Young men under 30 created this State. Whatever happened them?

Denerick · 03-01-2011 1:22am #1

With a few exceptions (Like De Valera and Griffith) all of the Sinn Féin and IRA leaders of the War of Independence and Civil War were under 30. Complex, magnificent, flawed, brilliant men like Michael Collins, Tom Barry, Richard Mulcahy, Kevin O'Higgins, Frank Aiken (Even the likes of Eoin O'Duffy, while a fascist it is important to remember how important his role was with the Gardaí in their formative years) However the immediate years following independence were dominated by a obscuritan breed of parochial conservatism. Perhaps it is silly to associate youth with progressivism, in any epoch, but I'm wondering if anyone has put much thought or research into how and why an entire political generation adopted such a stance? Then, as now, the two civil war parties were essentially in agreement on most policy areas, with a couple of exceptions. There was very much a political consensus about how to organise society. There were important economic policy divergences, but De Valera's vision of comely Gaelic maidens dancing to jigs wasn't much different to the opposition.

P.S. I've been meaning to read 'The Irish Counter Revolution' for some time now.

Darlughda · 03-01-2011 1:23am

They became freemasons.:D

johnnyskeleton · 03-01-2011 1:26am

They were not politicians. They were disaffected violent young men, who eschewed the path of peaceful nationalism in favour of violent insurrection. And they only won because the political process was going to give us independence in any event.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 03-01-2011 1:39am

Just a local example but the three main figures in the Mayo IRA were Sean Corcoran Michael Kilroy and Tom Maguire. Corcoran was killed shortly before the war ended. Kilroy became a Fianna Fail TD and part of the establishment. Maguire remained involved with dissident republicanism until the 1990s (As did Tom Barry until his death in the 80s). The same would apply to most members of the independence movement, they were for the most part conservatively minded and content with the Irish state from the 1930s on, or radicals who were far removed from mainstream politics. Or died in one of the conflicts.

ninty9er · 03-01-2011 1:42am

They were never really politically progressive. They had no real issue with the way the British were running Ireland, apart from law and order obviously. They were more concerned that the British were doing it and not a Dublin based parliament.

ArtSmart · 03-01-2011 2:00am

Re-read and re-read - no idea what the underlying question is.

is it, why to 'rebels' become 'conservative'? both terms need detailed explanation for any meaningful answer to be offered in the Irish context.

as a general answer though - they get sense.

as a further note, the 'dancing at the crossroads' was fully in tandem with the SF leaders philosophy, pretty much across the board. It was for the most part, Larkin and Connolly who were suggesting something a little different.

later12 · 03-01-2011 2:50pm

Interesting question OP, interesting thread topic.

I suppose it takes young men to bring about a revolution, and old men to manage the outcome. I would agree with the poster who said that they were never really politically progressive, but neither, in my opinion, were many senior politicians throughout the twentieth century, nor are they now.

brianthebard · 03-01-2011 3:48pm

ninty9er wrote: »

They were never really politically progressive. They had no real issue with the way the British were running Ireland, apart from law and order obviously. They were more concerned that the British were doing it and not a Dublin based parliament.

Disagree with that pretty much completely. Nobody wins a war of independence on the basis of wanting to do the exact same thing as the Brits afterwards. I'm going to insist that people try and make answers in keeping with the discipline of history, there's a lot of one liners here that isn't doing anyone any good.

I think the op's question is very complicated. First there is the issue of how many of these young men died before the Free State was created, and thus never got a chance to go into politics.
Then there's the issue of opposition; how many of them were disgruntled with the Free State and rather than going into politics, tried to continue the fight through the IRA?

The most obvious answer however is something Crotty refers to; since the famine the people most likely to want to change this country have emigrated, while those who had least to gain from the system changing radically stayed. Over time this conservatism became engrained in Irish society. the progressive politics the op refers to were for the most part a blip, which was magnified by a tradition of Parnellism and WWI which put a halt to emigration and radicalised those who were forced to stay. There was nowhere near the critical mass needed to sustain such idealistic politics after the wars.

