Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Black and tans in Ireland

24

Comments

  • #52
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Are you trying to troll Morlar or what ? I would have thought it very obvious for the RIC men to resign on the spot the speech must have been very extreme.

    McA the guys were between a rock and a hard place.

    They sold their story to the Freemans Journal.

    If the republicans could kill Colenel Smyth -these guys lived in the area and were further down the foodchain. Has it occured to you that they saw the way the wind was blowing and looked out for their own interests. ??


  • #53
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    CDfm wrote: »
    McA the guys were between a rock and a hard place.

    They sold their story to the Freemans Journal.

    If the republicans could kill Colenel Smyth -these guys lived in the area and were further down the foodchain. Has it occured to you that they saw the way the wind was blowing and looked out for their own interests. ??

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


  • #54
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Here is some lines from On Another Man's Wound on the british asssault on the people of Mallow which will give a good indication of the terror people were under from the british army. And I say the british army and not the Tans, as wanton thuggery and murder was not the exclusive practice of the Tans. Interestingly also how the RIC had the humanity and indeed spark of nationalism to try and help the people in distress.

    " In the night the soldiers form Buttevant and Fermoy had come in lorries, equiped with sprays and incendiary devices. The local Lancers joined them; they had burnt the creamery*, the second largest in the South of the country, the Town Hall and ten houses. A volunteer fire brigade had confined the flames although they had been fired upon repeatedly. The police from the barracks had given shelter to some women and children who had fled from their homes; an expectant mother and a woman, who had spent the night in a graveyard, died of exposure. "

    Here he talks about the smaller villages where they were less used to the brits than the bigger towns " Remote from a town, seldom visited, a raid here meant terror. Houses ransacked, women and children shouted at, men searched and interrogated, the amount of violence to be used depending on the individual officer in charge "........" For long hours the people had to keep their hands up, sometimes they had to kneel or to sing God save the King. Tans or Auxillary's had to teach them the words. People had been flogged with whips, belt-buckles and canes."


    * Creamery's were a particuliar target of the brits as they were mainly local enterprises run on co operative lines.


  • #55
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    McA my grandfather was a member of the West Cork Brigade and I know a bit about it.They operated on basis of guerilla warefare.

    One of my fathers aunts was a victim in Dublin.

    No matter what version you read you will get edits as history tends to be wriiten by the victors.

    My grandfather certainly had lots of reservations about aspects he was involved in and would not talk about them.

    For that matter we never hear about civilian victims of the war of independence but accept that one of the reasons Pearce surrendered was because of civilian casualties, also we do not know of the levels of civilian casualties pre-treaty and post treaty or the amounts of property destroyed.

    I have seen estimates that total casulties were 1500 during the War of Independence of which you had 200 civilians. Estimates of 4000 during the civil war -with no estimates for civilian casualties or details of republican reprisals following independence or damage to property etc.

    So, McArmalite,I imagine that details are presented in a very biased way.


  • #56
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Morlar wrote: »
    Not according to this ;

    http://www.policehistory.com/

    A Garda Síochána Historical Society site - which has this article quoted earlier

    http://www.esatclear.ie/~garda/listowel.html

    On June 19 the Republican forces were greatly strengthened in their struggle against the R.I.C. by the mutiny of the police in Listowel barracks. This incident had repercussions far beyond the confines of north Kerry. Indeed, it was an important factor in determining the outcome of the Anglo-Irish war. It was the dilemma in which most of the R.I.C. found themselves. As hostilities intensified they had to regard as their enemies most of the people from whom they had sprung. Consequently, within three months of this highly-publicised event, some 1,100 men resigned from the force. This was a crippling blow to the Black and Tans and a great influx of military, none of whom had the local knowledge or information which was all-important in trying to contain the republican's growing grip on the countryside.

    Constable Lillis, RIC, at rear of Listowel BarracksThe mutiny itself had all the ingredients of high drama. It was triggered off by the visit of ex-war hero, Colonel Gerald Bryce Ferguson Smyth who, on June 3, had been appointed Divisional Police Commissioner for Munster. However, the situation had been building up for some days. On June 17 the police in Listowel were ordered to hand over their barracks to the British military and most of them were transferred to different stations in the district where they were to act as scouts for the troops. The police held a meeting and decided not to obey these orders. The following day the county inspector, Poer O'Shee, came to Listowel and when he tried to force the men to obey fourteen of them threatened to resign.

    Next morning, June 19, Colonel Smyth arrived at Listowel barracks. He was accompanied by the inspector general, General Tudor, a commissioner of police from Dublin Castle, Major Letham, the county inspector, Poer O'Shee, the O.C. of the military stationed at Ballinruddery, Captain Chadwick, and Assistant County Inspector Dobbyn, and it was obvious that the purpose of his visit was to deal with insubordination on June 17.

    When the police had been assembled in the barrack-room he addressed them. He asserted that from then on the crown forces would have to take the offensive and beat the Republicans at its own game. To this end martial law would come into force immediately and by June 21 the police and military would be completely amalgamated. Then, together, police and military would engage in a ruthless pacification programme and if, in the course of it, innocent people were killed he would see to it that no policeman would have to answer for such an eventuality. He concluded by saying that the government wanted their assistance to wipe out the Republicans and that any man who was not prepared to help in doing so ought to leave the job at once.

