 'officers' of the IRA participated in the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force set up to break strikes by agricultural labourers.

The above document clearly demonstrates that the potential existed for the IRA to be pulled asunder because of the pressures of class conflict that existed at the time. Sinn Fein used the compliance of the leadership of the ILPTUC - namely William O'Brien and Tom Johnson - to ensure that the struggle of the labour movement was continuously derailed.

thecommietommy wrote: »

It's possible, it's also possible Labour didn't stand as they feared the back lash of opposing the nationalist SF vote. ( Similiar to the SDLP not standing against Bobby Sands in Fermanagh/S Tyrone in 1981)

That was the excuse that has been peddled - the reality is somewhat different. The main left-wing organisers within the labour movement were syndicalists who regarded trade union organisation rather than political organisation as paramount. When O'Brien and the leadership of the ILPTUC backed out of fighting the 1918 election the left-wing organisers did not see it as a crucial battle to fight - they were involved in organising workers in unions and engaging in widespread strike action. Ironically - James Connolly - the man who brought syndicalism to Ireland from the USA - would have understood the need for political action and would have demanded that Labour run in 1918. Unfortunately he wasn't around to make that call.

thecommietommy wrote: »

I had a quick search as those results surprised me that you have there given the landslide SF had just 2 years earlier. Well it's a wiki so not always the most relaible, but the figures you give are for the urban vote. It also says for the rural vote that " The rural elections showed a much greater level of support for Sinn Féin in its core support area. It took control of 338 out of 393 local government bodies, county councils, boards of guardians and rural district councils across the whole island. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_local_elections,_1920#cite_note-3

In many rural areas deals were done between Sinn Fein and Labour to divide up local council seats. For example - in Newcastle West there was no election - Sinn Fein took 8 seats and Labour took 7. All 15 people were members of the ITGWU. This was replicated in many parts of the country and as a result Sinn Fein are noted as 'controlling' the local bodies - when in fact in places like Newcastle West it was really the ITGWU who were in control - this was certainly the case in many rural towns and villages in Limerick and Clare.

The reason this happened was that Sinn Fein did not want to give the labour movement an opportunity to reclaim its potential that was lost in 1918 by not standing in the general election - and the national leadership of the ILPTUC were willing once again to coat-tail the nationalist movement rather than take the lead and agreed to a minority divide of the seats on many local councils rather than fighting an election.

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The labour movement did not engage in 'military' activities - such activities are counter to the instinctive operation of the labour movement. The 'activies' and 'weapons' of the labour movement are strikes, protests and occupations.

I would argue that these 'activities' were more effective than the IRA campaign during the War of Independence and significantly influenced how both the British and the leaders of the Nationalist movement reacted to the growing power of the labour movement during this period.

And James Connolly & the Irish Citizens Army ?

There is something in what you say and others have commented that Connolly and Markievicz did not foresee many of the changes that occurred in Britain following WWI.

For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.

I agree.

Very interesting and we could probably have a deep political theory discussion.

I would probably argue that the Labour Movement in NI operated along sectarian line.

I am not so sure that there was that much of a class divide in Southern Ireland. For example, a draper or retail worker would be a tradesman etc.Home ownership or business premises ownership was rare too. So you would have had too primitive a development of capitalism for me.

Much later on when we joined the EU Ireland was viewed as primitive and even pre celtic tiger a lot of economists viewed Ireland as having a primitive capital base.

I am not saying that I am right but there was a bit more of the peasant in the society than a lot of people would like to admit.

MarchDub

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.

Fine - but what or where is your source material for this position? You say so but offer no evidence for your statement.

But to clarify what you are saying - Are you saying that there was no significant input from Unionists on this issue? There is an ample record of discussion within Unionism, English Conservative party, the British Cabinet on the subject of Irish partition going back to the days of Parnell [who scoffed at the idea].

thecommietommy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The labour movement did not engage in 'military' activities - such activities are counter to the instinctive operation of the labour movement. The 'activies' and 'weapons' of the labour movement are strikes, protests and occupations.

I would argue that these 'activities' were more effective than the IRA campaign during the War of Independence and significantly influenced how both the British and the leaders of the Nationalist movement reacted to the growing power of the labour movement during this period. For example - I would argue that the Government of Ireland Act in 1920 was not implemented as a result of pressure from Unionists - but to facilitate the creation of sectarian division between Catholic and Protestant workers in the North and to divert the attention of the growing class struggle in the Southern counties.


