Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910485
Gavin Foster
Clashmealcon Caves:Civil War History and Memory under Siege in North Kerry Gavin Foster (bio) In Dunfort's cave they took their stand, the last in Ireland's rights,Three days and nights with rapid fire they nobly held the fight,Till worn out without relief, they did at length give o'erAnd they gave their lives for Ireland down by the Shannon shore.1 The Irish Civil War of 1922–23 was a conflict of great consequence both for the national revolution that it terminated and for the new state that it inaugurated. The deadly divisions that appeared within Ireland's independence movement over the Treaty with Britain touched on profound questions concerning the principles and ideals of the recent revolution. Yet in the ensuing "war of friends" the opposing sides waged an often brutal but mismatched and highly localized fight inflected by animosities and allegiances from the recent revolution as well as from older divisions and frictions in Irish society. In the patchy geography of mostly low-level rural violence, no part of the country stands out more than County Kerry, where the IRA guerrilla war and the Irish Free State counterinsurgency were waged "more extensively and bitterly … than anywhere."2 Kerry is widely associated with the worst horrors of the Civil War, frequently summed up in one word: Ballyseedy, the site of a March 1923 massacre of eight republicans by their Free State captors. The first and largest [End Page 250] of several closely timed reprisals for an IRA trap-mine at Knocknagashel, Ballyseedy was the crescendo of a broader pattern of brutal state violence in the infamous Kerry command, the timing and scale of which was shaped by the intensity and duration of IRA resistance in the field. While Ballyseedy shocked and demoralized republicans in Kerry, it did not quite spell the end of the IRA's weakening campaign there. Following the "last major [civil-war] action" in Kerry in early April at Derrynafeena on the Iveragh Peninsula, the effective collapse of the republican campaign came a little over a month after Ballyseedy at a place on the north Kerry coast called Clashmealcon.3 The "siege at Clashmealcon caves" in mid-April 1923 would prove to be the "last, epic struggle" of the local republican resistance, followed a few weeks later by the decision of the anti-Treaty IRA leadership to abandon its armed campaign.4 Over the course of this small-scale but dramatic three-day siege three IRA Volunteers and two National Army soldiers lost their lives, with the execution of three surviving republicans occurring shortly afterward. The events of the siege were widely reported and became "seared deep in the folk memory of County Kerry" and the republican movement beyond.5 Refracting key dynamics of civil-war violence in Kerry, and associated with an extensive tradition of remembrance, the siege at Clashmealcon and its fraught memory over the last century invite deeper micro-historical attention. As with other controversial killings by Free Stat
{"title":"Clashmealcon Caves: Civil War History and Memory under Siege in North Kerry","authors":"Gavin Foster","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910485","url":null,"abstract":"Clashmealcon Caves:Civil War History and Memory under Siege in North Kerry Gavin Foster (bio) In Dunfort's cave they took their stand, the last in Ireland's rights,Three days and nights with rapid fire they nobly held the fight,Till worn out without relief, they did at length give o'erAnd they gave their lives for Ireland down by the Shannon shore.1 The Irish Civil War of 1922–23 was a conflict of great consequence both for the national revolution that it terminated and for the new state that it inaugurated. The deadly divisions that appeared within Ireland's independence movement over the Treaty with Britain touched on profound questions concerning the principles and ideals of the recent revolution. Yet in the ensuing \"war of friends\" the opposing sides waged an often brutal but mismatched and highly localized fight inflected by animosities and allegiances from the recent revolution as well as from older divisions and frictions in Irish society. In the patchy geography of mostly low-level rural violence, no part of the country stands out more than County Kerry, where the IRA guerrilla war and the Irish Free State counterinsurgency were waged \"more extensively and bitterly … than anywhere.\"2 Kerry is widely associated with the worst horrors of the Civil War, frequently summed up in one word: Ballyseedy, the site of a March 1923 massacre of eight republicans by their Free State captors. The first and largest [End Page 250] of several closely timed reprisals for an IRA trap-mine at Knocknagashel, Ballyseedy was the crescendo of a broader pattern of brutal state violence in the infamous Kerry command, the timing and scale of which was shaped by the intensity and duration of IRA resistance in the field. While Ballyseedy shocked and demoralized republicans in Kerry, it did not quite spell the end of the IRA's weakening campaign there. Following the \"last major [civil-war] action\" in Kerry in early April at Derrynafeena on the Iveragh Peninsula, the effective collapse of the republican campaign came a little over a month