Denerick · 03-01-2011 11:04pm

brianthebard wrote: »

The most obvious answer however is something Crotty refers to; since the famine the people most likely to want to change this country have emigrated, while those who had least to gain from the system changing radically stayed. Over time this conservatism became engrained in Irish society. the progressive politics the op refers to were for the most part a blip, which was magnified by a tradition of Parnellism and WWI which put a halt to emigration and radicalised those who were forced to stay. There was nowhere near the critical mass needed to sustain such idealistic politics after the wars.

I was going to mention this fact in my first post, glad you brought it up. For a brief 20 year period in Irish history emigration was greatly reduced; this alone provides some explanation for the ferocious rise of mass mobilised political movements, such as the Volunteers. What is probably most interesting about this is that while most rank and file Volunteers pre-1914 were usually older and on average better off, most active IRA rebels in the war of independence were predominantly young men, mostly aged under 25, and largely hailing from humbler households.

Emigration often becomes a safety valve, both social and economic. One of the more interesting things about Ireland in the run up to the revolutionary period (I would boldly class this as 1913-1923) is that there were simply a lot more young people there. Perhaps one could also say that practically all legal discrimination against Irish Catholics was rolled back by 1916. Thus the Irish Catholic had reached a ceiling of self actualisation. From there on, the only way up was complete seperation. This must have been an intoxicating thought for most young men of this period.

brianthebard · 04-01-2011 12:33am

Denerick wrote: »

I was going to mention this fact in my first post, glad you brought it up. For a brief 20 year period in Irish history emigration was greatly reduced; this alone provides some explanation for the ferocious rise of mass mobilised political movements, such as the Volunteers. What is probably most interesting about this is that while most rank and file Volunteers pre-1914 were usually older and on average better off, most active IRA rebels in the war of independence were predominantly young men, mostly aged under 25, and largely hailing from humbler households.

I would not class the volunteers as radical until after 1914 and the split tbh. You should keep in mind that the organisation was created to see that the Home Rule Bill was enacted peacefully. Also I would class the volunteers as part of the european wide nationalist fever of the time, brought about by the same attitudes that made so many men eager to join WWI in the beginning.

Emigration often becomes a safety valve, both social and economic. One of the more interesting things about Ireland in the run up to the revolutionary period (I would boldly class this as 1913-1923) is that there were simply a lot more young people there. Perhaps one could also say that practically all legal discrimination against Irish Catholics was rolled back by 1916. Thus the Irish Catholic had reached a ceiling of self actualisation. From there on, the only way up was complete seperation. This must have been an intoxicating thought for most young men of this period.

That's probably a fair point but I think you should consider the importance of the home rule movement in the previous decades which had encouraged political debate and ideology, questions about how we were going to govern when home rule was granted, etc.

Denerick · 04-01-2011 1:03am

brianthebard wrote: »

I would not class the volunteers as radical until after 1914 and the split tbh. You should keep in mind that the organisation was created to see that the Home Rule Bill was enacted peacefully. Also I would class the volunteers as part of the european wide nationalist fever of the time, brought about by the same attitudes that made so many men eager to join WWI in the beginning.

I was clumsily making the point that the middlish class/older membership of the volunteers contrasted with the humbler/younger membership of the IRA...

Fratton Fred · 04-01-2011 10:26am

Am I correct in thinking that a lot of these young men were socialists? If so, how would they have reacted to the role the Church played in the state?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 04-01-2011 10:54am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that a lot of these young men were socialists? If so, how would they have reacted to the role the Church played in the state?

For the most part members of the IRA were not socialists although there were some exceptions such as Peadar O'Donnell leader of the Donegal flying columns who was a committed Marxist.

Denerick · 04-01-2011 11:35am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that a lot of these young men were socialists? If so, how would they have reacted to the role the Church played in the state?