    Then came the first of a number of dramatic incidents. He approached the constable who stood at the top of the police line and pointing to him asked, 'Are you prepared to co-operate with me?' There was a tense moment or two as the constable, a Protestant from the north of Ireland, paused before replying that Constable Mee would speak for him. Thereupon Constable Jeremiah Mee startled Smyth, by saying, 'By your accent I take it you are an Englishman. You forget you are addressing Irishmen.' Then taking off his cap, belt and bayonet and laying them on the table, he continued: 'These too are English. Take them as a present from me, and to hell with you, you murderer.' Smyth immediately ordered Mee to be arrested. As two army officers moved to take Mee away the rest of the police, prompted by Constable Thomas Hughes, crowded round them and refused to let them move. After a few tense minutes Smyth ordered the officers to desist and together with all the visiting officers entered another room, adjoining the barrack day-room, in order to discuss the situation.

    At this point Mee, on behalf of the police, wrote a note, which all signed, in which the entire group assumed responsibility for Mee's words and actions and indicated that they would resist Mee's arrest even to the point of bloodshed. Then ignoring Smyth, one of them handed the note to the inspector general. Another tense period followed while the officers considered this note. After about fifteen minutes the inspector general emerged from the adjoining room, shook hands with all the policemen and left with the visitors. The police who no longer felt safe in the barracks, held a meeting in the public-house then known as 'T.D. Sullivans' (now John B. Keane's Pub - owned by John B. Keane who wrote 'The Field' on which the movie of the same name was based) and, of the twenty-five of them who had been involved in the incident, fourteen, who were single, decided to resign. However, two of these, John McNamara and Michael Kelly, were asked by Michael Collins, who was taking a personal interest in the entire matter, to stay on and carry out merely ordinary police duties. This they did and the following day, when summoned to appear before a court-martial, they demanded a civil trial instead. Next morning a high-ranking military officer arrived at the barracks and told them that they had been dismissed and ordered them to leave the barracks at once.

    At this stage there was a very important development. John McNamara went to James Crowley, V.S., who later that year became the Sinn Féin representative for north Kerry, and gave him a detailed account of what had happened and a statement, signed by the fourteen constables who resigned, describing the remarks of Colonel Smyth and requesting an official investigation into the incident. Crowley had the entire story printed by Robert I. (Bob) Cuthbertson and motored to Dublin in with it that afternoon, and the full story appeared in the first edition of the Freeman's Journal on the following morning. However, it was seen in good time by the authorities and was suppressed. Subsequently it appeared in the Freeman's Journal of 10 July 1920.

    Cheers for that piece of nugget. There is a plaque in the town centre in Glenamaddy, Co . Galway dedicated to Jermiah Mee. He was from that area and was one of those RIC men who resigned despite threats on his life in anger (by the brits) over the British treatment of the Irish during the Tan War. Few more RIC men were very important to local IRA groups with regard to intelligence and tip offs on raids etc, people such as Constable William Potter (he was accidently/mistakingly killed during an IRA ambush) and Sgt _ Galligan of Kiltoom Roscommon

    That maybe worth a different thread - RIC men turned IRA informers, the life of an RIC man and his family in light of regular boycott by the locals etc during the war


  • #57
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Cheers for that piece of nugget. There is a plaque in the town centre in Glenamaddy, Co . Galway dedicated to Jermiah Mee. He was from that area and was one of those RIC men who resigned despite threats on his life in anger (by the brits) over the British treatment of the Irish during the Tan War. Few more RIC men were very important to local IRA groups with regard to intelligence and tip offs on raids etc, people such as Constable William Potter (he was accidently/mistakingly killed during an IRA ambush) and Sgt _ Galligan of Kiltoom Roscommon

    That maybe worth a different thread - RIC men turned IRA informers, the life of an RIC man and his family in light of regular boycott by the locals etc during the war
    so were those RIC men who turned IRA informers heros or traitors ?


  • #58
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    junder wrote: »
    so were those RIC men who turned IRA informers heros or traitors ?

    I'd say they were heroes to the unarmed people they refused to shoot & to the innocent families they refused to put into the gutter :)

    I think they were overlooked in Irish history, at a time when it must have been an incomparably more difficult decision to give up your career & livelihood they made a personal sacrifice.

    Those who refused and were dismissed and those who resigned - either way they refused on a moral principle. I think it proves that republican propaganda about the RIC is not always correct.

    Even the ones who remained on in order to pass information to Collins' intelligence squad - I believe they were turned to republicanism by the british establishment - evidenced by the fact that until that point they were not involved with the IRA.

    I don't for a second buy the 'argument' that there is no 'impartial' evidence of a shift in policy behind the Smyth order. Nor do I believe that the 14 RIC constables who signed the document outlining the smyth order were inaccurate or not to be trusted. If you can find an alternate version of the Smyth order signed by 15 RIC constables who were there that argument may have some substance. There was a shift and on that basis their refusal puts them in the good books in my view.


  • #59
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    I'd say they were heroes to the unarmed people they refused to shoot & to the innocent families they refused to put into the gutter :)

    I think they were overlooked in Irish history, at a time when it must have been an incomparably more difficult decision to give up your career & livelihood they made a personal sacrifice.

    Those who refused and were dismissed and those who resigned - either way they refused on a moral principle. I think it proves that republican propaganda about the RIC is not always correct.

    Morlar - the Republicans were not choirboys and the Ballyseedy massacre when 9 guys were taken from the Barracks during the Civil War and tied around a landmine which was detonated and the survivors machine gunned.

