James Connollys Last Speech

paky wrote: »

Has anyone any info of where I can find James Connollys last speech. I came across this song but not sure if its true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MemUQ1hM0Ps

I'd take the Speech (rant) with a pinch of salt. The guy talking seems to spout a lot of Pearse-like Nationalist rhetoric. My understanding of Connolly is: that he was a member of the (Labour) Irish Citizen Army and not the (Sinn Fein) Irish Republican Army, as is said in the Speech. However, the Song would seem to sum him up better. The line "Hold On To Your Rifles" refers to the potential future power struggle between his Socialist ICA and Pearse's Nationalist IRA.

PKen wrote: »

Never assume to know whom one's heroes are. In fact, they're Daniel O'Connell, Charles Stewart Parnell and Michael Davitt. Widely held views (like the church's) must always be questioned and challenged. Otherwise, we'd be just like sheep - blindly accepting all presented to us.
The "Holding On To Your Rifles" bit can be interpreted in a few ways. It is known that Pearse and Connolly disagreed on strategy prior to 1916. They also had very different plans for the future of Ireland. Connolly was primarily a Socialist and Inter-Nationalist who invisaged a Socialist Workers Republic. Pearse merely favoured Independance. Socialism was the furthest thing from his mind. I'd even go as far as questioning his Republican credentials too. I believe Pearse was merely a Nationalist - possibly even favouring Ireland having it's own Monarchy! He had an over romanticised view of Ireland - kinda like W.B Yeates with a rifle. Do you know the the difference between Republicanism and Nationalism? If not, look at Spain's history. They fought a Civil War over it.
Connolly predicted a future schism within the ranks of the Republican movement similar to what did eventually happen in 1969. Remember the "Split" which created the (left wing) Official IRA and the (reactionary) Provisional IRA?
Thanks to R.Dub.Fusilier and MarchDub for pointing out (in a civil way) my inaccuracies. It was perhaps the over emotive way in which the speaker spoke, that led me to believe it was incorrect. I was wrong - the guys were right. However, it sounded like it was recorded at either a Provisional Sinn Fein or IRSP meeting. I doubt that James Connolly would have said it that way.

Im sorry but I have to take issue with this and your previous statements due to their inherent variance with the recorded facts . Pearses political leanings while not scientific marxist were very left wing and became more openly pronounced as the years progressed . He, like all the signatories of the 1916 proclamation strongly supported the Dublin workers during the Lock Out, unlike sinn fein, of which he was not a member and which played no role in the rising
. Even prior to his involvement in republicanism he was a strong advocate of gender equality, as can be seen from the position he adopted during the debates on the national university, where he argued for female professors while his contemporaries were still dithering about admitting female pupils . His denunciation of the education system and his alternatives were extremely progressive . His definition of republicanism as an ideology hailed what he called 4 evangelists ..3 of them protestant and one of them a proto socialist, James Fintan Lawlor . So no holy catholic mother Ireland there by any means .
And ultimately he advocated the same economic stance as Connolly, and indeed Marx, nationalisation of key industries and resources and from each according to their means, to each according to their needs.

Youll find a very well written article here which outlines what Pearse actually wrote and advocated and comparing it with Connolly, and how both men had a profound influence on each others beliefs .

http://www.iol.ie/~sob/jcet/2006-03-21-mma.html

that paper is very thorough and very well sourced and very much in complete variance to the casual characterisation of both men as polar opposites .

As regards differences with Connolly I know of very few, bar some minor criticisms from Connolly when he was completely in the dark about the impending insurrection and ignorant of the reasons behind supposed timidity, as opposed to secrecy .

And as far the monarchy thing its absolutely nowhere in any of pearses extensive writings including those which focus on the proposed form of a new Ireland, which he repeatedly insists will be a republic and a left wing one at that . I can only assume your referring to an aside overheard by Des Fitzgerald during easter week were Pearse jokes..from inside a burning GPO.. that some German princeling will make a fine head of state among the crown heads of europe . Nobody regards that as remotely serious .