The Nationalist movement promised a lot - but delivered little.


In electoral terms only - and that was only because of the abdication of the leaders of the labour movement who should have taken the lead role in the campaign for political, social and economic emancipation.


I disagree - even as late as 1922 the potential existed for the labour movement to grab the bull by the horns and wrestle the leadership of the struggle from nationalism. If O'Brien and his cronies had called a general strike in support of the Munster Soviets it would have met with massive support from working class people and the rural poor and placed not just full independence on the agenda - but socialist revolution as well.


As the dominant nationalist party yes - as the dominant political movement - no way. Sinn Fein got a free run in 1918 - in 1920 it did not - indeed the result would have been a lot closer if Tom Johnson hadn't been sabotaging the establishment of labour branches in many parts of the country in order to prevent Marxist activists winning control of the labour movement in these areas. Indeed given the lack of political action by the labour movement in 1918 it would be reasonable to expect Sinn Fein to consolidate their position in 1920 (less than 14 months later) - they did not. The results in 1920 demonstrated that if the labour movement had moved to take the lead in the struggle it could well have done so. By mid-1920 the leadership of Sinn Fein were absolutely terrified of the potential of the class war replacing the nationalist struggle. Some nationalists even argued that the struggle for independence should be put on the back burner in order to defeat the class struggle being waged at the time.


To quote from 'Ministry for Home Affairs', The Constructive Work of Dáil Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, p.12,

"The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons"

Support for the IRA ebbed and flowed in many areas depending on whether the agricultural labourers were engaged in strike action against farmers or not. Many of the farmer's sons 'officers' of the IRA participated in the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force set up to break strikes by agricultural labourers.

The above document clearly demonstrates that the potential existed for the IRA to be pulled asunder because of the pressures of class conflict that existed at the time. Sinn Fein used the compliance of the leadership of the ILPTUC - namely William O'Brien and Tom Johnson - to ensure that the struggle of the labour movement was continuously derailed.


That was the excuse that has been peddled - the reality is somewhat different. The main left-wing organisers within the labour movement were syndicalists who regarded trade union organisation rather than political organisation as paramount. When O'Brien and the leadership of the ILPTUC backed out of fighting the 1918 election the left-wing organisers did not see it as a crucial battle to fight - they were involved in organising workers in unions and engaging in widespread strike action. Ironically - James Connolly - the man who brought syndicalism to Ireland from the USA - would have understood the need for political action and would have demanded that Labour run in 1918. Unfortunately he wasn't around to make that call.


In many rural areas deals were done between Sinn Fein and Labour to divide up local council seats. For example - in Newcastle West there was no election - Sinn Fein took 8 seats and Labour took 7. All 15 people were members of the ITGWU. This was replicated in many parts of the country and as a result Sinn Fein are noted as 'controlling' the local bodies - when in fact in places like Newcastle West it was really the ITGWU who were in control - this was certainly the case in many rural towns and villages in Limerick and Clare.

The reason this happened was that Sinn Fein did not want to give the labour movement an opportunity to reclaim its potential that was lost in 1918 by not standing in the general election - and the national leadership of the ILPTUC were willing once again to coat-tail the nationalist movement rather than take the lead and agreed to a minority divide of the seats on many local councils rather than fighting an election.

Ah yes, the sort of conjecture Eoghan Harris used to churn out in the 1980's :rolleyes:

" If O'Brien.....if Tom Johnson .....if the labour movement ...... " if, the biggest word in the world :rolleyes:

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Ah yes, the sort of conjecture Eoghan Harris used to churn out in the 1980's :rolleyes:

" If O'Brien.....if Tom Johnson .....if the labour movement ...... " if, the biggest word in the world :rolleyes:

Well , an Eoghan Harris link would be nice .

Not too many people speak of Tom Johnson and he was almost taoiseach too. I had heard the name and read bits about him.

I don't know how militaristic or not marxists were in the War of Independence but during 1926 they and the rump of the IRA were.

Johnson seemed consistent there and with the army mutiny as a nationalist and democrat.

So I reckon that this could be an interesting and lively discussion.

.

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

Ah yes, the sort of conjecture Eoghan Harris used to churn out in the 1980's :rolleyes:

" If O'Brien.....if Tom Johnson .....if the labour movement ...... " if, the biggest word in the world :rolleyes:

And yes I agree, the study of history is about what happened...not 'what ifs'. We're drifting - once again - into parallel universes here as per my issue with the OP.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

And yes I agree, the study of history is about what happened...not 'what ifs'. We're drifting - once again - into parallel universes here as per my issue with the OP.