after Ballyseedy at a place on the north Kerry coast called Clashmealcon.3 The \"siege at Clashmealcon caves\" in mid-April 1923 would prove to be the \"last, epic struggle\" of the local republican resistance, followed a few weeks later by the decision of the anti-Treaty IRA leadership to abandon its armed campaign.4 Over the course of this small-scale but dramatic three-day siege three IRA Volunteers and two National Army soldiers lost their lives, with the execution of three surviving republicans occurring shortly afterward. The events of the siege were widely reported and became \"seared deep in the folk memory of County Kerry\" and the republican movement beyond.5 Refracting key dynamics of civil-war violence in Kerry, and associated with an extensive tradition of remembrance, the siege at Clashmealcon and its fraught memory over the last century invite deeper micro-historical attention. As with other controversial killings by Free Stat","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910480
Mary McAuliffe
The Treatment of Militant Anti-Treaty Women in Kerry by the National Army during the Irish Civil War Mary McAuliffe (bio) On 2 november 1922 a short article entitled "The Lot of Women in Tralee" was published in Poblacht na hÉireann (Republic of Ireland), an anti-Treaty newspaper. It took notice of the reports in the daily press of the "arrest by F.S. [Free State] troops of 10 Tralee girls" on 10 October. It was evident, the author noted, that "the Dublin Guards have failed to terrorise the women of Tralee into foreswearing their allegiance to the Irish Republican Army by breaking into homes at midnight, dragging them from their beds, painting their bodies, and heaping upon them every outrage and indignity that only the mentality of the Dublin Guards is capable of devising."1 The National Army had landed at Fenit near Tralee on 2 August of that year. Attacks on and arrests of anti-Treaty Cumann na mBan women began soon afterward and were reported in various mainstream and anti-Treaty newspapers.2 Poblacht na hÉireann was founded by Liam Mellows, Frank Gallagher, and Erskine Childers in 1922 to disseminate propaganda for the anti-Treaty side. The paper was published in broadsheet format to make it easy to paste onto walls (mainly the work of militant women), where it could be easily and widely read. The newspaper does not seem to have survived past June 1923, but during its lifespan it included many articles on the activities of militant republican women and on the violence committed against [End Page 72] them by the National Army. Although Poblacht na hÉireann generally "detailed the anti-Treaty position in a mainly level-headed and often quite sophisticated manner," this newspaper article about the experience of republican women in Tralee contains both fact and hyperbole.3 Cumann na mBan women had indeed been arrested in Tralee. As the Evening Echo reported on 31 October, "ten very active girls of [the] Cumann na mBan organisation were arrested in their homes in Tralee." This occurrence, it stated, was "a new departure," and the women were lodged in Tralee Female Prison.4 Yet in this report there is no mention of the assault on their bodies with paint or of any other indignities that might have been heaped upon them during the arrest. The writer of this Poblacht na hÉireann article was here conflating the experiences of different groups of militant women in Kerry at the hands of the National Army. This essay focuses on the treatment of militant anti-Treaty women by the National Army during the Irish Civil War. Concentrating on the experiences of women in Kerry from August 1922 to the end of 1923, it explores the anxieties and misogynist ideologies that provoked harsh, gendered, and sexual mistreatment of women as well as both its immediate and subsequent impact on militant and non-militant women in the Irish Free State. Gemma Clark, the leading historian of everyday violence in the Civil War, asks, "How distinctive were women's interactions with
1922年11月2日,一份反条约报纸《Poblacht na hÉireann》(爱尔兰共和国)上发表了一篇题为《Tralee妇女的命运》的短文。委员会注意到每日新闻报道10月10日“自由邦部队逮捕了10名特拉利女孩”。作者指出,很明显,“都柏林近卫军未能恐吓特拉利的妇女宣誓效忠爱尔兰共和军,他们在午夜闯入民宅,把她们从床上拖起来,在她们身上涂上颜料,对她们施加只有都柏林近卫军才能想出的各种愤怒和侮辱。”1 .国民军于当年8月2日在特拉利附近的芬尼特登陆。此后不久就开始攻击和逮捕反对《条约》的妇女,各主流报纸和反对《条约》的报纸都报道了这一事件Poblacht na hÉireann由Liam Mellows, Frank Gallagher和Erskine Childers于1922年创立,旨在为反条约一方传播宣传。这篇论文以大报的形式发表,以便于贴在墙上(主要是激进妇女的作品),这样它可以很容易地被广泛阅读。这份报纸似乎没有熬过1923年6月,但在它的生命周期中,它包括了许多关于激进的共和派妇女的活动和国家军队对她们的暴力行为的文章。虽然Poblacht na hÉireann总体上“以一种主要是冷静的、往往相当老练的方式详细描述了反条约的立场”,但这篇关于共和党妇女在特拉利的经历的报纸文章既包含事实,也包含夸张确实有许多妇女在特拉利被捕。正如《回声晚报》在10月31日报道的那样,“库曼纳姆班组织的10名非常活跃的女孩在她们位于特拉利的家中被捕。”报告称,这一事件是“一种新的离开”,这些妇女被关押在Tralee女子监狱。然而,报告中没有提到她们的身体被涂上油漆,也没有提到在逮捕期间可能对她们施加的任何其他侮辱。这篇Poblacht na hÉireann文章的作者在这里将克里不同群体的激进女性在国民军手中的经历混为一谈。本文主要研究爱尔兰内战期间国民军对激进的反条约妇女的待遇。本书聚焦于1922年8月至1923年底克里妇女的经历,探讨了焦虑和厌恶女性的意识形态,这些意识形态引发了对妇女的严厉、性别和性虐待,以及它对爱尔兰自由邦激进和非激进妇女的直接和后续影响。研究内战中日常暴力的著名历史学家杰玛·克拉克(Gemma Clark)问道:“女性与爱尔兰内战的互动有多独特?一个相关的问题是,性别框架对理解爱尔兰历史上这些暴力和变革年代有多有用?”虽然克拉克主要针对女性非战斗人员提出了这个问题,但她确实承认,“战斗人员”是一个有争议的、模棱两可的术语,“在一般的内战中”,“女性在爱尔兰冲突中扮演了好战的角色”。6 .在这种特殊性的背景下,本文将考虑激进的反条约妇女与自由邦士兵施加的暴力相互作用的特殊性。正如franoise thacimbaud所承认的那样,通过“女性的眼睛”来看待战争意味着分析女性在战时社会中的地位,包括“她们的政治参与或选择”。此外,如果我们认为性别的重要性是“一个有用的历史分析范畴”(正如琼·w·斯科特所说),那么通过性别视角研究内战“就会对所有形式的性别等级提出问题,并产生一幅更复杂的画面。”斯科特还指出,性别视角将为“老问题提供新的视角”,“重新定义老问题”,并“使……