    So I am suggesting that their motives wrent always pure -they may also have been fear based.

    Now I am from the south from the republican tradition.


  • #60
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    Morlar - the Republicans were not choirboys

    Except no one has said that they were.
    CDfm wrote: »
    and the Ballyseedy massacre when 9 guys were taken from the Barracks during the Civil War and tied around a landmine which was detonated and the survivors machine gunned.

    That was the Civil war. Not the Black and Tans/Auxilliaries/RIC throughout the War of Independence which is what we are discussing here.
    CDfm wrote: »
    So I am suggesting that their motives wrent always pure -they may also have been fear based.

    You are questioning the motives of the RIC not republicans. In particular you have tried to repeatedly throw doubt on the accuracy of the famous Smyth order.

    Saying that the RIC men who signed the document (which outlined the contents of the Smyth order) are not to be trusted, their motives were fear etc but you are not presenting any kind of evidence to that. They had more to fear from the British establishment than from fellow Irishmen - ie republicans. This makes their signing of the document and their stand (ie their refusal to comply which led to their dismissal or resignation) all the more noteworthy. If you do not accept the truth of the Smyth order perhaps you can provide an alternate text - one which - as mentioned more than 14 constables agree was accurate as the one I presented and the 14 constables agreed was accurate (& the one accepted outside of revisionist unionist circles) is the one I quoted above.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Cheers for that piece of nugget. There is a plaque in the town centre in Glenamaddy, Co . Galway dedicated to Jermiah Mee. He was from that area and was one of those RIC men who resigned despite threats on his life in anger (by the brits) over the British treatment of the Irish during the Tan War. Few more RIC men were very important to local IRA groups with regard to intelligence and tip offs on raids etc, people such as Constable William Potter (he was accidently/mistakingly killed during an IRA ambush) and Sgt _ Galligan of Kiltoom Roscommon

    That maybe worth a different thread - RIC men turned IRA informers, the life of an RIC man and his family in light of regular boycott by the locals etc during the war

    As an FYI there is another plaque on the wall of Listowel Garda Station to the RIC men too, I have seen pictures of it but dont have a link at the moment.


  • #62
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    Except no one has said that they were.



    That was the Civil war. Not the Black and Tans/Auxilliaries/RIC throughout the War of Independence which is what we are discussing here.

    I am just pointing out that both sides committed atrocities and I am just using that as an example.


    You are questioning the motives of the RIC not republicans. In particular you have tried to repeatedly throw doubt on the accuracy of the famous Smyth order.

    There are 2 versions. I am just saying that as Smyth was dead by 1920 people could print what they wanted.
    Saying that the RIC men who signed the document (which outlined the contents of the Smyth order) are not to be trusted, their motives were fear etc but you are not presenting any kind of evidence to that. They had more to fear from the British establishment than from fellow Irishmen - ie republicans. This makes their signing of the document and their stand (ie their refusal to comply which led to their dismissal or resignation) all the more noteworthy. If you do not accept the truth of the Smyth order perhaps you can provide an alternate text - one which - as mentioned more than 14 constables agree was accurate as the one I presented and the 14 constables agreed was accurate (& the one accepted outside of revisionist unionist circles) is the one I quoted above.

    I have seen two versions and I am not a historian.

    All I am saying is that my grandfather and his buddies who were members of the West Cork Brigade certainly used tactics that later on they were not proud of. So who they(The RIC constables) were more afraid of is arguable.

    It was war and it was fear based.

    That the Republicans were able to enter Smyths Club and shoot him must have frightened all RIC members nationwide.

    It would probably have given people the same unease as we have when we see drug dealers killing each other.On that basis I can understand it -without taking sides.


  • #63
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    There are 2 versions. I am just saying that as Smyth was dead by 1920 people could print what they wanted.

    I have seen two versions and I am not a historian.

    Can you post a link to your 2nd version of the Smyth 'shoot civilians' order made at Listowel June 1920 ?


  • #64
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    Can you post a link to your 2nd version of the Smyth 'shoot civilians' order made at Listowel June 1920 ?

    I can't put my hand on it just now - but if I find it I will.

    I don't dispute the Black and Tans were bad guys or that Smyth was a serving British Unionist with all that that entailed.

    Just saying that both sides committed atrocities and that there is no need to be self righteous and that the book on the Exodus of Protestants from Ireland and Civilian Casualties Post 1916 has not yet been written.


  • #65
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Morlar wrote: »
    Saying that the RIC men who signed the document (which outlined the contents of the Smyth order) are not to be trusted, their motives were fear etc but you are not presenting any kind of evidence to that. They had more to fear from the British establishment than from fellow Irishmen - ie republicans. This makes their signing of the document and their stand (ie their refusal to comply which led to their dismissal or resignation) all the more noteworthy. If you do not accept the truth of the Smyth order perhaps you can provide an alternate text - one which - as mentioned more than 14 constables agree was accurate as the one I presented and the 14 constables agreed was accurate (& the one accepted outside of revisionist unionist circles) is the one I quoted above.
    Your posting on the Smyth ravings were fine Morlar. As for replying to this fella CDfm, well I myself reckon he's only trying to be a comedian, but whatever, your only replying to someone who will disregard anything you have to say regardless.


  • #66
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Your posting on the Smyth ravings were fine Morlar. As for replying to this fella CDfm, well I myself reckon he's only trying to be a comedian, but whatever, your only replying to someone who will disregard anything you have to say regardless.

