nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why was Nelson's Pillar Destroyed?

Blisterman

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Exile 1798

With respect, 5 seconds on google answers your question and refutes a number of your assertions.

Why it was destroyed:

At 02:00 on 8 March 1966, a group of former Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteers, including Joe Christle,[13] planted a bomb that destroyed the upper half of the pillar, throwing the statue of Nelson into the street and causing large chunks of stone to be thrown around. Christle, dismissed ten years earlier from the IRA for unauthorised actions, was a qualified barrister and saw himself as a socialist revolutionary. It is thought that the bombers acted when they did to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising.

Controversy and opposition both pre and post independence:

The construction of Nelson's Pillar had been, from the outset, controversial. As early as September 1809 a paragraph appeared in Watty Cox's Irish Magazine, stating: "The statue of Nelson records the glory of a mistress and the transformation of our state into a discount office."

In 1876 the Corporation took up the question of removal, but discovered it did not have the power to remove it. They tried again in 1891, causing much debate in the city and in Parliament, but due to financial considerations they did not succeed. A writer on Dublin's history in 1909, Dillon Cosgrave, acknowledged the temporary nature of the Pillar's existence, remarking that "For a very long time, the project of removing the

Pillar, which many condemn as an obstruction to traffic, has been mooted, but it has never taken definite shape".[11]

In 1923, when W. B. Yeats supported its removal on aesthetic grounds ("It is not a beautiful object."), in 1926, and again in 1928 the debate was renewed. Several attempts were made subsequently to have it removed, including by the Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, in 1960.[12] Other plans, also not implemented, saw proposals to replace the statue of Nelson at the top of the Pillar with other statues.

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

And yes it was disliked in part because it was a legacy of British rule. After the Treaty statues of the Royals were removed from public display, towns and streets were renamed. I doubt the Pillar would have lasted so long had it not been such a large structure and therefore difficult to remove.

What's more of a mystery is why that stupid Spire was build in the same place 35 years later.

Morlar

Blisterman wrote: »

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

I think the size of the monument and where it was placed are also relevant factors (though there were other statues were destroyed or removed post independence which were not that big or strategically placed).

I doubt there was any personal animosity toward him - it was more for the fact that he was a british military figure positioned on a very high, imposing perch smack bang in the centre of Ireland's capital city.

Blisterman

I suppose the question is, how did it survive for over 40 years after independence? Also, was its bombing comdenmed at the time, or celebrated? Whatever about the symbolism of the statue, it's hard to condone an act of terrorism like that.

Wolfe Tone

My father tells me it was widely celebrated, people gathered and cheered when the army blew what was left into smithereens.

Personally I think it was a great way to celebrate 50 years of freedom.

Judgement Day

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

My father tells me it was widely celebrated, people gathered and cheered when the army blew what was left into smithereens.

Personally I think it was a great way to celebrate 50 years of freedom.

Maybe the Spire could be blown up to celebrate 100 years of 'freedom' in 2016?

Wolfe Tone

Blowing up the spire would have no symbolic meaning whatsoever.

Morlar

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

My father tells me it was widely celebrated, people gathered and cheered when the army blew what was left into smithereens.

Personally I think it was a great way to celebrate 50 years of freedom.

The way I always heard it was the IRA explosion was clinical, no injuries and no 'collateral' damage and it was only when the Irish army came along to get rid of the rest that they blew out every window on the street.

brianthebard

Blisterman wrote: »

I suppose the question is, how did it survive for over 40 years after independence? Also, was its bombing comdenmed at the time, or celebrated? Whatever about the symbolism of the statue, it's hard to condone an act of terrorism like that.

it was blown up for the lolz. Seriously though I think the reason it survived was because Ireland/the Irish independence movement was only capable of partial independence and held onto many aspects of colonial rule. It wasn't a fully decolonising operation and is ongoing in many respects. Its perhaps more a question of postcolonial theory than history specifically, but interesting in both contexts.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Blowing up the spire would have no symbolic meaning whatsoever.

Except that its an eyesore and some would be glad to see the back of it. Culchies like me like to use it as a beacon to guide them back to O'Connell st when lost in the big schmoke...

MarchDub

Morlar wrote: »

The way I always heard it was the IRA explosion was clinical, no injuries and no 'collateral' damage and it was only when the Irish army came along to get rid of the rest that they blew out every window on the street.

You're right on that. I was a secondary school kid at the time and when we heard it on the radio news in the morning that the pillar was blown up during the night we all made into O'Connell St to see it. The "half nelson" jokes were everywhere. But it was a clean explosion - when the army finished off the job they blew out windows including some of Clerys.

But there was mixed feeling about getting rid of the whole pillar - Nelson's annihilation was cheered though. Everyone agreed that Nelson ought to have been taken down long ago and I don't remember hearing anyone say otherwise - but there was even talk at the time of building the pillar back up and putting Pearse or some Irish patriot on top. There was a lot of proud nationalist feeling around at the time - and great pride about 1916.

The spire is a disgrace IMO. A nothing symbol - says something about our times?

Fratton Fred

Blisterman wrote: »

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

There was many an Irishman on board HMS victory at the time, including the ships surgeon, William Beatty, who took the brave decision not to remove the bullet that killed him. It was a very risky procedure and during the battle, he had to give his time to people he could save.

Regardless of what he stood for, Nelson was a genius and the RN really did rule the waves.