There were very few socialists. Liam Mellows is one, and Peader O'Donnell another. Conor Kostick wrote a book about popular militancy which improbably claims that the War of Independence was a socialist revolution thwarted by the forces of indigenous capital.

Fratton Fred · 04-01-2011 1:06pm

So what were their goals then? What did they hope to achieve from independence other than removing British rule?

Surely if they remove the ruling power with no clear goals, it creates a power vacuum, especially if they then split, fight amongst themselves and kill the best leader they have on a country road in Cork.

Denerick · 04-01-2011 1:20pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what were their goals then? What did they hope to achieve from independence other than removing British rule?

Surely if they remove the ruling power with no clear goals, it creates a power vacuum, especially if they then split, fight amongst themselves and kill the best leader they have on a country road in Cork.

Ernie O'Malleys memoirs reveal something fascinating about the Republican mindset during this period. O'Malley was undoubtedly an intelligent man, an intellectual even, but as far as I can tell from reading his books and his letters he doesn't seem to have any political ideology other than complete and total seperation from Britain. Their goals were political independence. As is stated in 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley', 'all that would be changed is the colour of the flag and the accents of the powerful'. For a socialist this was certainly true, and it is quite important to remember there were few socialists in Ireland in 1921.

Fratton Fred · 04-01-2011 2:07pm

Denerick wrote: »

Ernie O'Malleys memoirs reveal something fascinating about the Republican mindset during this period. O'Malley was undoubtedly an intelligent man, an intellectual even, but as far as I can tell from reading his books and his letters he doesn't seem to have any political ideology other than complete and total seperation from Britain. Their goals were political independence. As is stated in 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley', 'all that would be changed is the colour of the flag and the accents of the powerful'. For a socialist this was certainly true, and it is quite important to remember there were few socialists in Ireland in 1921.

so was that it then? These guys all saw it as a job well done and then sat back and let Dev get on with the job of running the country?

It seems like an awful waste.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 04-01-2011 9:27pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so was that it then? These guys all saw it as a job well done and then sat back and let Dev get on with the job of running the country?

It seems like an awful waste.

Speaking as republican, it was at the end of the day a waste. The new Irish government simply carried on running things as before and if anything made things worse by introducing theocracy we had for decades to come. A terrible missed opportunity for Ireland.

walrusgumble · 05-01-2011 11:10am

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Speaking as republican, it was at the end of the day a waste. The new Irish government simply carried on running things as before and if anything made things worse by introducing theocracy we had for decades to come. A terrible missed opportunity for Ireland.

Agreed. But, you could not simply blame the politicans for this. The people themselves were not socialists, or at least, were in fear of it and a misunderstanding of same; with assistance by the church and farming communities and business. Remember when Fianna Fáil came into politics, Cumann na nGaedheal came out with poster accusing Fianna Fáil as being a bunch of red commies, for no apparrent reason.

Fratton Fred · 05-01-2011 12:33pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Agreed. But, you could not simply blame the politicans for this. The people themselves were not socialists, or at least, were in fear of it and a misunderstanding of same; with assistance by the church and farming communities and business. Remember when Fianna Fáil came into politics, Cumann na nGaedheal came out with poster accusing Fianna Fáil as being a bunch of red commies, for no apparrent reason.

That's interesting.

One thing I have often thought about Ireland is that there is an awful lot of democracy. It seems that TDs spend their time looking after their own communities (and interests) but dodge a lot of the national issues for fear of upsetting someone. Is this maybe a legacy of a period when, post independence, there was no real direction, no strong leader everyone could rally behind. In effect, every person in the country had their own idea of what the country should be?

Except of course a certain archbishop who seized the opportunity to shape it the way he wanted?

brianthebard · 05-01-2011 1:39pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's interesting.

One thing I have often thought about Ireland is that there is an awful lot of democracy. It seems that TDs spend their time looking after their own communities (and interests) but dodge a lot of the national issues for fear of upsetting someone. Is this maybe a legacy of a period when, post independence, there was no real direction, no strong leader everyone could rally behind. In effect, every person in the country had their own idea of what the country should be?

Except of course a certain archbishop who seized the opportunity to shape it the way he wanted?

It probably has as much or more to do iwth the legacy of the IPP.

Fratton Fred · 05-01-2011 1:59pm

brianthebard wrote: »

It probably has as much or more to do iwth the legacy of the IPP.

How so? By changing their tune to suit their audience?

Denerick · 05-01-2011 2:27pm

brianthebard wrote: »

It probably has as much or more to do iwth the legacy of the IPP.

I would strongly disagree with that statement. The IPP, for all its faults, was a truly national organisation that represented Irish interests in Westminster. Local concerns, where relevant, were not nearly as crucial in deciding local candidates as they were in the immediate years following indepedence. You're going to have to back that statement up.

brianthebard · 05-01-2011 2:51pm

Denerick wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with that statement. The IPP, for all its faults, was a truly national organisation that represented Irish interests in Westminster. Local concerns, where relevant, were not nearly as crucial in deciding local candidates as they were in the immediate years following indepedence. You're going to have to back that statement up.

Every book ever written about Irish home rule or the IPP or independence will tell you that local concerns were the cornerstone of the IPP success. Obviously they represented national interests as well but a large amount of time taken up by Irish mp's in Westminster was about local issues.

Denerick · 05-01-2011 4:14pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Every book ever written about Irish home rule or the IPP or independence will tell you that local concerns were the cornerstone of the IPP success. Obviously they represented national interests as well but a large amount of time taken up by Irish mp's in Westminster was about local issues.

Are you suggesting the parish pump legacy of Irish politics is a direct descendant of the IPP?

walrusgumble · 05-01-2011 5:04pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's interesting.

One thing I have often thought about Ireland is that there is an awful lot of democracy. It seems that TDs spend their time looking after their own communities (and interests) but dodge a lot of the national issues for fear of upsetting someone. Is this maybe a legacy of a period when, post independence, there was no real direction, no strong leader everyone could rally behind. In effect, every person in the country had their own idea of what the country should be?

Except of course a certain archbishop who seized the opportunity to shape it the way he wanted?

Put it this way, imagine how playright, (and one time republican) Sean O'Casey felt.

If you look at 1916 itself, there were many different reasons for fighting. Some would have shared the same school as Earnie O'Malley - get them out and lets sort our selves out, whatever way (lets remember thats exactly what the first dail said, fair enough, get everyone behind the wheel and deal with what kind of country we want afterwards), you had the labour and socialist movement in the likes of Connolly, you had the big farmers (later appeared to be Fine Gaelers), small farmers (appeared later to be Fianna Failers), Conservative Catholics/Corporatist, and some liberal. they fought for different things. It might explain why the "split" was the most prominent aspect in Irish history.

As you will appreciate, McQuaid was by no means the most vocal and influenctial cleric is Irish history (for better or for worse). But it stipflied progress. Not many would be brave enough to go against the tide of public opinion or big agencies (as Dr Noele Brown did with the medical profession and church) then. How could you, be ripped apart at the pulprit. Be accussed of being a commie (or a queer for wearing purple today- not really, but you get the mentality).

To be honest, some of your questions would be better addressed to older members who lived during this period. Despite the bittereness even then of Dev, he was one of the most reverred men from the 1920s right up to at least the early 1960's (yes we know he nearly lost the last Presidential election). He appeared to be honest, when he once said, all i have to do is look into my own heart to know what the irish people wanted.

CDfm · 05-01-2011 9:26pm

Denerick wrote: »

Are you suggesting the parish pump legacy of Irish politics is a direct descendant of the IPP?

I dont know who said "all politics is local".

Politics has been described as getting elected/re-elected which is different to government.

In Ireland we have a huge system of clientism, and interest groups which has evolved and it is not a British Legacy.

My maternal grandfather a 1916 veteran from West Cork would have said the key objective of the War of Independence was to get rid of the British ascendency/landlords/former landlords. .

In that way, the landlord clearences in West Cork and evictions, fed on the tradition of the McCarthy executions in 1801 and Carriganima in 1822, the Famine in the 1840's and mass evictions in the 1870's . Sod mud huts of the evicted in the 1890's.

http://carriganimawhiteboys.com/whiteboysinmuskerry.html

The next day the bodies were taken back to Cork. They were buried in a quicklime grave in “Poll an Cropaidh” as referred to in De Búrcas book in Máire Bhuí Ní Laoghaire. The authorities did not want any trace of them to remain in the area. The heads of the McCarthy’s executed in 1801 in front of the castle gate still remained on iron spikes (as 3 black balls) on the wall of the Bridewell but their bodies were laid in the best kept graves in Dún Dha Radharc cemetery. So mush so that over 200 years later we can still read the inscription. Here lies the body of…

So the objective was very simple in Ballabhuirne West Cork -to get rid of the British and the local landlord Colthurst and ruling classes..

The system of government may have not changed but the peoples participation in it did.

My grandfather became a shopkeeper and cattle dealer. Thats hardly marxist but basic rights were very important to him and they had been missing.

I do not imagine that the West Cork experience was very different to the Sligo of the Gore-Booths and if you get rid of Lady Gregory and Countess Marcewicz from the Sligo history their legacy would be very different.

Here is a Sligo link which gives an idea what life was like

http://www.sligoheritage.com/archpomano.htm

My fathers family in Wexford had a totally different experience by comparison to any of this.

irish_goat · 05-01-2011 9:34pm

Anyone any statistics on life expectancy back then? As far as I can tell it was around the 50 year mark for the UK so it was probably lower in Ireland. Given that it's not surprising there was more room for younger males to emerge as leaders.

CDfm · 06-01-2011 12:29am

Life expectancy is one thing but people were considered "adults" at a younger age and complete their education apprenticeships etc , run farms, businesses etc.

Most people left school somewhere between 12 and 14.

I mean you could join the military, marry, get executed etc under the age of 21 which was the minimum voting age for men after 1918 (it was 30 for women)

brianthebard · 06-01-2011 3:13am

Denerick wrote: »

Are you suggesting the parish pump legacy of Irish politics is a direct descendant of the IPP?

I'm saying there is a tradition of putting local politics on an equal or higher footing than national interests in Irish political life.

ciarriaithuaidh · 20-01-2011 6:43pm

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm saying there is a tradition of putting local politics on an equal or higher footing than national interests in Irish political life.

Spot on there. Look at some of the gombeens that get elected in predominantly rural areas, Jackie Healy-Rae etc...There's this feeling that they are "getting one over on them in Dublin" or something like that, possibly a legacy of colonial times when it was getting one over on London maybe, but definitely its the mentality amongst some people ive spoken to. Of course in the long run its to the constituency's detriment as they are served less well and become less respected due to the gombeen they have elected to represent them...Or you can take the other view that people get who they vote for/who represents what they are like themselves...

As for the original post on the foundations of the state, well, it was a mini-tragedy that some of them werent to contribute more in the early years of independence. once Collins was killed, the likes of Mulcahy was without his strongest ally and was overrun politically by shrewder operators. Having studied a bit about some of them however, I would be glad they were marginalised to a great extent. Tom Barry was (and remains) a hero of the War of Independence and deserves to be amongst those credited with winning our independence....politically however he was all over the shop. Despite throwing in with the Republicans in the civil war, he had the sense (humanity?)to propose a ceasefire when their cause was hopeless (being outvoted by diehards like Lynch). However his continued activity with the IRA, including his pro-Nazi sentiments are a discredit to him and his lack of flexibility and wilingness to engage politically would seem to indicate a man of a fixed mindset, so in my view he would have had none of the sublety or foresight that Collins, and even Dev later on, would exhibit. Still a legend for what he and the West Cork boys did mind.

Young men under 30 created this State. Whatever happened them?

Comments