Lastly Im quite taken aback at your refusal to accept Connollys last will and testament in his speech to his court martial . Those words were very carefully chosen . And indeed very much in line with much of his other writings prior to the uprising ,which if anything would be even more republican . Perhaps ...respectfully you could do with reappraising yourself with the actual historical facts as opposed to the selective revision of them, whether from left or right . Because your analysis and understanding is sadly at variance with them .

as regards the hold onto your rifles thing a number of historians regard that to be a complete invention resulting from an ICA members wishful thinking and struggling to grasp Connollys apparent grave ideological error . Following the uprising the majority of Connollys socialist contemporaries were being quite disparaging about his actions. Indeed one of them, Arthur Henderson a fellow member of the second socialist International was one of the British cabinet members who ordered Connollys excution . Whats conspicuous is the complete absence from the historical record of absolutely anyone who actually heard the words uttered . Despite that its a quote that pops up all over the place, completely unsourced by our historians and commentators . Which is a sad reflection on them when alls said and done. I think in the total absence of any witness to it and the fact its wholly absent from any of Connollys extensive political writings, and not least the fact that it would be an extremely demoralising and even treacherous action to be talking about future internal conflicts on the very morning of an uprising, it can safely be discounted as an urban myth . I believe James Connolly was a man of much higher character than that and would never make such a divisive utterance at such a crucial time, when morale was absolutely key to the enterprise.

Riddle101 wrote: »

I don't think he predicted things as far ahead as that. In all likelihood he predicted the split in the old IRA/Republican Movement, that started the civil war. But as far as predicting the split between the OIRA and the PIRA, unlikely. However it should be noted that the anti-treaty IRA were against socialism and socialist members of the IRA left the IRA. Most notably Peader O'Donnell who supported Connelly.

Nationalist movements are cross-class alliances and can be pulled asunder under pressure of class struggle. When the objective of the nationalist movement was independence then the cross class alliance could hold together. When the likelihood of independence was on the agenda then the class interests of the various competing classes caused the nationalist movement as it was to split (in relation to Ireland 1922 you had competing class interests from the wealthy elites and bankers - the large farmers - the small farmers - the craft trades - and the urban and rural working class)

It is correct that both the pro- and anti- treaty forces were opposed to the workers movement. Both elements acted to suppress the Munster Soviets and the nationwide farm labourers strikes in 1922.

Riddle101 wrote: »

More to the point, a socialist rebellion would need a lot of support. The ICA was a small force, not capable of launching a socialist rebellion, and socialism never really got a foothold in Ireland.

This I would disagree with - there was a large, militant, left-wing trade union movement and labour party (it was one body - the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress - until 1930). This was primarily based on the 120,000 strong ITGWU and a number of small unions. The ILPTUC had a membership of more than 250,000 by 1920 and repeated strike waves engulfed the country from 1917-1922. In more than 150 instances (and probably significantly more) workers occupied factories, estates and entire towns and villages - establishing soviets with workers control - the best known was the Limerick Soviet of 1919 (although it was far from the most important during the period).

The leadership of SF recognised the threat of the workers movement - commenting that in 1920 the class struggle was on the verge of tearing the republican movement asunder. SF initially threatened to use the IRA (and eventually did in 1922) in an attempt to break the soviets and widespread strikes. SF also attempted to split the trade union movement by setting up 'Irish unions for Irish workers' attempting to undermine the British based unions - they even drew up plans to shoot workers in retaliation for those who resisted the establishment of their new 'Irish' unions. The SF strategy failed miserably with the only union to get a foothold being the Irish Engineering Union which recruited about 700 of the 30,000 Amalgamated Engineering Union (mostly SF members). The IEU later became notorious for being a scab union during strikes.

The most notable indication of the strength of the workers movement was in the June 1922 election when the ILPTUC stood 18 candidates and got 17 elected (the 18th candidate lost a seat by 13 votes). Most of those elected were strike organisers in the farm labour strikes and the soviets. In some constitunecies the ILPTUC got more than 50% of the vote and 40% of the vote was common. If the ILPTUC had actually stood enough candidates they could well have been the largest party in the country at the time.

kreuzberger wrote: »

given that it was a very bloody and trigger happy period in our history, when brother was killing brother in large numbers and by often despicable means, then perhaps you could provide us with some figures as to how many strikers and the like were killed by republicans during this suppression. It certainly wasnt a hard period to get yourself killed in.

So - if they weren't being killed they weren't being suppressed.