{"title":"The Treatment of Militant Anti-Treaty Women in Kerry by the National Army during the Irish Civil War","authors":"Mary McAuliffe","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910480","url":null,"abstract":"The Treatment of Militant Anti-Treaty Women in Kerry by the National Army during the Irish Civil War Mary McAuliffe (bio) On 2 november 1922 a short article entitled \"The Lot of Women in Tralee\" was published in Poblacht na hÉireann (Republic of Ireland), an anti-Treaty newspaper. It took notice of the reports in the daily press of the \"arrest by F.S. [Free State] troops of 10 Tralee girls\" on 10 October. It was evident, the author noted, that \"the Dublin Guards have failed to terrorise the women of Tralee into foreswearing their allegiance to the Irish Republican Army by breaking into homes at midnight, dragging them from their beds, painting their bodies, and heaping upon them every outrage and indignity that only the mentality of the Dublin Guards is capable of devising.\"1 The National Army had landed at Fenit near Tralee on 2 August of that year. Attacks on and arrests of anti-Treaty Cumann na mBan women began soon afterward and were reported in various mainstream and anti-Treaty newspapers.2 Poblacht na hÉireann was founded by Liam Mellows, Frank Gallagher, and Erskine Childers in 1922 to disseminate propaganda for the anti-Treaty side. The paper was published in broadsheet format to make it easy to paste onto walls (mainly the work of militant women), where it could be easily and widely read. The newspaper does not seem to have survived past June 1923, but during its lifespan it included many articles on the activities of militant republican women and on the violence committed against [End Page 72] them by the National Army. Although Poblacht na hÉireann generally \"detailed the anti-Treaty position in a mainly level-headed and often quite sophisticated manner,\" this newspaper article about the experience of republican women in Tralee contains both fact and hyperbole.3 Cumann na mBan women had indeed been arrested in Tralee. As the Evening Echo reported on 31 October, \"ten very active girls of [the] Cumann na mBan organisation were arrested in their homes in Tralee.\" This occurrence, it stated, was \"a new departure,\" and the women were lodged in Tralee Female Prison.4 Yet in this report there is no mention of the assault on their bodies with paint or of any other indignities that might have been heaped upon them during the arrest. The writer of this Poblacht na hÉireann article was here conflating the experiences of different groups of militant women in Kerry at the hands of the National Army. This essay focuses on the treatment of militant anti-Treaty women by the National Army during the Irish Civil War. Concentrating on the experiences of women in Kerry from August 1922 to the end of 1923, it explores the anxieties and misogynist ideologies that provoked harsh, gendered, and sexual mistreatment of women as well as both its immediate and subsequent impact on militant and non-militant women in the Irish Free State. Gemma Clark, the leading historian of everyday violence in the Civil War, asks, \"How distinctive were women's interactions with","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910478
John Borgonovo
Civil Administration and Economic Endowments in the Munster Republic's "Real Capital," July–August 1922 John Borgonovo (bio) The Irish Civil War opened with a six-week "conventional phase" during which the anti-Treaty Irish Republican Army (hereafter called the IRA) controlled most of the province of Munster, which historians often term the "Munster Republic."1 This period ended when the National Army seized Cork city and the other major cities and towns in the province following simultaneous amphibious landings along the Cork coast. The IRA retreated into the hills and remote hinterland and thereafter controlled only a fraction of the province. Megan A. Stewart and Yu-Ming Liou have argued that "territorial control is a tremendous military asset for insurgents, and such control should enhance any group's strength and latent capacity for violence (whether against civilians or the state)."2 While the republican occupation of Cork city has been explored as the backdrop to the "Battle for Cork," it typically receives only cursory mention in Irish Civil War studies, primarily as a curiosity rather than as a military center of [End Page 9] gravity for the anti-Treaty campaign.3 Yet republican-held Munster generally, and Cork city in particular, offered the anti-Treaty forces "economic endowments," which Jeremy M. Weinstein has defined as "resources that can be mobilized to finance the start-up and maintenance of a rebel organization."4 This article will explore how the IRA exploited economic endowments in Cork city. It will further identify republican attempts at civil administration within the city, discuss their challenges and shortcomings, and consider their implications during the republican campaign against the Irish Free State. Establishing the "Munster Republic" The Irish Civil War began with the National Army attack on the IRA's governing executive and general headquarters inside the Four Courts complex in Dublin. Situated outside the besieged Four