    I did find one hero worshipping site which had an articled called,

    http://www.raymondscountydownwebsite.com/html/banbridge_g.1.htm

    " A ONE ARMED IRISH WARRIOR OF DAUNTLESS COURAGE "
    Lt. Colonel Gerald Brice Ferguson Smyth
    D.S.O. and Bar, French Croix de Guerre and Palm
    Belgium Croix de Guerre, Mons Star

    By Paul McCandless

    (Which hardly strikes me as impartial) In which the author paraphrased the Smyth into milder terms than the quote above.

    He also attributed it to a slightly different date then the listowel one. So Smyth said different things on different days certainly nothing that would substantively indicate the one I quoted and the generally accepted one was inaccurate. So yes I would have to agree with you on that.

    There was also however this

    http://www.historyireland.com//volumes/volume17/issue3/letters/?id=113733

    (from the letters page) which at least indicates there are different versions but in general accepts the one the RIC constables themselves transcribed.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Morlar wrote: »
    I'd say they were heroes to the unarmed people they refused to shoot & to the innocent families they refused to put into the gutter :)

    I think they were overlooked in Irish history, at a time when it must have been an incomparably more difficult decision to give up your career & livelihood they made a personal sacrifice.

    Those who refused and were dismissed and those who resigned - either way they refused on a moral principle. I think it proves that republican propaganda about the RIC is not always correct.

    Even the ones who remained on in order to pass information to Collins' intelligence squad - I believe they were turned to republicanism by the british establishment - evidenced by the fact that until that point they were not involved with the IRA.

    I don't for a second buy the 'argument' that there is no 'impartial' evidence of a shift in policy behind the Smyth order. Nor do I believe that the 14 RIC constables who signed the document outlining the smyth order were inaccurate or not to be trusted. If you can find an alternate version of the Smyth order signed by 15 RIC constables who were there that argument may have some substance. There was a shift and on that basis their refusal puts them in the good books in my view.

    which proves my point r.e. the curragh munitys, if they sideded with the republicans they were heros and it was fine to lose thier
    Impartiality and it was fine to go against the state but if they sided with the unionists then they were traitors but still should have worked imparitaly for the state.


  • #68
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    junder wrote: »
    which proves my point r.e. the curragh munitys, if they sideded with the republicans they were heros and it was fine to lose thier
    Impartiality and it was fine to go against the state but if they sided with the unionists then they were traitors but still should have worked imparitaly for the state.

    I am afraid it doesn't prove that point at all.

    The Curragh mutiny amounted to british army officers giving advance notice that they would refuse any legitimate orders to even move against the heavily armed UVF - even if the UVF were to march south (should Home Rule be implemented).

    Listowel was about the RIC men refusing to accept an illegitimate order to shoot down unarmed civilians. There is a significant difference there in my view.


  • #69
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »

    He also attributed it to a slightly different date then the listowel one. So Smyth said different things on different days certainly nothing that would substantively indicate the one I quoted and the generally accepted one was inaccurate. So yes I would have to agree with you on that.

    Nice links - thanks.

    I just think that given the circumstances a bit of healthy cynicism should be applied. Of course, we all know the version we prefer.

    I know McA will be very shocked at the notion that policemen, especially British policemen, sometimes lie and may have colluded on the statement.


  • #70
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    I just think that given the circumstances a bit of healthy cynicism should be applied. Of course, we all know the version we prefer.

    I hate to be pedantic or argumentative but I disagree - the discussion is not about 'which version of history we prefer' it is about which version is truthful.

    So far I am pretty sure I know which version is truthful but was genuinely open to persuasion (due to the critical historical importance of that order) which is why I asked you to provide links to the alternates so they could be assessed. I really see no reason to doubt that the official, generally accepted version of the wording of that order is correct.


  • #71
    Simarillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    Well unfortunatly (or fortunatly which ever way you want to see it) nobody was sitting there taking down the Colonels' speech word for word. So there is no such thing as an official version. There are only distorted and apparent versions, cited by: constables who were present and resigned, constables who were present and did not resign, and Lt. Colonel Smyth himself. None of these is a reliable source.

    Those who resigned were clearly disgusted by something Colonel Smyth said or did (or were looking for an excuse to resign due ot the stress on RIC men at the time), and are therefore biased against his speech.

    Colonel Smyths' version will be accused of softening his wording so as not to seem provocative.

    In fact the most neutral parties are those who did not resign, because they had nothing to gain by exagerating the facts. Then again, certian people here will accuse them of being blindly loyal to King and Country regardless of what the Colonel said, and willing to carry out his orders as the subordinate officers that they were. Therefore willing to stand by Colonel Smyths' version of the story.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Tarzan007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 104 ✭✭Tarzan007


    Simarillion wrote: »
    Well unfortunatly (or fortunatly which ever way you want to see it) nobody was sitting there taking down the Colonels' speech word for word. So there is no such thing as an official version. There are only distorted and apparent versions, cited by: constables who were present and resigned, constables who were present and did not resign, and Lt. Colonel Smyth himself. None of these is a reliable source.

    Those who resigned were clearly disgusted by something Colonel Smyth said or did (or were looking for an excuse to resign due ot the stress on RIC men at the time), and are therefore biased against his speech.

    Colonel Smyths' version will be accused of softening his wording so as not to seem provocative.

