Unusual… February 17, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish History.
Many thanks to those who sent this along, from the ST.
The first Dáil January 21, 2013Posted by doctorfive in Irish History.
Tags: Irish History, Oireachtas
Perhaps a fitting anniversary given discussion on the merits of (extra) parliamentary activity here lately. The first meeting of Dáil Éireann took place in the Round Room of the Mansion House on 21 January 1919.
Ninety four years ago today.
A revolutionary assembly by all accounts.
The Proclamation was ratified & Declaration of Irish Independence adopted
Whereas the Irish People is by right a free people:
And whereas for seven hundred years the Irish People has never ceased to repudiate and has repeatedly protested in arms against foreign usurpation:
And whereas English rule in this country is, and always has been, based upon force and fraud and maintained by military occupation against the declared will of the people:
And whereas the Irish Republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916, by the Irish Republican Army, acting on behalf of the Irish People:
And whereas the Irish People is resolved to secure and maintain its complete independence in order to promote the common weal, to re-establish justice, to provide for future defence, to ensure peace at home and good will with all nations, and to constitute a national policy based upon the people’s will with equal right and equal opportunity for every citizen:
And whereas at the threshold of a new era in history the Irish electorate has in the General Election of December, 1918, seized the first occasion to declare by an overwhelming majority its firm allegiance to the Irish Republic:
Now, therefore, we, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish People in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish Nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command:
We ordain that the elected Representatives of the Irish People alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will give its allegiance:
We solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of our country by the English Garrison:
We claim for our national independence the recognition and support of every free nation in the world, and we proclaim that independence to be a condition precedent to international peace hereafter:
In the name of the Irish People we humbly commit our destiny to Almighty God Who gave our fathers the courage and determination to persevere through long centuries of a ruthless tyranny, and strong in the justice of the cause which they have handed down to us, we ask His Divine blessing on this the last stage of the struggle we have pledged ourselves to carry through to freedom.
You can add or subtract a few words there for a more contemporary feel. Now in it’s 31st incarnation, the Dáil has arguable more power, for now at least. 1919 also marks the first step on Gombeen man’s long journey to TD of course.
Cathal Brugha was elected Ceann Comhairle though replaced by Seán T. O’Kelly the following day. After fourteen or so sittings Dáil Éireann was declared a dangerous association by the British Government.
The RTÉ archive have uploaded a 1969 lecture from Professor Kevin B. Nowlan on the 50th anniversary and a short clip of Ernest Blythe, Robert Barton and James Ryan recalling how they were chosen as Sinn Féin candidates for the landmark 1918 election.
Conor McCabe shows how we got on since.
A free market in money…well…not so great… January 19, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish History, Uncategorized.
The NPR Planet Money Podcast is, I find, a great podcast, not one I listen to religiously, but instead let them build up and listen to a glut of them at one go. And they’ve done some great one’s over the Christmas and New Year period. The Birth of the Dollar Bill in particular is great stuff, compressed into 10 minutes or so, including an insight into a supposedly ‘free market’ in currencies where in the US before the introduction of the US dollar bill there were up to 8000 different currencies, and the processes of exchange for those travelling across the US was painful beyond belief (and perhaps worse again for shopkeepers who had to decide whether they could accept notes, and had to consult regularly published books detailing legitimate currencies). And it was a field day for counterfeiters.
But it wasn’t because the state decided the situation was crazed, which it clearly was, that the there was a change. Oh no. It was because in the wake of the US Civil War the costs of funding it demanded that the US printed money ‘greenbacks’. They were intended to be temporary, but as noted on the podcast ‘consumers kind of liked them’ because they were universally recognised. And then national banks, regulated by the Federal government appeared at the same time (and for similar reasons) and they further supported the dollar as a unitary and de facto national currency.
Of course in Ireland even subsequent to Independence and prior to the Currency Commission the introduction of the Saorstát pound in 1928 six individual banks issued bank notes albeit they were convertible at the same rate as the pound sterling (as still occurs in Scotland and England today). You’ll find some of the background to that here. And you’ll find more background and images of the notes themselves here.
Democracy vs Fascism? January 17, 2013Posted by smiffy in Fianna Fáil, History, Irish History, Irish Neutrality, Uncategorized.
Here’s an interesting cartoon, from the New Zealand Herald in 1933, of a rugby match in which democracy is depicted standing up against a strange bunch including Mussolini, Hitler, a figure depicted as ‘Spain’ and … someone else we know.