Courts, Liam Lynch resumed the role of IRA chief of staff and returned to Munster to set up a new general headquarters and to mobilize and organize resistance to the Free State. Munster IRA units quickly captured pro-Treaty garrisons in Skibbereen and Listowel, consolidated their hold over the province, and advanced on Free State forces controlling Limerick city and west Limerick.5 Liam Lynch eventually set up a "field headquarters" and assembled a new headquarters staff in the extensive Fermoy Military Barracks in north Cork. Fighting the National Army along a rough line stretching from Limerick city to Waterford city during July, the IRA formed its "field army" comprised of numerous attached IRA flying columns and support units from various Munster brigades that probably numbered about three thousand full-time fighters.6 IRA brigades in counties Cork, Kerry, Waterford, and west Limerick reported to the First Southern Division, whose headquarters interacted directly with IRA general headquarters. T
1922年7月至8月明斯特共和国“真正的首都”的民事管理和经济资助约翰·博尔戈诺沃(传记)爱尔兰内战开始于为期六周的“常规阶段”,在此期间,反条约的爱尔兰共和军(以下简称爱尔兰共和军)控制了明斯特省的大部分地区,历史学家通常将其称为“明斯特共和国”。这一时期结束时,国民军同时沿着科克海岸登陆,占领了科克市和该省其他主要城镇。爱尔兰共和军撤退到山区和偏远的腹地,此后只控制了该省的一小部分地区。梅根·a·斯图尔特(Megan a . Stewart)和刘玉明(Yu-Ming Liou)认为,“对领土的控制对叛乱分子来说是一项巨大的军事资产,这种控制应该增强任何组织的力量和潜在的暴力能力(无论是针对平民还是针对国家)。”虽然共和军对科克城的占领被作为“科克战役”的背景进行了探讨,但在爱尔兰内战研究中,它通常只被粗略地提及,主要是作为一种好奇心,而不是作为反条约运动的军事中心然而,共和党控制的明斯特,尤其是科克市,为反条约武装提供了“经济捐助”,杰里米·m·温斯坦(Jeremy M. Weinstein)将其定义为“可以动员起来为一个反叛组织的启动和维持提供资金的资源”。本文将探讨爱尔兰共和军如何利用科克市的经济禀赋。它将进一步确定共和派在城市内民政管理方面的尝试,讨论他们的挑战和缺点,并考虑他们在反对爱尔兰自由邦的共和派运动中的影响。建立“明斯特共和国”爱尔兰内战开始于国民军对爱尔兰共和军在都柏林四法院内的行政和总司令部的攻击。在被围困的四法院外,利亚姆·林奇恢复了爱尔兰共和军参谋长的角色,回到明斯特建立了一个新的总部,并动员和组织对自由邦的抵抗。明斯特共和军迅速占领了斯基伯林和利斯托维尔的亲条约驻军,巩固了他们对该省的控制,并向控制利默里克市和利默里克西部的自由邦军队推进。利亚姆·林奇最终建立了一个“战场总部”,并在科克北部广阔的费尔莫伊军营集结了新的总部人员。7月,爱尔兰共和军沿着一条从利默里克市一直延伸到沃特福德市的粗糙路线与国民军作战,共和军组建了自己的“野战军”,由许多附属的爱尔兰共和军飞行纵队和来自各个明斯特旅的支援部队组成,大约有3000名全职战士爱尔兰共和军在科克郡、克里郡、沃特福德郡和西利默里克郡的旅向南方第一师报告,该师的总部与爱尔兰共和军总部直接互动。科克第一旅是第一南师最大的部队,在科克市有自己的总部,科克市有大约7.5万人,是明斯特公认的商业和通讯中心。此后,科克成为了“明斯特共和国”(Munster Republic)的非官方或“真正的首都”(城市居民普遍使用的当代昵称)的角色。明斯特共和国是爱尔兰共和军在内战前七周控制的省份。当科克第一旅收到“四宫”进攻的消息后,他们聚集在科克城决定是否参战。尽管该旅的主要指挥官Seán O'Hegarty反对,爱尔兰共和军的科克第一旅还是加入了共和军一方的冲突。(最终,奥赫加蒂和旅部副官多米尼克·沙利文从爱尔兰共和军辞职,在内战中采取中立立场。)7从科克城出发,修改后的旅部领导组成了两支庞大的飞行纵队,总共约有100名志愿军,向利默里克城进发另一支共和军纵队约有一百名战士,随后被派往沃特福德。由于缺乏资金和物资,科克志愿者在出发前往“前线”之前,通过疯狂的征用来装备自己。他们到服装店去抢给飞行纵队战士穿的风衣、打底裤和靴子。
{"title":"Civil Administration and Economic Endowments in the Munster Republic's \"Real Capital,\" July–August 1922","authors":"John Borgonovo","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910478","url":null,"abstract":"Civil Administration and Economic Endowments in the Munster Republic's \"Real Capital,\" July–August 1922 John Borgonovo (bio) The Irish Civil War opened with a six-week \"conventional phase\" during which the anti-Treaty Irish Republican Army (hereafter called the IRA) controlled most of the province of Munster, which historians often term the \"Munster Republic.\"1 This period ended when the National Army seized Cork city and the other major cities and towns in the province following simultaneous amphibious landings along the Cork coast. The IRA retreated into the hills and remote hinterland and thereafter controlled only a fraction of the province. Megan A. Stewart and Yu-Ming Liou have argued that \"territorial control is a tremendous military asset for insurgents, and such control should enhance any group's strength and latent capacity for violence (whether against civilians or the state).\"2 While the republican occupation of Cork city has been explored as the backdrop to the \"Battle for Cork,\" it typically receives only cursory mention in Irish Civil War studies, primarily as a curiosity rather than as a military center of [End Page 9] gravity for the anti-Treaty campaign.3 Yet republican-held Munster generally, and Cork city in particular, offered the anti-Treaty forces \"economic endowments,\" which Jeremy M. Weinstein has defined as \"resources that can be mobilized to finance the start-up and maintenance of a rebel organization.\"4 This article will explore how the IRA exploited economic endowments in Cork city. It will further identify republican attempts at civil administration within the city, discuss their challenges and shortcomings, and consider their implications during the republican campaign against the Irish Free State. Establishing the \"Munster Republic\" The Irish Civil War began with the National Army attack on the IRA's governing executive and general headquarters inside the Four Courts complex in Dublin. Situated outside the besieged Four Courts, Liam Lynch resumed the role of IRA chief of staff and returned to Munster to set up a new general headquarters and to mobilize and organize resistance to the Free State. Munster IRA units quickly captured pro-Treaty garrisons in Skibbereen and Listowel, consolidated their hold over the province, and advanced on Free State forces controlling Limerick city and west Limerick.5 Liam Lynch eventually set up a \"field headquarters\" and assembled a new headquarters staff in the extensive Fermoy Military Barracks in north Cork. Fighting the National Army along a rough line stretching from Limerick city to Waterford city during July, the IRA formed its \"field army\" comprised of numerous attached IRA flying columns and support units from various Munster brigades that probably numbered about three thousand full-time fighters.6 IRA brigades in counties Cork, Kerry, Waterford, and west Limerick reported to the First Southern Division, whose headquarters interacted directly with IRA general headquarters. T","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910479