    In fact the most neutral parties are those who did not resign, because they had nothing to gain by exagerating the facts. Then again, certian people here will accuse them of being blindly loyal to King and Country regardless of what the Colonel said, and willing to carry out his orders as the subordinate officers that they were. Therefore willing to stand by Colonel Smyths' version of the story.

    Absoulutely pointless post :rolleyes: Well if you were to follow your line, the vast, vast majority of events, speeches etc in human history are questionable as those who witnesses them could possibly be presenting biased versions.

    I would have thought that a bit of cop on and pragmatism would have told you which was the truthful version. After all, the RIC men would hardly have given up a full time job and lost their pensions etc at the drop of a hat or a mild worded speech :rolleyes:


  • #73
    Simarillion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 123 ✭✭Simarillion


    Well to be perfectly truthful the vast majority of historical events are questionable which is why you have to base your decsion on a variety of sources from differant backgrounds.

    The main reason for my post is that this topic is supposed to be about the Black and Tans in Ireland not about the RIC or Colonel Smyth.

    As for leaving the force - over 416 RIC men who murdered during the Anglo-Irish and Civil Wars. They resigne din their thousands so as not to be targeted. By the end of the war the force had been greatly depleted in numbers due to threats from the IRA


  • #74
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    Tarzan007 wrote: »
    Absoulutely pointless post :rolleyes: Well if you were to follow your line, the vast, vast majority of events, speeches etc in human history are questionable as those who witnesses them could possibly be presenting biased versions.

    I would have thought that a bit of cop on and pragmatism would have told you which was the truthful version. After all, the RIC men would hardly have given up a full time job and lost their pensions etc at the drop of a hat or a mild worded speech :rolleyes:


    History by its very nature is subjective so unless you werew actully there then you can't say for certain what was said and even if you were your realting of the event would be subject to what ever bias you may have


  • #75
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Simarillion wrote: »
    Well to be perfectly truthful the vast majority of historical events are questionable which is why you have to base your decsion on a variety of sources from differant backgrounds.

    I agree and there will be various interpretations on events based on hindsight. Its not science.
    The main reason for my post is that this topic is supposed to be about the Black and Tans in Ireland not about the RIC or Colonel Smyth.

    Probably because Colenel Smyth had an Army Rank and not a police rank. It is easy to see how lines get crossed as to his status.
    As for leaving the force - over 416 RIC men who murdered during the Anglo-Irish and Civil Wars. They resigne din their thousands so as not to be targeted. By the end of the war the force had been greatly depleted in numbers due to threats from the IRA

    I agree -their membership was not mutually exclusive to the political and other realities.

    It also coincided with the end of WWI and dying had become a bit unfashionable.


  • #76
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Anyway how high was the Black and Tan casualty rate.

    Is it fair to say they were fairly useless against the Republicans who adopted guerilla tacts. Did they have any impact ort military successes.

    Were any prosecuted for civilian or military crimes?


  • #77
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    CDfm wrote: »
    Anyway how high was the Black and Tan casualty rate.

    Is it fair to say they were fairly useless against the Republicans who adopted guerilla tacts. Did they have any impact ort military successes.

    Were any prosecuted for civilian or military crimes?

    well, the black and tans did plenty in the destroying people's lives department, their business and homes etc. as yu know between them and the auxies, people sh&t themselves (a rightly so) when they were brought to the barrack or dublin castle (as seen in Ernie O'Malley's book) There actions really spurred whatever hatred there was or may have been towards the english.

    Considering that whilst the IRA had numbers around the country, only few counties were in full flight war and / or the IRA at any given time had a small amount of active service men, lack of arms and other artillery, clothes, food,money and in some cases lack of training, it was some achievement for the men of the IRA (for men who had either to try and hold down work or were on the run, or best men in prison) to put the elements of the british forces and police to anywhere near absolute defeat.

    All the same, although deaths by war are horrible regardless of who is it, its a horrible shame that there were more casualities in the civil war.


  • #78
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Morlar wrote: »
    Not according to this ;

    Consequently, within three months of this highly-publicised event, some 1,100 men resigned from the force.
    So in 1914 the threatened resigantion of 57 officers at the Curragh camp caused the british govt to back down and yet the actual resigantion of 1,100 RIC men later didn't come close to doing the same - and then we'll hear about british integrity :rolleyes:


  • #79
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    http://www.notmike.com/images/black_tan.gif


  • #80
    crazyhorse88
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6 ✭crazyhorse88


    Hello Everyone!
    Sorry for off topic but I'am (desperately )looking for help. I'am a student of English from Poland and I have to write my diploma project. It is about life of the Irish people in the early 1900s and I provide County Kerry as the example. Especially invaluable for me would be accounts of how life looked like from the perspective of an ordinary citizen during 1920s in Tralee. Unfortunately I'm not able to travel to Ireland and gather sufficient and credible data. So if anyone has a familiy member who remembers these turbulent times or is in possession of some memoirs or old newspaper articles or knows good webpages and is willing to help me, please contact me or simply reply!

    Here's my e-mail:
    bartek_kozub@onet.eu

    Thank you for Your help!
    Regards!
    Bartek


  • #81
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    crazyhorse88 wrote: »
    Hello Everyone!
    Sorry for off topic but I'am (desperately )looking for help. I'am a student of English from Poland and I have to write my diploma project.
    Bartek

    Have you posted in the kerry forum

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=958


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    McArmalite wrote: »
    So in 1914 the threatened resigantion of 57 officers at the Curragh camp caused the british govt to back down and yet the actual resigantion of 1,100 RIC men later didn't come close to doing the same - and then we'll hear about british integrity :rolleyes:

    You had a WWI and 1916 in the middle plus the change in the voting rules and suffrage for all men over 21 and women over 30 in 1918.