When I looked at it first, I thought it was suggesting that De Valera was either a fascist or linked to fascism. Looking again, I’m not so sure. The details of the picture, on the website of the New Zealand National Library,here, states that it ‘(s)hows a rugby team composed of Mussolini, Hitler, De Valera and Franco, with a football representing ‘Fascism’. They are rushing towards the goal which is defended by a man representing ‘Democracy”.
Given the date, 4 April 1933, it could hardly be Franco. So what, in the eyes of the cartoonist (Trevor Lloyd) have in common, that unites them against democracy? One interesting, perhaps coincidental, point to note is that the cartoonist (according to this thesis) is the son of a wealthy Irish migrant to New Zealand, and grandson of a former Deputy Lieutenant of King’s County (Offaly). This may or may not have any bearing on the piece.
Many of the readers here will have a far surer grasp of the history and politics of the period than me. Would anyone care to hazard a suggestion as to what is going on in this?
Full details in attached file – please click on link.Conference Programme
Looks like it would be of significant interest to many of us.
Shamrock Rovers XI V Brazil 1973 January 15, 2013Posted by irishelectionliterature in Ireland, Irish History, Sport.
Forty years ago , Brazil, the 1970 World Cup winners visit Dublin for a historic friendly match against a team composed of players from both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Unable to officially call themselves an “All-Ireland” team, the Irish side takes on the moniker of “Shamrock Rovers XI” All Ireland selection lined out in Shamrock Rovers colours to play the then world champions Brazil in Lansdowne Road.
Brazil won 4-3
A question on the IRA, the CPI and the USSR in 1969 December 28, 2012Posted by WorldbyStorm in History, Irish History, Irish Politics, The Left.
Reading Making the Difference? The Irish Labour Party 1912-2012, and in particular a piece by Eunan O’Halpin on Labour and the Making of Irish Foreign Policy, I was struck by the following paragraph.
Writing about Communist Party influence on the Soviets in the 1960s onwards he writes [p143];
There is evidence of Irish Communist unilateralism in response to the Northern Ireland crisis – for instance in 1969 Michael O’Riordain made a direct appeal to the Soviet Union for arms and money, which he believed would enable him to bring a faction of republican activists led by the energetic Seamus Costello under his control to further wider revolutionary aims.
The footnote links to page 141 of Hanley and Miller’s The Lost Revolution. On that page they note that in August 1969 ‘the race for weapons was on and any and every source was utilised’.
They write in reference to O’Riordain:
Goulding and Costello approached Mick O’Riordan and asked if the Soviet Union would provide weapons. Costello was to organise a trawler crewed by ‘select and reliable’ IRA members who would pick up the shipment in neutral waters. During November O’Riordain informed the Soviets that the IRA’s ‘combat potential’ had been weakened by its concentration on ‘social protests and educational activity’. It needed weapons urgently. O’Riordain optimistically requested 2,000 AK-47 assault riflers and 150 machine guns along with over a million rounds of ammunition. But the Soviets were not inclined to supply arms at short notice to an unknown quantity like the IRA. KGB chief Yuri Andropov insisted that if arms were to be supplied then the ‘secret of their source of supply’ had to be preserved. meanwhile the United Irishman launched a ‘Dynamite Fund’, aimed at Irish America, arguing ‘bandages are not enough, defence is needed’.
Interesting to see another mention of a trawler in relation to the IRA (though is this the same trawler as the one mentioned in relation to the OIRA some time later?). But more importantly these seem to be somewhat differing interpretations of these events. Anyone have any further information on this idea of O’Riordain seeking control of a faction of SF or IRA activists?
‘Convicted’ or ‘The Good Old Home Rule Party’ October 22, 2012Posted by guestposter in Irish History, Irish Politics.
To download the above click on the following link: Convicted Disloyal Speeches of Home Rulers Ian Malcom MP
Given the prominence of the Home Rule Party in the debates of this decade of commemoration this document forwarded by Niall Meehan is of particular interest.
As it notes, it is a ‘record of disloyal speeches, resolutions, leaflets and posters, published in Ireland and America between 1880 and 1911, edited by Ian Malcolm Tory MP’. It provides an interesting counterpoint to the presentation of Home Rule and its position within the broader British polity during that period.
1960 Election Results for Dublin City Council. October 16, 2012Posted by irishelectionliterature in Irish History.
add a comment
Another set of old Local Election results, that don’t appear to be online. The 1960 Election results for Dublin City Council.
I presume the ‘Unemployed’ candidates were connected to the “Unemployed Protest Committee” that campaigned for Jack Murphy in 1957.
Interesting too to see Clann na Poblachta and Ratepayers candidates being elected as well as Kathleen Swanton of the Irish Housewives Association.