Helene O'keefe
"One Little Slice, from a Child's Point of View":Locating Childhood Experience during the Civil War in County Kerry in Archived Oral History Helene O'keefe (bio) "My father had us all stretched on the floor after the first rattle of the slates. … 'Stretch,' he said, 'because the bullets will come in the windows.'"1 Eighty-nine-year-old Michael Fleming moved closer to the oral historian's microphone to share one of his earliest memories of how the violence of the Irish Revolution invaded his childhood home in Kilcummin, Co. Kerry. He was eight years old in 1921 when crown forces raided the family farm about six kilometers northeast of Killarney, a safehouse for the local IRA during the War of Independence and Civil War. "My aunt was in Cumann na mBan," Michael explained, "but my father" Gearóid Fleming, a farmer with six boys and two girls, "could do nothing" except "give them shelter," and he "had a couple of rooms let [to] the boys up in the mountain and bog between Kilcummin and Scartaglin."2 Gearóid, the first to hear the approaching lorries, "jumped out of bed" and "gave the door a belt" to alert the sleeping Volunteers, who got out and "went for the mountain." Michael's account of the violent raid that followed, conveyed orally with visceral vividness, resonates with that particular acoustic of war: [End Page 35] We had to stretch there. My father and mother and all were stretched down on the floor. I heard the bullets coming through the roof of the room we were in. … They did that for a couple of hours and [then] things were quiet, but still, my father wouldn't allow us to get up. The next thing was, the old lorries, the army lorries, started clattering again and going back the road, going to Killarney. My father said, "You can get up now." I'll never forget the smell of sulphur [that] was around the house. You know, I can smell it today. We were children and we were picking up the bullets. At that time the bullets bent when they hit the wall and the lumps of mortar, they knocked off of it, the smell of sulphur was in it. But we were delighted getting the bullets, you know.3 Oral-history testimonies are notoriously problematic, subject not only to what is asked during an interview and how the questions are understood, but also to the vagaries of human memory, subsequent experience, cultural contexts, and the distorting impulse to "perform" for posterity. Michael Fleming's memory of childhood, called up through layers of time and experience, yields few "hard facts" about the southwestern battleground in 1921. His powerful sensory recall, however, underscores the overwhelming nature of the event. It was an assault in every sense of the word. Uncertainty about dates, personalities, and even the duration of the raid is offset by the sound-scape of a childhood ordeal—an olfactory archive, the symbolism of domestic security shattered like slates. Across seven decades he summoned the cacophony of the "old army lorries," his father's urgent voice,
{"title":"\"One Little Slice, from a Child's Point of View\": Locating Childhood Experience during the Civil War in County Kerry in Archived Oral History","authors":"Helene O'keefe","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910479","url":null,"abstract":"\"One Little Slice, from a Child's Point of View\":Locating Childhood Experience during the Civil War in County Kerry in Archived Oral History Helene O'keefe (bio) \"My father had us all stretched on the floor after the first rattle of the slates. … 'Stretch,' he said, 'because the bullets will come in the windows.'\"1 Eighty-nine-year-old Michael Fleming moved closer to the oral historian's microphone to share one of his earliest memories of how the violence of the Irish Revolution invaded his childhood home in Kilcummin, Co. Kerry. He was eight years old in 1921 when crown forces raided the family farm about six kilometers northeast of Killarney, a safehouse for the local IRA during the War of Independence and Civil War. \"My aunt was in Cumann na mBan,\" Michael explained, \"but my father\" Gearóid Fleming, a farmer with six boys and two girls, \"could do nothing\" except \"give them shelter,\" and he \"had a couple of rooms let [to] the boys up in the mountain and bog between Kilcummin and Scartaglin.\"2 Gearóid, the first to hear the approaching lorries, \"jumped out of bed\" and \"gave the door a belt\" to alert the sleeping Volunteers, who got out and \"went for the mountain.\" Michael's account of the violent raid that followed, conveyed orally with visceral vividness, resonates with that particular acoustic of war: [End Page 35] We had to stretch there. My father and mother and all were stretched down on the floor. I heard the bullets coming through the roof of the room we were in. … They did that for a couple of hours and [then] things were quiet, but still, my father wouldn't allow us to get up. The next thing was, the old lorries, the army lorries, started clattering again and going back the road, going to Killarney. My father said, \"You can get up now.