    The power of the House of Lords and influence of the traditional establishment had also changed.

    So the status quo was different and the world had changed.


  • #83
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    CDfm wrote: »
    You had a WWI and 1916 in the middle plus the change in the voting rules and suffrage for all men over 21 and women over 30 in 1918.

    The power of the House of Lords and influence of the traditional establishment had also changed.

    So the status quo was different and the world had changed.
    Yes the staus quo of the world had changed. Britain was actually weaker post WW1 and hence even more reason to feel the effects of the mass resignation of 1,100 RIC than it was in 1914 for the resignation of 57 army officers :rolleyes:.


  • #84
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    Yes the staus quo of the world had changed. Britain was actually weaker post WW1 and hence even more reason to feel the effects of the mass resignation of 1,100 RIC than it was in 1914 for the resignation of 57 army officers :rolleyes:.

    Yes Britain was weaker.

    Home Rule was law from 1914 and was awaiting implimentation and Llyod George attempted to hold discussions between all parties in 1917.

    So Home Rule was going to happen and the only issues to be decided were the institutions and partition.

    Home Rule was inevitable.Partition was not.

    The Black & Tans supplemented the RIC and many believed their actions were counter productive. However, politically the British didnt nesscessarily want to be liked as the political results were such that the attitudes couldnt be changed. My reckoning is that part of the reason for their deployment was reprisals.

    They were a lot more disciplined in Palestine and had learnt their craft in counter insurgency practices.


  • #85
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    CDfm wrote: »
    Yes Britain was weaker.

    Home Rule was law from 1914 and was awaiting implimentation and Llyod George attempted to hold discussions between all parties in 1917.

    So Home Rule was going to happen and the only issues to be decided were the institutions and partition.

    Home Rule was inevitable.Partition was not.

    The Black & Tans supplemented the RIC and many believed their actions were counter productive. However, politically the British didnt nesscessarily want to be liked as the political results were such that the attitudes couldnt be changed. My reckoning is that part of the reason for their deployment was reprisals.

    They were a lot more disciplined in Palestine and had learnt their craft in counter insurgency practices.

    sorry but partition was inevitable in some form or another, civil war was on the cards, without partition the island would have been plunged into a full scale war.


  • #86
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    junder wrote: »
    sorry but partition was inevitable in some form or another, civil war was on the cards, without partition the island would have been plunged into a full scale war.
    Yeah :rolleyes:, and how many times in my own lifetime alone have the unionists threatened to " the island would have been plunged into a full scale war " :rolleyes: They were going to do it if the Anglo Irish Agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the RUC cap badge was replaced :rolleyes:. These are the same people who ditched tens of thousands of fellow unionists without a whimper in the border counties and indeed Dublin etc where the Carson the leader of unionism was from. As James Connolly once described the relationship of unionism to britain, it is a relationship not found anywhere in nature, it is a relationship where one type of parasite breeded off another type of parasite. Without the brits - their nothing.

    The unionists make up 2% of the population of the state of ' britain '. 2% and your going to tells us that britain was honestly afraid to move against them :D. Not one single arrest, not one bullet recovered, unlike their wholesale attack on nationalist Ireland. As stated " No thousands of british soldiers, Tans, Auxilliary's etc been sent over to the northeast with martial Law, internment, executions, house burnings etc like the brits did to nationalist Ireland. Too well we know about british ' peace keeping ' and honesty. "


  • #87
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Yeah :rolleyes:, and how many times in my own lifetime alone have the unionists threatened to " the island would have been plunged into a full scale war " :rolleyes: They were going to do it if the Anglo Irish Agreement wasn't dropped, if they didn't get down Garvagh Road, if the RUC cap badge was replaced :rolleyes:. These are the same people who ditched tens of thousands of fellow unionists without a whimper in the border counties and indeed Dublin etc where the Carson the leader of unionism was from. As James Connolly once described the relationship of unionism to britain, it is a relationship not found anywhere in nature, it is a relationship where one type of parasite breeded off another type of parasite. Without the brits - their nothing.

    The unionists make up 2% of the population of the state of ' britain '. 2% and your going to tells us that britain was honestly afraid to move against them :D. Not one single arrest, not one bullet recovered, unlike their wholesale attack on nationalist Ireland. As stated " No thousands of british soldiers, Tans, Auxilliary's etc been sent over to the northeast with martial Law, internment, executions, house burnings etc like the brits did to nationalist Ireland. Too well we know about british ' peace keeping ' and honesty. "


    The war is over, you missed it, time to move on.


  • #88
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    junder wrote: »
    The war is over, you missed it, time to move on.

    I am not a moderator but maybe it might be an idea to respond to posts in a more constructive manner ?


  • #89
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    junder wrote: »
    sorry but partition was inevitable in some form or another,
    But not as we know it.

    The democratic model was abandoned
    civil war was on the cards,

    Debateable
    without partition the island would have been plunged into a full scale war.

    I agree but the form of governments/institutions were never fully explored


  • #90
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    CDfm wrote: »
    But not as we know it.