The reality is that the nationalist movement couldn't risk shooting people becuase of the potential for a widespread reaction against nationalism among the working class if it did. On occasions when it stepped out of line it provoked a massive reaction from the workers movement. In December 1921 during a farm labourers strike in East Limerick the IRA kidnapped four strike leaders. This provoked a general strike in the area around Kilmallock forcing the IRA to release the kidnapped workers. During the Tipperary Soviet in July 1922 striking workers arrested the manager of the local creamery who was attempting to get local shops to boycott the produce of the Tipperary Soviet. When the anti-Treaty IRA turned up and threatened to shoot the strikers unless they released their prisoner, the workers threatened to shoot back and the IRA ran off with their tail between their legs. There are several other examples of the anti-Treaty IRA attempting to suppress strike action - the only successful one being the suppression of a strike at Mallow sawmills on the orders of Liam Lynch for which they were paid a £50 'donation' by the owners for 'assisting with their labour troubles'.

The most vicious example of suppression of strike action occurred during farm labourers strikes in Waterford in September 1922 (strikes the anti-treaty IRA had previously failed to suppress) when the provisional government established a force of hired fascist thugs known as the Special Infantry Corps who attacked and tortured striking workers, smashed up their homes, stole strike pay etc. in an effort to break the strike.

I could go on ---

kreuzberger wrote: »

If I remember correctly their militancy was such that James Connolly lamented that half the ITGWU membership in Dublin were off fighting in the trenches for the British empire, killing fellow workers in the name of the King of England .

Irishmen ... fought the enemies of England because they wanted to get back home to Ireland, not because they loved England, or cared about the Empire. If they did not kill the enemies of England the enemies of England would probably have killed them. The Irish soldiers do not fight for England; they fight for their return ticket to Ireland, and England always keeps the return half in her pocket as long as she requires their services.
James Connolly, Workers Republic, 11th March 1916.

Now it suits Messrs Jacobs to throw off the mask, and come out in their true lights as being willing to use all their economic power to help England, by starving Irishmen into the British Army, and thus to ensure that death and misery will hang like a cloud over scores or hundreds of Irish homes...When the capitalist in Ireland wishes to drive you by hunger to enlist in the army to defend his property he deprives you of your means of living, and insults your intelligence by telling you that you are “released for active service”.
James Connolly, Workers Republic, 18th March 1916.

Again - I could go on ---

kreuzberger wrote: »

While he himself didnt join the Labour Party .

James Connolly proposed the motion establishing the Labour Party at the Trade Union Congress in Clonmel in May 1912. Connolly argued that since Home Rule was imminent and would take place once the House of Lords delaying powers were exhausted in two years' time, that this period should be used to organise the new party. Connolly's resolution was carried by a wide margin with 49 voting for; 19 against; and 19 abstaining.

Connolly was a member of the Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Ireland (the LP was a federalist party that allowed other parties to affiliate to it).

kreuzberger wrote: »

The ILPTUC never even took part in the Dublin Lock out.

Where are you getting this nonsense.

kreuzberger wrote: »

And by 1915 theyd laughably called off their annual congress in order to avoid taking a political position on the first world war. That could be described as many things but certainly not militant, much less socialist . Their leader Johnson was expressing personal support for the British imperialist cause from the platform of the 1916 conference, the same imperialist cause that had just executed James Connolly as a german inspired traitor a few months earlier .

You really do have to love the re-writing of history ----

The point you are utterly missing is that 1915 was not 1917-1922. Not alone was the trade union movement at a very low ebb - the nationalist movement had split with the vast majoirty of it backing support for British Imperialism in WW1

kreuzberger wrote: »

That they were large is not in doubt. Whats also not in doubt is the fact their leadership benfitted from an upsurge in workers militancy that increased membership and therefore their union dues and stipends . And which saw them take a very timid role in order to hold onto their new found resources rather than come into conflict with imperial and Britain and run the risk of suppression.

Therefore they werent militant at all . Had they been theyd have gotten into trouble with the authorities . A task that certainly didnt require much militancy in the 1916 to 21 period . But a scenario the Irish labour movement managed to avoid despite all sorts of draconian laws and political upheaval.

Oh - holy bejaysus - to start with - there is a concrete and major difference between the attitudes of the leadership of the ILPTUC and the ranks of the trade union movement - and in particular the militant ranks of the ITGWU and many other unions representing semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The fact that you appear to know nothing of the militantcy of the Irish working class and the scale of the class struggle during this periods demonstrates either 1. an utter ignorance of the period - or 2. an utter blind adherence to the bog-standard nationalist rhetoric of the period.

kreuzberger wrote: »

again Id be interested in hearing the casualty list arising from this IRA suppression .

What is the obbession of nationalists with 'casualties' and people being killed as if somehow you are not a 'real' republican or a 'real' militant unless you get shot.