\" I'll never forget the smell of sulphur [that] was around the house. You know, I can smell it today. We were children and we were picking up the bullets. At that time the bullets bent when they hit the wall and the lumps of mortar, they knocked off of it, the smell of sulphur was in it. But we were delighted getting the bullets, you know.3 Oral-history testimonies are notoriously problematic, subject not only to what is asked during an interview and how the questions are understood, but also to the vagaries of human memory, subsequent experience, cultural contexts, and the distorting impulse to \"perform\" for posterity. Michael Fleming's memory of childhood, called up through layers of time and experience, yields few \"hard facts\" about the southwestern battleground in 1921. His powerful sensory recall, however, underscores the overwhelming nature of the event. It was an assault in every sense of the word. Uncertainty about dates, personalities, and even the duration of the raid is offset by the sound-scape of a childhood ordeal—an olfactory archive, the symbolism of domestic security shattered like slates. Across seven decades he summoned the cacophony of the \"old army lorries,\" his father's urgent voice, ","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910483
James S. Donnelly
A New Ranch War?:Cattle Driving and Civil War Agrarian Disorder, 1922–23* James S. Donnelly Jr. (bio) Emboldened by the military and judicial weaknesses of the new state and its truncated apparatus of repression in the early 1920s, and highly impatient for comprehensive new land-purchase legislation, large elements of Irish rural society became deeply engaged in a many-sided land war of almost national scope and extremely wide dimensions—a dramatic upsurge in multifaceted rural conflicts and collective action perhaps rivaling in their intensity (if not their duration) the great agitations of the 1880s under the Land and National Leagues as well as the Ranch War of 1907–12.1 Greatly elevated levels of agrarian violence and intimidation deeply marked the revolutionary [End Page 174] period of 1919–23, influenced to some extent by the impact of events in Russia from 1917 through the early 1920s.2 There were both immediate and underlying causes of this blitz of agrarian disorder. One major cause that prompted extremely widespread dissatisfaction and even anger was the more or less complete stoppage in the land-division and redistribution work of the Congested Districts Board and the Irish Land Commission throughout the Great War of 1914–18.3 A second reason was the nearly total interruption in the river of emigration for much the same years owing largely to governmental restrictions and fear of conscription in Britain. From a high of 31,000 emigrants in 1913, the exodus greatly narrowed to fewer than 1,000 in 1918, and even in 1920 it was little more than half the 1913 figure.4 This situation undoubtedly exacerbated the land hunger of the greatly enlarged number of rural young men and deepened postwar unemployment.5 In addition, the normal peacetime migration of mostly young Irish harvest workers to England and Scotland—"an essential supplement of income to the miserable holders of uneconomic holdings and to the young landless men"—was cut off for as long as four years during wartime.6 Yet another major factor was the enormous inflation of prices (including the cost of land) that accompanied the First World War. By the end of this conflict, with its staggering human losses [End Page 175] and enormous wartime expenditures, the cost of purchasing land had skyrocketed. The bank accounts of graziers and large farmers had swelled in almost unprecedented fashion from 1914 to 1918 as a result of expanded livestock and grain exports to Britain, greatly facilitating their ability and disposition to enter the land market and to enlarge their holdings, thus leading to runaway land prices.7 As former land commissioner Kevin O'Sheil later emphasized, there was an uncontrolled surge at this point in the prices of acquiring land. "At this period," he declared, "it was not unusual for a small parcel of land to be sold for more than twenty times its pre-war value, and such transactions had naturally the effect of rousing the land hunger, particularly in the congested
一场新的牧场战争?*小詹姆斯·s·唐纳利(传记)20世纪20年代初,由于新国家在军事和司法上的弱点及其被截断的镇压机构的鼓舞,以及对全面的新土地购买立法的高度不耐烦,爱尔兰农村社会的大部分人都深深卷入了一场几乎全国范围和极其广泛的多方面的土地战争——多方面的农村冲突和集体行动的戏剧性高涨,其强度(如果不是持续时间)可能与19世纪80年代的土地和国家联盟(land and national league)和1907年的牧场战争(Ranch war)相媲美——土地暴力和恐吓的水平大大提高,深深地标志着1871年的革命时期1919年至1923年,在某种程度上受到1917年至20世纪20年代初俄罗斯事件的影响造成这种土地混乱的原因既有直接的,也有潜在的。引起极其广泛的不满甚至愤怒的一个主要原因是,在1914年至1918年的第一次世界大战期间,拥挤地区委员会和爱尔兰土地委员会的土地划分和再分配工作或多或少地完全停止了。第二个原因是,由于英国政府的限制和对征兵的恐惧,移民潮在同一年中几乎完全中断。1913年移民人数高达31,000人,1918年大幅减少到不足1,000人,即使在1920年,这一数字也只是1913年的一半多一点这种情况无疑加剧了大量农村青年对土地的渴求,并加深了战后的失业此外,在和平时期,大多数年轻的爱尔兰收割工人向英格兰和苏格兰的正常移民——“对那些悲惨的无经济财产的所有者和年轻的无地男子来说,这是一种重要的收入补充”——在战争期间被切断了长达四年的时间然而,另一个主要因素是伴随第一次世界大战而来的物价(包括土地成本)的巨大通货膨胀。在这场冲突结束时,伴随着惊人的人员伤亡和巨大的战时开支,购买土地的成本飙升。从1914年到1918年,由于扩大了对英国的牲畜和粮食出口,牧场主和大农场主的银行账户几乎以前所未有的方式膨胀,极大地促进了他们进入土地市场和扩大他们的财产的能力和意愿,从而导致土地价格失控正如前土地专员凯文·奥希尔(Kevin O'Sheil)后来强调的那样,在这一点上,获得土地的价格出现了不受控制的飙升。“在这个时期,”他宣称,“一小块土地以其战前价值的20倍以上的价格出售并不罕见,这种交易自然会引起土地饥渴,特别是在大西洋沿岸拥挤的地区。此外,到第一次世界大战结束时,由于战时Sinn fsamin的强烈宣传,在南爱尔兰民族主义人民中“深刻的民族感情惊人地加强”,导致和平到来时的坚定决心,特别是在年轻一代中,留在家里,至少购买一个中等规模的农场最后是1919-23年的严重农业萧条。在考虑这些年来农业失调的原因时,学者们并没有对第一次世界大战结束后的萧条给予足够的关注。1914年至1918年间,由于战时需求的强劲和供应的持续短缺,各种农产品价格的上涨使爱尔兰农民受益匪浅。但随后在1919年开始的战时繁荣之后出现的经济萧条令爱尔兰农业社区感到震惊。受打击最严重的是畜牧生产者,到1921年,他们已经受到过去两年牲畜价格暴跌的影响。都柏林市场的牲畜销售数据(主要用于出口)表明,那里的牛贩子赚了高达78英镑的钱……