    The democratic model was abandoned



    Debateable


    I agree but the form of governments/institutions were never fully explored

    the only model to avoid civil war is the one we have ie partition, the size of northern ireland may have varied to some degree but the result would have been the same. There was/is no interest in a united ireland among the unionist population even now a united ireland would spark of wide scale civil desturbances which would quickly escalate.
    Much is made about Northern Ireland being a protestant state for a protestant people bit conviently forget that the Free state later RoI was a catholic state for catholic people, there was nothing about the free state that remotely interested Unionists in wanting to be part of, and as it was there was a exodius of protestants from the free state into northern ireland which would account for the massive protestant population drop in the free state/roi after partition.
    Could the free state have defeated the UVF we can only speculate and even then any debate about that would likely end up in a pissing contest. Either way the fact that the UVF was created and armed in the way it was shows how much resolve there was to resist being forced into a united ireland


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    junder wrote: »
    the only model to avoid civil war is the one we have ie partition, the size of northern ireland may have varied to some degree but the result would have been the same. There was/is no interest in a united ireland among the unionist population even now a united ireland would spark of wide scale civil desturbances which would quickly escalate.
    Much is made about Northern Ireland being a protestant state for a protestant people bit conviently forget that the Free state later RoI was a catholic state for catholic people, there was nothing about the free state that remotely interested Unionists in wanting to be part of, and as it was there was a exodius of protestants from the free state into northern ireland which would account for the massive protestant population drop in the free state/roi after partition.
    Could the free state have defeated the UVF we can only speculate and even then any debate about that would likely end up in a pissing contest. Either way the fact that the UVF was created and armed in the way it was shows how much resolve there was to resist being forced into a united ireland


    A 32 county Ireland would be a much different place to the current ROI or NI.
    The free state had a huge catholic majority and therefore was a catholic country. By and large there was no oppression of protestants and the vast majority of southern protestants did and do very well and are contented and proud Irishmen and women. The small miniority was by and large well looked after and rightly so.

    On the other hand the North had less than a 2:1 protestant majority and the government quickly enforced policies to ensure complete protestant dominance and control even by gerrymandering areas of a catholic majority.

    The protestant fear of what will happen them under rule by Roman Catholics has been guiding their politics for a long time. There is little evidence that Roman Catholics have used their power in the republic to persecute protestants.

    Partition, against the hopes of its signatories has only polarised the unsolved problem and was clearly a huge mistake.

    As the proprtion of protestants in NI falls the case for exclusion from a united Ireland based on unsubstantiated fear of prosecution weakens.


  • #92
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A lot of sense there Junder.

    Partition was inevitable in one way. I mean both tribes had their armies.

    A federal/ regionalised form of self government could have worked.

    Egos probably got in the way of a solution.


  • #93
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    T runner wrote: »
    A 32 county Ireland would be a much different place to the current ROI or NI.
    The free state had a huge catholic majority and therefore was a catholic country. By and large there was no oppression of protestants and the vast majority of southern protestants did and do very well and are contented and proud Irishmen and women. The small miniority was by and large well looked after and rightly so.

    On the other hand the North had less than a 2:1 protestant majority and the government quickly enforced policies to ensure complete protestant dominance and control even by gerrymandering areas of a catholic majority.

    The protestant fear of what will happen them under rule by Roman Catholics has been guiding their politics for a long time. There is little evidence that Roman Catholics have used their power in the republic to persecute protestants.

    Partition, against the hopes of its signatories has only polarised the unsolved problem and was clearly a huge mistake.

    As the proprtion of protestants in NI falls the case for exclusion from a united Ireland based on unsubstantiated fear of prosecution weakens.

    Ne Temere?
    93% of the state schools being run by the Roman catholic church
    the cases regarding non catholic Librarians and non catholic doctors?

    protestants may not have been persecuted in Ireland, but the Catholic Church made sure that the government made life was as uncomfortable as possible for them


  • #94
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Ne Temere?
    93% of the state schools being run by the Roman catholic church
    the cases regarding non catholic Librarians and non catholic doctors?

    protestants may not have been persecuted in Ireland, but the Catholic Church made sure that the government made life was as uncomfortable as possible for them

    Jesus, I hate doing this, but its not like the Protestants/Church of Ireland were the fine citizens when they ruled the land and parliament. (funny though, all their prejudices towards THE CHURCH, came true and they were right)


  • #95
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    Jesus, I hate doing this, but its not like the Protestants/Church of Ireland were the fine citizens when they ruled the land and parliament. (funny though, all their prejudices towards THE CHURCH, came true and they were right)

    I wouldn't disagree, the CoI exploited it's position, but the impression is often given that Ireland miraculously became a secular utopia after independance, when in reality, the RC Church took the view that they now had control and would do in their power to make Ireland a strict catholic country.

    Incidentally, I know a CoI rector who started his career up in Donegal, looking after several small parish churches, he tells of an area (which i believe is stilltrue today) where Catholic and Protestants lived perfectly happily together. in fact, one of the small churches he looked after had been condemned and need demolishing and rebuilidng.

    One evening, a friend of a parishoner came to him and told him to empty the Church and make sure thee was no one around the following evening, as he had a brother from over the border who was a "Demolitions Expert".