But lets not beat around the bush here - let the nationalist leadership of the period speak for itself -

1920 was no ordinary outbreak...an immense rise in the value of land and farm products threw into more vivid relief than ever before the high profits of ranchers, and the hopeless outlook of the landless men and uneconomic holders...All this was a grave menace to the Republic. The mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by a class war, and there was every likelihood that this class war might be carried into the ranks of the republican army itself which was drawn in the main from the agricultural population and was largely officered by farmer’s sons...

Ministry for Home Affairs, The Constructive Work of Dail Eireann, No.1, The National Police and Courts of Justice, National Archives, Dublin.

“the unemployed are already looking to us to do something towards providing work...one has to face the fact that complaints have come to this office of men of the I.R.A. taking part in labour disputes. Evidence has also come to me that in some areas the workers are not willing to submit to the authority of their Executive and are beginning to get out of hand. What is to be feared in the near future is:- small local outbreaks growing more and more frequent and violent, the immediate result of which will be, destruction of property and much misery which will tend to disrupt the Republican cause”.

Dail Eireann 2/483, Minister for Labour, Economic Policy, Document No. 247, National Archives, Dublin.

kreuzberger wrote: »

so your defeating your entire argument there . If they couldnt risk shooting anyone they plainly werent a threat to anyone . And if they were facing massive backlashes then they plainly werent in a position to suppress anyone either . Your entire line, although lengthy, is wholly contradictory . The logic turns in on itself from the get go .
This suppression apparently took the form of dirty looks we can assume . Nobody was shot .

You see - here is your problem - this is a history forum and if you want to participate you must produce evidence. I have produced evidence that it did happen - you have not produced a single shred of evidence that it didn't - just snide remarks about nobody getting shot.

kreuzberger wrote: »

Its not an obsession at all . 1922 was an absolutely chaotic period in our history, and very bloody . Neighbour was killing neighbour , freind was killing freind .More Irish people were killed in political violence in those 12 months than in the entire 30 years of the northern conflict. Many were non combatants . You are making astounding claims that in the middle of all this chaos and bloodshed militant workers were being suppressed and strikes being smashed all over the country by armed men who were slaughtering people on either side of a political divide and engaging in quite vicious reprisals against political opponents at the time . The country had gone absolutely mad.

Again - you demonstrate that you appear to have little real understanding of the period.

More evidence for you - from just one strike - and note that the evidence is fully referenced.

In November 1921 approx 150 farm labourers began a strike in the Bulgaden area near Kilmallock in East Limerick. The strike spread rapidly throughout the area. Workers at the dozen or so creameries in the locality refused to accept milk from the strike-bound farmers and as a consequence the farmers demanded action from the Dáil Cabinet (Voice of Labour, 12 November 1921). Bulgaden creamery closed down and shortly afterwards farmers houses was raided at night by striking workers and milk separators that they had purchased to process their own milk were smashed (Limerick Leader, 14 November 1921, & Munster News, 19 November 1921). Four of the striking workers were arrested by the I.R.A. The ITGWU called a general strike in Kilmallock and hundreds of workers marched through Kilmallock behind a red flag demanding the release of the strikers (Freeman’s Journal, 22 November 1921, & Limerick Chronicle, 22 November 1921). The following day the workers were released (Freeman’s Journal, 23 November 1921).

In the middle of December, more farmers houses were raided and milk separators smashed. Pitched battles using pitchforks and other farm implements were now taking place regularly between farmers and striking workers (Limerick Leader, 16 December 1921, & Limerick Echo, 17 December 1921). During the second week of January a local farmer, Patrick O’Donnell, was kidnapped by striking workers after he had attempted to shoot strikers who were felling trees on a road near his farm (Limerick Leader, 16 January 1922). On the night of Friday 13 January another kidnapping took place near Mallow, this time of Major Hallinan who was a prominent employer in the Bulgaden area and had been demanding that the IRA act against the striking workers (Limerick Leader, 16 January 1922, & Munster News, 21 January 1922). The following night two lorries of IRA men arrived outside an ITGWU meeting in Kilmallock. Local union organiser Michael Lenihan was bundled into the back of one of the lorries and driven off. Following the threat of a further general strike by the ITGWU, the IRA released Lenihan (Limerick Echo, 21 January 1922). Hallinan and O'Donnell were released a few days later.