Your favorite topic used to be "what if John Jinks ......"

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

And James Connolly & the Irish Citizens Army ?

Connolly was involved in an uprising - the War of independence was a guerilla war. While Connoly would have supported the struggle for self-determination I would argue he would have been opposed to the tactics of the nationalist movement and would have sought to place the labour movement at the head of that struggle.

CDfm wrote: »

There is something in what you say and others have commented that Connolly and Markievicz did not foresee many of the changes that occurred in Britain following WWI.

Markievicz is an irrelevence in this - Connolly did not forsee the developments that occurred in Russia, in part because of his isolation in Ireland as a result of WW1. It was the Russian Revolution and the the post-war revolutionary upheaval in Europe that led to a developing class consciousness among the urban and rural working class and created the potential for socialist revolution.

CDfm wrote: »

I would probably argue that the Labour Movement in NI operated along sectarian line.

And I would disagree - and I will deal with this later when answering another point.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not so sure that there was that much of a class divide in Southern Ireland. For example, a draper or retail worker would be a tradesman etc.Home ownership or business premises ownership was rare too. So you would have had too primitive a development of capitalism for me.

There were massive class divisions in Ireland during this period - as stark as they are today. And while Irish capitalism was very weak (and continues to be very weak) it was significantly more developed than Russia in 1917 which was a semi-feudal country with the peasentry accounting for 90% of the population.

CDfm wrote: »

during 1926 they and the rump of the IRA were.

Some Marxists were in the IRA with O'Donnell - most were with Larkin in the Irish Workers League.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Ah yes, the sort of conjecture Eoghan Harris used to churn out in the 1980's [IMG]file:///C:%5CUsers%5CDominic%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif[/IMG]

" If O'Brien.....if Tom Johnson .....if the labour movement ...... " if, the biggest word in the world [IMG]file:///C:%5CUsers%5CDominic%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif[/IMG]

There is only one 'if' - or in realty - one objective truth - the potential for socialist revolution in Ireland between 1919-1922 was derailed by the leadership of the ILPTUC (O'Brien, Johnson, Fallon and Foran) who continuously coat-tailed the nationalist movement and sabotaged every step by the Irish working class to move towards political, economic and social emancipation.

MarchDub wrote: »

But to clarify what you are saying - Are you saying that there was no significant input from Unionists on this issue? There is an ample record of discussion within Unionism, English Conservative party, the British Cabinet on the subject of Irish partition going back to the days of Parnell [who scoffed at the idea].

No I am not – obviously the pillars of Unionism in the North were hell-bent on partition – what I am arguing is that the motivation for the British in making partition a reality was to derail the growing class struggle taking place in Ireland - and this was also a motivation for the leaders of unionism as well. The British could have crushed Unionist opposition with little difficulty if it wanted to in 1920. It didn’t do so because it served the class interests of British Imperialism to divide the working class on this island along sectarian lines. Britain could have and would have maintained economic control over an independent united Ireland just as easy as it did over the South following independence. However, any socialist revolution in Ireland would have spilled over into Britain within a very short space of time. The primary objective of British Imperialism was to protect its class interests, i.e. ensure the continuation of capitalism on these islands.

MarchDub wrote: »

Fine - but what or where is your source material for this position? You say so but offer no evidence for your statement.

In January 1919 a strike of engineering workers broke out in Belfast (part of a strike wave that engulfed Britain over a demand for a 44-hour week). Within two weeks the strike committee was in control of the city in what became known as the Belfast Soviet. The RUC went on strike and the workers were organising food supplies and policing during the strike. The British sent large numbers of troops north from the Curragh to assist in breaking the strike and with the collapse of the strike in Britain the workers in Belfast were forced to retreat. However, the unity built by the strike was clearly visible and noted by the British.

At the time of the Belfast Soviet, Peadar O’Donnell organised the Monahgan Soviet with a large RIC detachment forced to stand on the sidelines for fear of provoking a reaction around the Northern counties that could spread the Belfast strike. At the same time in Caledon O’Donnell organised a workers militia to defend striking mill workers from attacks by loyalist thugs. Right across Ulster bosses conceded wage demands out of fear the Belfast strike would spread. Cathal O’Shannon wrote that O’Donnell ‘blazed a trail of glory across Ulster’ during the period of the Belfast Soviet.