AREA NO. 1
Five seats; 16 candidates;
electorate, 45,800; valid, 11,918;
spoiled votes. 68; quota, 1,987
E, Timmons (FF.). 2,028
J. A. Kelly (R.P.), 1,887.
P. Cowan (Ind.). 1,167.
T. Cosgrave (F.G.). 1,148.
Senator V. Carton (F.G.), 925.
M. Bourke (FF.), 712.
T Duffy (Labour), 639.
S. O’Brien (F.F.), 632.
M. G. Dempsey (Ind. Ratepayers) 595.
G. Sex (Local Residents). 588.
D. Collins (Lab.). 337.
J. J. Geraghty (L.R.), 361.
P. MacGoilla (S.F.), 254.
A. J Farrelly, (FF.), 231.
P. T. O’Reilly (F.G.), 203.
S. 0 Suilleabhaln (S.F.), 161.
Elected Timmons,Kelly, Cowan, Cosgrave. Bourke.
AREA NO, 2
Seats 5. Candidates 15.
Electorate 31,000, Valid Poll. 8432
T. Stafford (Ind.), 1.901
D. Larkin, TD. (Lab.), 962: .
G. Hughes (F.F.), 908:
L Belton. (F.G.), 801.
F. Sherwin, Jun. (Ind.). 623.
J. J. Gaughran (F.F.), 608;
L. S Gaynor (RP.), 579;
J. Browne (F.F.), 540:
W. Cumiskey (Lab.), 289:
S. Deane (S.F.), 231;
J. Teeling (F.F.), 223;
M. Sheridan (RP.), 222;
G. Macauley (F.G.), 196:
M. Melia (R.P.), 191;
B. S. 0 Murchadha (S.F.), 162.
Elected Stafford ,Larkin. Hughes, Belton, Gaughran,
The 1985 Sinn Fein Good Old IRA pamphlet and historical revisionism – a response to comments October 16, 2012Posted by guestposter in Irish History, Irish Politics, Uncategorized.
Here is a guest post from Niall Meehan which relates back to some of the discussions over the last week or two on the CLR and elsewhere.
I commented on Brian Hanley’s discussion of the 1985 Sinn Féin pamphlet The Good Old IRA in his generally excellent contribution to Terror in Ireland 1916-1923 (edited by David Fitzpatrick). This commentary was omitted from my original review of the book. It appeared as an addendum to my reply to David Fitzpatrick and Eve Morrison’s response to the review.
In the book Brian’s discussion of and use of the term ‘terrorism’ is more critical and objective than that of editor, David Fitzpatrick. His noting of historians’ failure to address state involvement in sectarian killings in Northern Ireland in the 1920s and post 1968 was spot-on in that book in particular.
However, Brian did not engage with criticism of the late Peter Hart’s approach, apart from mildly caricaturing it. Thus, he portrays critics of Hart’s republican sectarianism thesis as naive upholders of the IRA’s ‘honour’. On the related controversy about Hart’s treatment of the November 1920 Kilmichael Ambush, they apparently believe Ambush Commander Tom Barry ‘wasn’t capable of lying’. His response on Cedar Lounge to my commentary on his discussion of the Good Old IRA pamphlet was:
8. Brian Hanley – October 6, 2012
Briefly re ‘The Good Old IRA’. It is far from the only example of republicans in the 1970s/80s dismissing that the idea that the 1919-21 war had a democratic mandate. It was a serious attempt to create a counter to the prevailing southern nationalist view that there was a fundamental difference between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ IRAs. Danny Morrison spoke about this at a debate in Drogheda during July and I didn’t get the impression that the project was intended to be ‘tongue in cheek.’
Perhaps Brian did not have time to contribute more. Also, he was responding to another poster who extracted the ‘tongue in cheek’ phrase from what I had written. I wonder how productive a discussion about that phrase might prove. As for the rest of Brian’s comment there is not a lot to go on.
Other posters on Cedar Lounge brought up the 1985 pamphlet independently. See here for more.
As I pointed out, the pamphlet was also presented recently by QUB’s Paul Bew as a significant precursor to the approach adopted later by Peter Hart. Clearly, there is more to this document than meets the eye, particularly if historians like Bew and Hanley view it as important in the contentious debate about Peter Hart’s work.
I hope in what follows to illuminate the origins of the Good Old IRA pamphlet, its aims and limitations, plus its importance to ‘revisionist’ historians.
To download Niall Meehan’s detailed response to the discussion please click on the following link: 1985 SF pamphlet (b) Cedar Lounge discussion
To download The Good Old IRA pamphlet in PDF form please click on the following link: Good Old IRA SF Publ Dept 1985