Wolfe Tone

The Army blast it to bits(this did the damage)

"Up went Nelson"is an example of the delight of it being blown up. "Up Went Nelson" is a song by The Go Lucky Four (a group of Belfast school teachers Gerry Burns, Finbar Carolan, John Sullivan and Eamonn McGirr) that was number one on the Irish music charts in 1966 for eight consecutive weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__3v0eKHB_s

Manach

Perhaps they should have replace him by Wellington, having been born in Ireland. Given his alleged saying, "Born in a stable those not mean being a horse", it w'd have annoyed him no end.

ejmaztec

They should have dismantled it and given it to the French, to remind them that they didn't send enough people here to get rid of the British, or better still, auctioned it off to the highest bidder.

Kev_ps3

Blisterman wrote: »

Was it merely because it was a legacy of British rule? Or was it specifically because it represented Lord Nelson. As far as I can see, Lord Nelson did nothing negatively affecting Ireland. In fact, when the Battle of Trafalgar was won in 1805, there were public scenes of jubilation in Dublin, as he was seen as fighting in the interests of the British Empire, which at the time included Ireland. The column was constructed 3 years later, and there doesn't seem to have been much opposition at the time.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Imagine a statue to General Rommel in the heart of an Israeli city, it being destroyed by Patriots, and some idiot posting a thread saying 'Why was that statue destroyed?'. Wouldn't happen in any other country than this:rolleyes:

Blisterman

That's not comparing like with like at all.

And like I said, the statue lasted 150 years, with little opposition, before it was blown up.

F1ngers

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Do you realize how stupid you sound? Imagine a statue to General Rommel in the heart of an Israeli city, it being destroyed by Patriots, and some idiot posting a thread saying 'Why was that statue destroyed?'. Wouldn't happen in any other country than this:rolleyes:

I think you should have done a little research on Rommel before you posted this... You are not comparing like for like..

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Rommel.html

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

Sorry for off-topic post, couldn't let that one go...

jos28

I have a small piece of Nelson's pillar(at least thats what my Dad told me.) Although I am sure half the population of Dublin have one too.

annieoburns

For many years non rubble bits of the pillar were stored at the back of Kilkenny Design Workshops opposite the Castle in Kilkenny. Around 10 years ago a selection of cut stone blocks were used to make garden pond feature in Ormonde House. The battered remains of the head had a few adventures but is now in Collins Barracks Museum in Dublin.

Wolfe Tone

Hopefully in 2016 we can blow up something. If Paisley is somehow still alive then let it be him, otherwise the Spire!

jk!

Snickers Man

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps they should have replace him by Wellington, having been born in Ireland. Given his alleged saying, "Born in a stable those not mean being a horse", it w'd have annoyed him no end.

It was said about him, not by him. It was Daniel O'Connell who said it.

MarchDub

Snickers Man wrote: »

It was said about him, not by him. It was Daniel O'Connell who said it.

Thanks Snickers - I was about to reply the same and was trying to find the link to your post on the thread where you showed the original source for this but got lost in the search.

Blisterman

Interestingly enough, I was reading that 4,000, nearly a quarter of the total men fighting under Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar were Irish. So there must have been a reasonabl amount of support for Nelson at the time.

brianthebard

Blisterman wrote: »

Interestingly enough, I was reading that 4,000, nearly a quarter of the total men fighting under Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar were Irish. So there must have been a reasonabl amount of support for Nelson at the time.

The Irish and Scottish were always disproportionately represented in the British army it had little or nothing to do with support tbh.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

The Irish and Scottish were always disproportionately represented in the British army it had little or nothing to do with support tbh.

Dead right. In fact it was as an officer in the British Army that Lord Edward FitzGerald learned that his heart and head were with an Irish rebellion. As regards his time in the American Revolutionary War - fighting in the British Army - he later lamented: "I fought against the cause of liberty".

CDfm

Nelsons Column and 1966 50 year Anniversary go hand in hand.

What about the taking down and burial of the Queen Victoria statue in UCC.

Nelson had nothing to do with Ireland in real terms. As I understand it the pillar was a landmark and you could go to the top and look over Dublin.

Now, the Duke of Wellington Monument Obelisk in Phoenix park -if the IRA at the time were trying to impress they should have had a shot at that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T7OaDDR7i8

I dont know if Ronnie Drew was a fan but the Dubliners stopped singing Republican songs.

getz

Blisterman wrote: »

Interestingly enough, I was reading that 4,000, nearly a quarter of the total men fighting under Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar were Irish. So there must have been a reasonabl amount of support for Nelson at the time.

there was a lot of hero worship for nelson in ireland at that time,irishman the rev patrick bronte [father of charlotte,emily, and anne,] changed his name from brunty to take one of nelsons titles duke of bronte.

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

there was a lot of hero worship for nelson in ireland at that time,irishman the rev patrick bronte [father of charlotte,emily, and anne,] changed his name from brunty to take one of nelsons titles duke of bronte.

Not sure how you quantify "a lot" - as I said on another thread Patrick Bronte had little love for things Irish. He left Ireland and never literally looked back. I have no problem with that - it was his life to live, but I wouldn't quote him as typical or representative.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

What about the taking down and burial of the Queen Victoria statue in UCC.

Queen Victoria fought toi get three colleges built in Ireland, Cork, Galway and Belfast. She wanted to improve the education of the less wealthy (and by that Catholics) who were effectively prevented from going to Trinity.

She is effectively UCC's founder.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She is effectively UCC's founder.

Queens University Cork does have a bit of a ring to it.

Was it ever called that??

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Queens University Cork does have a bit of a ring to it.

Was it ever called that??

Yes they were QUB, QUC and QUG. I'm not sure about the education for lower class Catholics aspect though. If that was her intention then she failed because it wasn't until the NUI was set up that nationalists believed the Catholics had a university to represent them.