{"title":"A New Ranch War?: Cattle Driving and Civil War Agrarian Disorder, 1922–23","authors":"James S. Donnelly","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910483","url":null,"abstract":"A New Ranch War?:Cattle Driving and Civil War Agrarian Disorder, 1922–23* James S. Donnelly Jr. (bio) Emboldened by the military and judicial weaknesses of the new state and its truncated apparatus of repression in the early 1920s, and highly impatient for comprehensive new land-purchase legislation, large elements of Irish rural society became deeply engaged in a many-sided land war of almost national scope and extremely wide dimensions—a dramatic upsurge in multifaceted rural conflicts and collective action perhaps rivaling in their intensity (if not their duration) the great agitations of the 1880s under the Land and National Leagues as well as the Ranch War of 1907–12.1 Greatly elevated levels of agrarian violence and intimidation deeply marked the revolutionary [End Page 174] period of 1919–23, influenced to some extent by the impact of events in Russia from 1917 through the early 1920s.2 There were both immediate and underlying causes of this blitz of agrarian disorder. One major cause that prompted extremely widespread dissatisfaction and even anger was the more or less complete stoppage in the land-division and redistribution work of the Congested Districts Board and the Irish Land Commission throughout the Great War of 1914–18.3 A second reason was the nearly total interruption in the river of emigration for much the same years owing largely to governmental restrictions and fear of conscription in Britain. From a high of 31,000 emigrants in 1913, the exodus greatly narrowed to fewer than 1,000 in 1918, and even in 1920 it was little more than half the 1913 figure.4 This situation undoubtedly exacerbated the land hunger of the greatly enlarged number of rural young men and deepened postwar unemployment.5 In addition, the normal peacetime migration of mostly young Irish harvest workers to England and Scotland—\"an essential supplement of income to the miserable holders of uneconomic holdings and to the young landless men\"—was cut off for as long as four years during wartime.6 Yet another major factor was the enormous inflation of prices (including the cost of land) that accompanied the First World War. By the end of this conflict, with its staggering human losses [End Page 175] and enormous wartime expenditures, the cost of purchasing land had skyrocketed. The bank accounts of graziers and large farmers had swelled in almost unprecedented fashion from 1914 to 1918 as a result of expanded livestock and grain exports to Britain, greatly facilitating their ability and disposition to enter the land market and to enlarge their holdings, thus leading to runaway land prices.7 As former land commissioner Kevin O'Sheil later emphasized, there was an uncontrolled surge at this point in the prices of acquiring land. \"At this period,\" he declared, \"it was not unusual for a small parcel of land to be sold for more than twenty times its pre-war value, and such transactions had naturally the effect of rousing the land hunger, particularly in the congested","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910481
Bill Kissane
Three Conceptions of Civil War Politics Bill Kissane Until 1966, when Fianna Fáil's Jack Lynch became taoiseach, the politics of the Irish Republic were dominated by men who had become prominent in the War of Independence (1919–21) and the resulting Civil War (1922–23). There is nothing unusual about a revolutionary cohort continuing to dominate a new state in this way. That it could be a bone of contention is suggested by the character of Moran in John McGahern's novel Amongst Women. Moran asks of the independence struggle, "What did we get for it? A country, if you'd believe them. Some of our own johnnies in the top jobs instead of a few Englishmen."1 This veteran of both the War of Independence and the Civil War clearly suffered from postrevolutionary disillusionment. And Moran had a point. All taoisigh appointed before 1966 had been involved in the Civil War in some way. Later, Liam Cosgrave, chosen in 1973, and Garrett FitzGerald, chosen in 1981, as Fine Gael Taoisigh, were sons respectively of the president of the Executive Council and the minister of external affairs during the Civil War. Charles Haughey, taoiseach on three separate occasions between 1979 and 1992, was a son-in-law of Seán Lemass, who ended the Civil War in an internment camp and had been taoiseach between 1959 and 1966. Between 1973 and 1974 the president was Erskine Childers, whose father had been executed by the Provisional Government in October 1922. Evidently, Irish politics remained in the shadow of the Civil War for quite some time. The impact of the conflict on Irish political development has also long been an issue in Irish Studies. Most historians consider