Following the end of the strike Carson, Craig and Dawson Bates worked their rear-end off in an attempt to split the workers on sectarian grounds and attempted to revive Edward Carson’s Unionist Party-linked Ulster Unionist Labour Association. In May 1919, in the aftermath of the strike, over 100,000 took part in the city’s May Day celebrations. Unionists condemned the demonstration as led by Bolsheviks and Sinn Feiners in an attempt to divide the working class – it failed.

When the Belfast Municipal Elections were held under proportional representation in January 1920 Labour put up 20 candidates in 60 seats. 13 of them were returned, including 5 strike leaders. Two of them even topped the poll, including Sam Kyle in the Protestant working-class heartland of Shankill, where he trounced Carson’s UULA. The American Commission on Conditions in Ireland stated ‘certain manufacturers and unionist politicians became alarmed about the 1919 strike and Labour’s election successes’. Sinn Fein analysed of the 1920 election with Collins stating that ‘the labour vote was not Carsonite – but clearly internationalist’.

British Imperialism now took concrete steps to split with working class along sectarian lines. The Government of Ireland Bill was put through the Commons and Unionism in the North went on the offensive. The strategy was to whip up support for partition amongst sections of the Protestant population while attacking Protestants and Catholics who were uniting in support of the labour movement. The 12th July was used to engage in widespread attacks on socialist ideas. In preparation for the planned attacks on the workers movement dozens of prominent socialist activists and trade union organisers, like Jack Hedley, Walter Carpenter and Simon Greenspoon were rounded up and tossed into jail. Hedley was charged with organising a seditious meeting of 500 socialists in the Labour hall at Langley Street in North Belfast – the hall was tiny and the meeting had to be held in the open air. The day after the expulsions started in the shipyards loyalists thugs burned down the Langley Street hall and several other labour meeting rooms.

When the IRA in Cork killed an RIC man born in Down five days later it was the excuse for loyalists to launch the pogroms. Thousands of Catholics were driven from the shipyards. However, what is not as well known is that several thousand ‘Rotten Prods’ (Protestant socialists and trade unionists) - a term used by John Crumlin, one of the ringleaders - were also driven from the shipyards and subjected to the same violence by loyalist paramilitaries. Protestant trade unionists organised united action with Catholics against the shipyard expulsions but were driven back by the combined might of Unionism, and their loyalist thugs.

John Hanna speaking at the ILPTUC Annual Conference in August stated that a quarter of the 12,000 workers expelled from the shipyards were Protestant trade unionists. Austen Morgan wrote, a ‘new loyalist industrial order…premised on a purging of the trade-union leadership’ had been created. Most of those involved in attacking the workers were apprentices and low-paid rivet-boys who had been kept from breaking the 1919 strike by mass pickets at the shipyards. Their jobs were threatened by the looming economic recession and they made easy cannon fodder for the likes of Carson. Unionists also mobilised unemployed ex-servicemen with the promise of jobs in the shipyards. In the months that followed loyalist thugs were used to break strikes and attack Catholic workers and any Protestants who supported them. The leadership of the ILPTUC condemned what was happening but did little to organise their members against it.

At the British TUC, A. Reid stated that ‘the notorious shipyard expulsions were … not acts of aggression by Protestant skilled workers against Catholic unskilled workers, but actions of insecure groups of Protestant workers’ that Carson had whipped into a frenzy that they would lose their jobs if they didn’t kick out the Catholics and those who supported them. John Hanna stated ‘During the strike for 44-hours week the capitalist classes saw that the Belfast workers were one. That unity had to be broken, it was accomplished by appeals to the basest passion and intense bigotry’. Sinn Fein, either stupidly or consciously, played right into the hands of Unionism by organising the Belfast Boycott – a boycott that was opposed by left-wing trade unionists in the South and had little impact in areas where the left had influence. The British ensured that the labour movement in the North would be suppressed by getting Craig to organise the A-Specials and B-Specials – arming thugs who could roam the streets with impunity to suppress all opposition.

C. Desmond Greaves wrote that partition had to be imposed because the
‘Unionist position was being rapidly eroded. Protestant workers in transport, milling, malting and timber working, were benefiting from national settlements in which the ITGWU was the driving force. In Monaghan town Catholics and Protestants had united under the red flag and after a five-day strike won… Sectarianism was at an ebb and labour was at its highest point since 1907 (Belfast dock strike)… At the Mayday demonstration Samuel Porter stated that ‘unionism is being eclipsed by labour’ and at that point reactionaries took alarm’.