Around this time a deputation from the Irish Farmer’s Union led by SF chairman of Limerick County Council (and quasi fascist) Laffan met with Arthur Griffith demanding action be taken against the strikers (Mainchín Seoighe, The Story of Kilmallock, Kilmallock, 1988, p. 287). Laffan had previously been involved in the establishment of the quasi-fascist Farmers Freedom Force in an effort to suppress strikes by farm labourers (Watchword of Labour, 5 June 1920). On 21 January that Donncha O’Hannigan O/C of the East Limerick Brigade I.R.A. had declared martial law (Munster News, 21 January 1922.). Two hundred I.R.A. men were drafted into the Kilmallock area (Seoighe, The Story of Kilmallock, p. 287). Small parties of I.R.A. men broke up picket lines and beat up striking workers and armed IRA men patrolled the streets of Kilmallock night and day to prevent union meetings and protests by workers (Limerick Chronicle, 26 January 1922, & Munster News, 28 January 1922). Martial law succeeded in suppressing the strike and the strike was called off two days later.

Between £6,000 and £7,000 worth of farm produce was destroyed, separators broken, fencing broken down and cattle driven, tress felled across roads, bridges broken (Limerick Leader, 25 January 1922, & Munster News, 28 January 1922). Fairs and markets held up, hay, straw and farm buildings burned down (Seoighe, The Story of Kilmallock, p. 287). Walls were knocked and telegraph and electric light cables severed during the strike (Munster News, 25 January 1922). The IRA arrested 20 workers at the end of the strike but released them again after the ITGWU threatened to call a general strike. Not wanting to provoke a reaction from workers but in an attempt to assert their authority in late February the Dail Court imposed nominal fines of a penny on the twenty workers (Limerick Echo, 25 February 1922).

kreuzberger wrote: »

Yet when asked to provide an estimate on casualties you admit there werent any.

I didn't actually - we don't know because there are no records of any strikers being killed - it is possible some were. There is ample evidence of many workers being attacked, beaten up, robbed, having their homes wrecked etc. Now - as evidenced above - striking workers also engaged in action against farmers - and pitched battles using various farm implements between strikers and farmers were common place - the IRA came down firmly on the side of the farmers (not surprising given that the farmers were the officers in the IRA).

kreuzberger wrote: »

Thats despite the fact that even during the Dublin lock out there were frequent shootings in the streets, shots fired into picket lines and demonstrations and both scabs and strikers killed along with innocent civilians . And it wasnt even the cops who were doing the shooting. That all happening in a period were the gun was most certainly not synonymous with Irish politics and the country much more peaceful than in 1922.

Again you are trying to transplant one period into a completely different one.

Those doing the shooting in 1913 were members of the Crown forces and they were doing it at the behest of British Imperialism and the Irish employer class.

By 1919 the trade union movement was far bigger, stronger, better organised and far more politically conscious. The balance of class forces had shifted significantly towards the workers movement during this period. Furthermore - any shootings would not have been carried out by the Crown forces but by the IRA. Given the precarious cross-class nature of Irish nationalism during this period, if the IRA had shot striking workers it could have torn the IRA and SF completely asunder under class pressures. The leadership of SF were very conscious of this fact and there is ample evidence in the national archives to demonstrate this. The leadership of nationalism adopted a two strand approach to dealing with the power of the workers movement - not provoking an open conflict with the workers movement while still attempting to undermine it by trying to split the trade union movement along national (and in the North sectarian) lines.

kreuzberger wrote: »

Regardless of your anger at my questioning your assertions one does not need to be any kind of nationalist fanatic to see this all as very odd.

I am a historian who carries out research and uses the evidence that is uncovered. I have made assertions that are backed up by historical evidence. I don't get angry about history or any questioning about any assertions that I make. That is what historical discourse is all about - discussing and debating what happened so that everyone can come to a better understanding of historical epochs, periods and events. However, in order to make assertions of your own you must produce evidence to back it up. I have - you have not. You have simply dismissed what I have said without any coherent or concrete effort to refute the assertions with evidence. You are not the first and you won't be the last. The history of the labour movement during this period has been buried, dismissed, ignored from the general historiography of the period for nearly a century. Fortunately that is changing as more and more evidence is being uncovered to demonstrate that the period from 1917-1922 was not simply a nationalist war for independence but also consisted of a major class war where Irish nationalism was willing to act as the oppressor against the people it was claiming it wanted to free. In reality the Irish nationalist leadership wanted to free the Irish people from British oppression so they could engage in their own class oppression of the Irish working class (which they did).

Now - I have said my piece - if you want to come back onto this thread and respond then please do so with evidence - not with the same unsubstantiated dismissive attitude that you have had in your previous two posts.