    Sure enough, after the brother's visit, there was nothing left except a smoking pile of rubble, which everyone in the community helped rebuild into a lovely small parish Church.:D


  • #96
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Ne Temere?
    93% of the state schools being run by the Roman catholic church
    the cases regarding non catholic Librarians and non catholic doctors?

    there were some incidents but you also had a few protestant presidents as well

    Douglas Hyde or Erskine Childers ring a bell.
    protestants may not have been persecuted in Ireland, but the Catholic Church made sure that the government made life was as uncomfortable as possible for them

    There were issues where the tribes ring fenced themselves - work places etc.

    So right or wrong on petty prejudices - the Black and Tans AFAIK they were not Irish Protestants or Catholics.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Ne Temere?
    93% of the state schools being run by the Roman catholic church
    the cases regarding non catholic Librarians and non catholic doctors?

    protestants may not have been persecuted in Ireland, but the Catholic Church made sure that the government made life was as uncomfortable as possible for them

    Notwithstanding the isolated cases you mentioned I dont think the government made lifer difficult for protestants here.

    There was absolutely no impediments to their civil liberties whatsoever. In fact because they in the main occuypied the upper classes their liberty was protected and guaranteed.

    The amount of catholic state schools was in fairness inherited from the British regime. When conceding education to Catholics after emancipation they built Maynooth for the churtch and the church responded by supporting the establishment.

    Becuase of the religious aspect to Irish history and education it has taken a long time for secularisation.

    It should be noted that the republic of Ireland has a far more secular education system now than NI. Probably more a factor of the importance of the ereligious question north of the border than anything else.

    Hopefully the recent events in the church can be a radical catalyst for almost complete secularisation.


  • #98
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    T runner wrote: »
    Notwithstanding the isolated cases you mentioned I dont think the government made lifer difficult for protestants here.

    There was absolutely no impediments to their civil liberties whatsoever. In fact because they in the main occuypied the upper classes their liberty was protected and guaranteed.

    The amount of catholic state schools was in fairness inherited from the British regime. When conceding education to Catholics after emancipation they built Maynooth for the churtch and the church responded by supporting the establishment.

    Becuase of the religious aspect to Irish history and education it has taken a long time for secularisation.

    It should be noted that the republic of Ireland has a far more secular education system now than NI. Probably more a factor of the importance of the ereligious question north of the border than anything else.

    Hopefully the recent events in the church can be a radical catalyst for almost complete secularisation.

    Actully all Protestant schools in Northern Ireland are classed as bog standard state secondray schools, its the catholic church that maintains a spefic single indenty school, system maintained through the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CMS).
    As for the Decline in Protestant population in the Free state was concerned you can argue the toss all you like, fact, is there was a massive decline in protestant population a fact that is at odds with the sentiment that they were treated ok by the state, either way the preception is in northern ireland (in part because of the storys brought to us by those protestants that left the free state and also storys from those protestants still living in the RoI) that protestants were mistreated and when it comes down to it preception is everything. Much Like the issue with the black & Tans, RIC UVF and the whole partition issue


  • #99
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,128 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    The Musgrave family, which had built themselves a mini-empire 100 odd years ago (and now takes a lot of money from us via SuperValu etc franchises etc:(), were apparently thinking of taking a one-way trip to the North after the regime change. They were obviously expecting some kind of backlash, but it didn't materialise, so they stayed put.

    However, for many decades after the event, the board of directors only consisted of protestant family members or associates.


  • #100
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    The Musgrave family, which had built themselves a mini-empire 100 odd years ago (and now takes a lot of money from us via SuperValu etc franchises etc:(), were apparently thinking of taking a one-way trip to the North after the regime change. They were obviously expecting some kind of backlash, but it didn't materialise, so they stayed put.

    However, for many decades after the event, the board of directors only consisted of protestant family members or associates.

    And whats more there was an exodus of protesatants and a flight of investment capital from ireland

    those who stayed showed trust in the new regime


  • #101
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    junder wrote: »
    Actully all Protestant schools in Northern Ireland are classed as bog standard state secondray schools, its the catholic church that maintains a spefic single indenty school, system maintained through the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CMS).
    As for the Decline in Protestant population in the Free state was concerned you can argue the toss all you like, fact, is there was a massive decline in protestant population a fact that is at odds with the sentiment that they were treated ok by the state, either way the preception is in northern ireland (in part because of the storys brought to us by those protestants that left the free state and also storys from those protestants still living in the RoI) that protestants were mistreated and when it comes down to it preception is everything. Much Like the issue with the black & Tans, RIC UVF and the whole partition issue


    The only protestants who can judge were the protestants who remained here. There is absolutely no substantiation for claiming that a majority or even a large minority were mistreated: it simply didnt happen.

    The historian ATQ Stewart acknowledes this in his book on Ulster protestant history (The Narrow Ground). He says that by and large protestants were treated well in the south as it was in their interest to do.

    The movement of some protestants out of the free state can attributed to members of the withdrawing British Army. Some may have married up north as there was a greater pool of potential co-religionist mates there.

    Some may have married into catholicism. Some may have moved due to wanting to be a part of a protestant majority (around the border perhaps) but very few or none moved to evade persecution and the vast majority remained.

    It was partitioning the country into two religious states that caused some of the polarisation. If anyone is to blame for that Im afraid it is the advocates of partition.

    The state schools in Northern Ireland all have a very Unionest-pro British -Protestant ethos. (A protestant clergyman on every school council). There was no secular, neutral alternative for Catholic children whatsoever.

    It was clearly policy that state schools were de facto for protestants only.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement