The Books: “Modern Ireland : 1600-1972″ (R. F. Foster)

My history bookshelf. Onward.

ModernIreland.jpgNext book on this shelf is called Modern Ireland: 1600-1972 by R. F. Foster.

A massive book with a sweeping scope – it’s kind of essential reading for anyone interested in Ireland. My dad told me to read it years ago – and there’s so much in it, so much information that it’s actually hard to absorb in one sitting. It’s a very good book. I agonized over the excerpt to choose. I mean, not AGONIZED … but you know … it took some time. Should I go with the famine? Or Parnell? Or Cromwell? Or with Patrick Pearse et al?

I decided to go with the events in Ireland in the late 1700s – a time of great upheaval – well, there was great upheaval everywhere. There was the American revolution, the French revolution – these events reverberated throughout the world. Kind of like the time of revolutions in the 1960s, when every African country seemed to shrug off their colonial masters in the same decade … a wave of revolutions that could not be stopped. The Irish were very much affected by the events in France – and the revolution-mania brought their own issues, shall we say, their own discontent to the surface. The Catholics must be completely emancipated – and there needed to be a strong government in Ireland – Parliament needed to be reformed – and out of all of this brou-haha a society was formed called the United Irishmen. They were a group of men who were well organized – and also dedicated and strong enough to try to bring about the necessary changes in Irish society. Foster writes: “their history reflects the inspiration, radicalization and disillusionment that the events of the 1790s brought to Irish society at much wider levels.” The secretary of the United Irishmen was Theobald Wolfe Tone – his name is probably familiar to you. The United Irishmen wanted equality for Catholics (oh, and most of these guys were Protestants – so there goes the assumption that this whole thing is about religion – it’s not – it’s about land and power) – but they wanted to work within the existing system (at least originally) – a fact that made Edmund Burke (Mr. Don’t Tear Stuff Down!!) approve of their ideas – which was very important. Getting Burke’s stamp of approval was a big deal – and, hahahaha, I guess it still is, even though the dude is dead. People still wonder: “Will Edmund Burke approve???” In terms of the United Irishmen wanting reform and emancipation, Foster writes – Burke gave “the intelligent conservative rationate for such a step.” I am so skimming the surface of this tumultuous time – but that’s the gist of it.

I’m going to post an excerpt involving the United Irishmen and the extraordinary Theobald Wolfe Tone.


From <Modern Ireland: 1600-1972 (Penguin history) by R. F. Foster.

This movement, the vital germ of Irish radicalism, cannot be separated from the general Irish reaction to the French Revolution. Fashionable Irish people had always tended to Francophilia; there was accordingly a wide circulation of literature to do with the early Revolution, and much favorable comment in the newspapers. Trinity College took its characteristic adversarial role, conferring an honorary degree on Burke a few weeks after the publication of his Reflections. As the Revolution gathered momentum, so did celbration of its great occasions. And so did political argument: vehement pamphlets came from the conservative side, to counter republican salvoes. The level of informed opinion was remarkably high on both sides: this discourse indicates a politically literate society, exasperated by the incompetence of a landlord government. Here we can discern some of the impetus behind the early United Irishmen Clubs.

The origin of the Belfast Club may lie in the 1791 celebrations of Bastille Day; the Club was formed the following October. Belfast was notably “French”, Dublin less so. But there, too, was an educated middle-class element, and an initial desire to see the men of small property represented in politics — which could, with the radicalization of events in France and the rise to influence of men like Thomas Addis Emmet,1 move on to ideas of universal male suffrage and complete Catholic emancipation, as well as the secret ballot, payment of MPs and a general range of radical nostrums.

But how and when did the United Irishmen movve from being parliamentary reformers to constitutional revolutionaries? Eventually, their oaths and catechisms would posit a linear historical development. “What have you got in your hand? A green bough. Where did it first grow? In America. Where did it bud? In France. Where are you going to plant it? In the crown of Great Britain.” But what should be borne in mind is not only the percussion of events in Ireland from the early 1790s, but also the Presbyterian tradition of libertarian republicanism that long antedated 1775 or 1789. Dissenting ideology is there from the beginning: far more apparent, and far more galvanic, than the vague and shadowy Gaelic nationalism that was taken on board in the late 1790s. The traditions of Enlightenment debate were diffused through Belfast “society” (notably via education in Glasgow); this encouraged the fashion for Paine (seven Irish editions of the Rights of Man between 1791 and 1792) and the full newspaper reports of Convention debates. But deism was never popular, even among the most advanced Belfast United Irishmen. And northern radicals retained a basic dislike of Catholicism, not only because of its counter-revolutionary implications. Despite the belief that the age of religion was over, ancient identifications ran through radical Irish discourse; “the Catholics” were always referred to as a distinct group, if only a political one. Even when they were allies, they tended to be seen as irritatingly obsessive. Consciousness of Catholics qua Catholics remained evident in the discussions even of advanced United Irishmen like Drennan, Russell2, McCracken3 and Neilson4.

Neilson’s paper, the Northern Star, appeared from January 1792 and reflects some of the attitudes of Belfast United Irishmen. It could always be relied upon to explain and rationalize the reverses and convulsions of events in Paris through the early nineties — supporting th execution of the King, as did Tone and Drennan. On domestic issues it trod a more careful path, beginning by advancing political reform and criticizing the violent methods of “those infatuated people called Defenders”. It was, inevitably, prosecuted all the same; but its ability to reappear made it a focus of radical energy until it went down for the last time in 1797.

The Star and Tone’s enthusiastic views have colored the reputation of Ulster radicalism. But the old siege mentality was still much in evidence in most of the province. Antrim and Down, with very few Catholics and a strong New Light Presbyterian tradition, were radical, the rest of Ulster was not. And though 1792-3 saw a great revival of Volunteering in Ulster, and the summoning of reform conventions supported by many gentry, this should not be simplistically interpreted. Francis Hutcheson’s ideas of armed militias to protect civil rights may have been returned to Ulster with interest. But many within the movement specifically declared against republicanism, and aired deeply held worries about Catholic emancipation. Pro-Catholic United Irishmen might argue that Catholics had been “educated to liberty” by association with Protestants, but this was not entirely convincing. Even Drennan, one of the most generously minded, was fatalistic rather than enthusiastic about the process of Catholic rapprochement. “It is churlish soil, but it is the soil of Ireland, and must be cultivated, or we must emigrate.”

Belfast radicalism also tended to be cynical about the sister movement in Dublin, which got under way slightly later. By the end of 1792 a renewed and radicalized Volunteer movement seemed about to take off, using tactics and iconography borrowed from the French Revolution; but it was short-circuited after some near-confrontations with the government. Northern Volunteers tended to sneer at the outspoken radical paper sponsored by Emmet and Arthur O’Connor, the Press (“vulgar for the vulgar”, according to Drennan). However, in Ulster also Volunteers backed off from confrontation over reform; the revival collapsed slowly from early 1793. Again, the vital development of war with France was instrumental. But even without such an issue, it is doubtful whether infiltration by United Irishmen could ever have succeeded in radicalizing gentry Volunteers to the point of open defiance. Subsequent developments would be accelerated by counter-revolutionary measures brought in by Pitt’s wartime administration; frome arly 1794, no longer restrained by their Volunteer allies, clear-sighted United Irishmen saw that conspiracy and elitist organization were the only weapons open to them.

This was as true in Dublin as in Belfast. The Dublin United Irishmen, formed a month after the Belfast Society, began by capitalizing on the current of political feeling that worked to bring Catholics and radicals into a reforming coalition; their rapid polarization is well documented, an advantage to the government of the day as well as to historians of the future. From early on their membership included ex-Volunteers like the irrepressible Napper Tandy and Hamilton Rowan5, as well as members of the politically marginalized professional and business classes, including many textile manufacturers, who stressed the advantages of campaigning for protectionist measures. The working classes were conspicuously absent from the rolls of the Dublin United Irishmen. The aristocratic mavericks came later, though the movement as a whole is inevitably identified with their reputations.

After the United Irishmen’s reconstruction in 1794 and the arrest of many of its members, the liberal Francophile middle class were much less prominent in the Society. Their place was taken by glamorous figures like Lord Edward Fitzgerald6, the epitome of radical chic, and Arthur O’Connor7, who translated the ideas of Swift and Molyneux into the rhetoric of the 1790s. Such men had links, personal as well as political, with English radical Whiggery — Fox, and those to the left of him. They were also closely connected to the provincial network of United Irishmen in Ireland itself: as early as 1793 there were at least nine Clubs in towns like Armagh, Lisburn, Clonmel and Limerick. The influence of men like Fitzgerald stressed the French connection (he had romantically married a supposed daughter of Philippe Egalite) and “breaking the connection” with England — though it was tacitly admitted that geographical and, by now, cultural propinquity would always necessitate some kind of association. Notions of federalism were being floated even in the late 1790s. Contradictions of this kind within the movement are best expressed by its most famous member, Wolfe Tone.

Tone was brilliantly articulate, and his cleverness, humor and personality have been passed down to posterity through his extraordinarily immediate and entertaining journals. The secret language, self-mockery and in-jokes apparently convey a jocular and lightweight character: “a flimsy man”, remarked one contemporary. Certainly his inconsistency and self-advancement have been much stressed, as well as his inability to recognize the sectarian underpinning of all political activity in Ireland, outside the small Francophile intelligentsia. Even in his days as spokesman of the Catholic Committee, he held to the fundamental Irish-Protestant belief that Catholicism was a dying superstition — though this did not prevent his Argument on Behalf of the Catholics (September 1791) from being a brilliant pamphlet that persuaded many Dissenters that it would be dangerous not to join the emancipation cause.

But Tone’s really important quality was his ability to become a dedicated and ruthless revolutionary. From his early days at the Irish Bar, satirically nicknamed “Marat” and mocking his own radical pretensions, he actually came to live out the reality of international conspiracy. Like Irish radical politics as a whole, Tone must be seen as undergoing a fundamental change in 1793-4. The United Irishmen were suppressed in May 1794. While Tone had been quite capable in the early 1790s of casting a line towards the government, praising Grattan and cultivating Irish Whigs, by April 1794 he could produce memoranda for French agents that were radical in a reductionist way.

In Ireland, a conquered and oppressed and insulted country, the name of England and her power is universally odious, save with those who have no interest in maintaining it, such as the Government and its connexions, the Church and its dependents, the great landed property, etc.; but the power of these people, being founded on property, the first convulsion would level it with the dust. On the contrary, the great bulk of the people would probably throw off the yoke, if they saw any force in the country sufficiently strong to resort to for defence. It seems idle to suppose that the prejudices of England against France spring merely from the republicanism of the French; they proceed rather from a spirit of rivalship, encouraged by continued wars. In Ireland the Dissenters are enemies to the English power from reason and reflection; the Catholics, from hatred to the English name. In a word, the prejudices of the one country are directly favorable, and those of the other directly adverse, to an invasion. The Government of Ireland is to be looked upon as a Government of force; the moment a superior force appears it would tumble at once as being neither founded in the interests nor in the affections of the people.

This was the kind of activity that sent him into exile in June 1795, after the government had incriminated a number of United Irishmen in treasonable activity. By then, there was no turning back. Most importantly, in Ireland radical identifications had begun to fuse with nationalism, in the sense that the establishment was defined as English. All ills, in Tone’s view, could be traced to the English connection. The idea of native oppressors was not much entertained; they were written off as an oligarchy of collaborators.

“Nationalism” as such had not been part of the original United Irish package. They were internationalist liberals, anti-government rather than anti-English. Even when anti-Englishness took over, they had little time for “ethnic” considerations; recent fashions for traditional music and poetry, and archaeological divinations of the “Celtic” past, seemed to middle-class radicals at best silly and at worst savage. The United Irishmen were modernizers: they appealed, as they themselves put it, to posterity, not ancestors. (Given the way that the ancestors of Belfast radaicals had treated the Gaelic Irish, this was just as well.) They looked to Hutcheson, to Locke, to America, and most of all to France.

1Thomas Addis Emmet (1764-1827): born in Cork; educated at Trinity College, Dublin, Edinburgh and the Continent; called to the Irish bar, 1790; leading counsel for the United Irishmen; took their oath in open court to prove its legality; Secretary to the Society’s Supreme Council, 1795; arrested, 1798; attempted to interest Napoleon in an invasion of Ireland, 1802, but came to regret the connection of Irish and French politics; sailed for the USA, 1804; joined the New York Bar; built up a large practice, specializing in pleading for the liberty of escaped slaves. Characterized by Drennan as “possessing more eloquence than energy, more caution than action”.

2Thomas Russell (1767 – 1803): born in County Cork; joined the British army, 1782; an original member of the United Irishmen, 1791; contributed to the Northern Star; imprisoned, 1796 – 1802; met Robert Emmet in Paris and given the task of raising Ulster, 1803; arrested in Dublin; tried and hanged at Downpatrick for high treason.

3Henry Joy McCracken (1767-98): born in Belfast of Huguenont descent and into a leading family in the linen trade; an early but not original member of the United Irishmen, 1791; arrested, 1796; took a leading part in planning the 1798 rebellion in the north, while on bail; commanded the County Antrim insurgents; captured on the eve of a projected escape to America, after some weeks in hiding; tried and hanged.

4Samuel Nelson (1761-1803): born in County Down, son of a Presbyterian minister; had made his fortune as a draper by 1790; abandoned business for politics; editor of the Northern Star, 1792; arrested, 1796; released on bail and played a part in preparing the 1798 rising; rearrested and gave “honorable information”; imprisoned and exiled, 1799; favored Union; died in the USA.

5Archibald Hamilton Rowan (1751-1834): born in London; settled in County Kildare, 1784; a founding member of the Northern Whig Club, 1790; joined the United Irishmen, 1791; tried and sentenced for sedition, 1794; escaped to France; the memory of atrocities witnessed during the Reign of Terror made it impossible for him to join any Irish revolutionary enterprise; pardoned, 1803; settled in County Down.

6Lord Edward Fitzgerald (1763-98): born in Carton House, County Kildare; son of the first Duke of Lenster and Emily, daughter of the Duke of Richmond; joined the Sussex militia and served in America, 1779; MP for Athy, 1781; rejoined the army in Canada, 1788; MP for County Kildare, 1790; attracted by revolutionary thought; visited Paris, staying with Tom Paine, 1792; cashiered from the army for toasting the abolition of all hereditary titles; associated with the United Irishmen from their early days but did not formally join the Society until 1796; led a military committtee of the United Irishmen, 1798; captured and mortally wounded in a skirmish in a house in Thomas Street, Dublin.

7Arthur O’Connor (1763-1852): born in Michelstown; educated at Trinity College, Dublin; called to the Irish Bar, 1788; MP for Philipstown, 1792; did not oppose government until 1795; determined to abandon Irish politics and seek an English parliamentary seat, 1796; persuaded to act otherwise by Lord Edward Fitzgerald; joined the United Irishmen; edited the Press; arrested in England, 1798; released, 1803; went to France; appointed a general by Napoleon and married the daughter of Condorcet; grew fiercely anti-clerical, to the extent of deriding the O’Connellite movement for Catholic relief as priest-ridden. Eccentric, churlish, megalomaniac.

This entry was posted in Books and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.