As I said before – in my opinion the primary motivation for the introduction of partition by the British was not pressure from Unionism, but was a planned strategy to divide the working class on this island along sectarian lines. They succeeded because of the failure of the leadership of the ILPTUC to act and take the leading role in the revolutionary upheaval of the period.

This information comes primarily from three books –
Greaves ‘The ITGWU – the Formative Years’
O’Connor, ‘Labour in Irish History’
Kostick, ‘Revolution in Ireland’.

These issues are also addressed in works by Austen Morgan, John Gray, Henry Patterson, Peter Hadden and in Sinn Fein documents in the National Archive.

PS - reading back on this I realised that I didn't include the necessary addition of the widespread growth for the labour movement in the 'South' which was also an important component factor in the moves by British Imperialism and Unionism to split the workers movement along sectarian lines - the intention was to split Catholic and Protestant and North and South.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Your favorite topic used to be "what if John Jinks ......"

Yep - couldn't get enough of that. :eek:

CDfm

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

At the British TUC, A. Reid stated that ‘the notorious shipyard expulsions were … not acts of aggression by Protestant skilled workers against Catholic unskilled workers, but actions of insecure groups of Protestant workers’ that Carson had whipped into a frenzy that they would lose their jobs if they didn’t kick out the Catholics and those who supported them. John Hanna stated ‘During the strike for 44-hours week the capitalist classes saw that the Belfast workers were one.

It was free choice and the people had the choice whether or not to be sectarian.

Like it or not the fact is the Labour Movement in NI was sectarian and motivated by self interest not class interest. If that was their motivation they were not really socialists and ready for a socialist Ireland.

thecommietommy

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is only one 'if' - or in realty - one objective truth - the potential for socialist revolution in Ireland between 1919-1922 was derailed by the leadership of the ILPTUC (O'Brien, Johnson, Fallon and Foran) who continuously coat-tailed the nationalist movement and sabotaged every step by the Irish working class to move towards political, economic and social emancipation.

More conjecture on top of conjecture :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

It was free choice and the people had the choice whether or not to be sectarian.

Like it or not the fact is the Labour Movement in NI was sectarian and motivated by self interest not class interest. If that was their motivation they were not really socialists and ready for a socialist Ireland.

It was hardly as straightforward as people choosing to be sectarian. The politicians chose to be sectarian but the peoples choice was taken away from them by political decisions.

Also I am not sure what you mean by 'the Labour movement in NI'. Workplaces were divided on sectarian lines but there was a separate labour movement. They won seats in 1925 but were eventually marginalised by Unionist motivated electoral changes. See www.workersrepublic.org/Pages/Ireland/Communism/cpihistory2.html and here http://irishpoliticalmaps.blogspot.com/2011/06/northern-ireland-general-election-1929.html

Jolly Red Giant

CDfm wrote: »

It was free choice and the people had the choice whether or not to be sectarian.

Unfortunately life and politics does not operate on such simplicity

CDfm wrote: »

Like it or not the fact is the Labour Movement in NI was sectarian and motivated by self interest not class interest. If that was their motivation they were not really socialists and ready for a socialist Ireland.

And what is your evidence for this assertion?

The reality is that the one sphere of life in the North that has been able to resist the divisions of sectarianism has been the trade union movement.

thecommietommy wrote: »

More conjecture on top of conjecture

Instead of tossing out one-liners prodice some evidence to refute what I am saying. I have posted numerous pieces of evidence to back up my assertions. You will actually find an article dealing with this particular topic here - scroll down to page 7 -
http://www.c-s-p.org/Flyers/978-1-4438-3164-2-sample.pdf

celtictiger32

MarchDub wrote: »

This isn't really a history thread now is it?

All we are going to get is personal opinion and more 'what if's' -

if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It was hardly as straightforward as people choosing to be sectarian.

There may be complex issues but essentially it is a choice , IMHO, if you look at philosophically based management theories like McGregors people are dupes for every charlatan and demagogue.

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/xy.html

People have free choice and there is a certain bit of self interest at work here.

Take it a notch further when the Labour Party was in power in the UK in the 60's they did damn all to support the NI Prime Minister Terrence O'Neill tackle the issues.

Where was the Labour Movement ? It was being sectarian and tribal.

There are a lot of unexplained events in Irish History of the War of Independence and there were marxist factions and freedom fighters active in Ireland. Now, I am not going the Eoghan Harris route but how do we know what they did ?