this impact to have been deep and traumatic. For Ronan Fanning Irish society "never escaped the bloody shadow cast at its birth."2 Fearghal [End Page 101] McGarry concluded that it is "difficult to overestimate the Civil War's impact."3 Niall Whelehan suggested that its "psychological impact" was "immense."4 When it comes to party politics specifically, the Civil War "shaped and structured the new party system."5 It both "froze the development of party politics in a unique mould"6 and "fixed attitudes in a way that would otherwise have been absorbed into the political system quite differently."7 Up to the formation of the current Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael coalition in 2020, the pattern established in the 1920s had been "difficult to shift."8 This article explores the impact of the Civil War on Irish party politics through a fresh look at an old concept, "civil-war politics." This concept has been used to characterize a specific style of politics emanating from the conflict and to convey a sense of its overall impact on Irish party politics. This article looks at the different ways in which the style of politics rooted in the Civil War allowed the larger two parties to fend off challengers and to dominate Irish politics for most of the twentieth century. The causality involved ran in two directions: the Civil War ga
{"title":"Three Conceptions of Civil War Politics","authors":"Bill Kissane","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910481","url":null,"abstract":"Three Conceptions of Civil War Politics Bill Kissane Until 1966, when Fianna Fáil's Jack Lynch became taoiseach, the politics of the Irish Republic were dominated by men who had become prominent in the War of Independence (1919–21) and the resulting Civil War (1922–23). There is nothing unusual about a revolutionary cohort continuing to dominate a new state in this way. That it could be a bone of contention is suggested by the character of Moran in John McGahern's novel Amongst Women. Moran asks of the independence struggle, \"What did we get for it? A country, if you'd believe them. Some of our own johnnies in the top jobs instead of a few Englishmen.\"1 This veteran of both the War of Independence and the Civil War clearly suffered from postrevolutionary disillusionment. And Moran had a point. All taoisigh appointed before 1966 had been involved in the Civil War in some way. Later, Liam Cosgrave, chosen in 1973, and Garrett FitzGerald, chosen in 1981, as Fine Gael Taoisigh, were sons respectively of the president of the Executive Council and the minister of external affairs during the Civil War. Charles Haughey, taoiseach on three separate occasions between 1979 and 1992, was a son-in-law of Seán Lemass, who ended the Civil War in an internment camp and had been taoiseach between 1959 and 1966. Between 1973 and 1974 the president was Erskine Childers, whose father had been executed by the Provisional Government in October 1922. Evidently, Irish politics remained in the shadow of the Civil War for quite some time. The impact of the conflict on Irish political development has also long been an issue in Irish Studies. Most historians consider this impact to have been deep and traumatic. For Ronan Fanning Irish society \"never escaped the bloody shadow cast at its birth.\"2 Fearghal [End Page 101] McGarry concluded that it is \"difficult to overestimate the Civil War's impact.\"3 Niall Whelehan suggested that its \"psychological impact\" was \"immense.\"4 When it comes to party politics specifically, the Civil War \"shaped and structured the new party system.\"5 It both \"froze the development of party politics in a unique mould\"6 and \"fixed attitudes in a way that would otherwise have been absorbed into the political system quite differently.\"7 Up to the formation of the current Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael coalition in 2020, the pattern established in the 1920s had been \"difficult to shift.\"8 This article explores the impact of the Civil War on Irish party politics through a fresh look at an old concept, \"civil-war politics.\" This concept has been used to characterize a specific style of politics emanating from the conflict and to convey a sense of its overall impact on Irish party politics. This article looks at the different ways in which the style of politics rooted in the Civil War allowed the larger two parties to fend off challengers and to dominate Irish politics for most of the twentieth century. The causality involved ran in two directions: the Civil War ga","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910484
James S. Donnelly
Big House Burnings in County Tipperary during the Irish Civil War* James S. Donnelly Jr. (bio) County Tipperary is of particular interest in any examination of what has been termed the "last land war" in the midst of the Civil War of 1922–23.1 More Big Houses (twenty-nine mansions) of the fading Irish landed gentry and aristocracy were burned in this county than in any other in all of Ireland between January 1922 and April 1923. What remains to be discovered is the combination of motivations that prompted incendiarism on such a widespread scale in this particular county.2 Quite recently, Terence Dooley has drawn attention to the much greater role played by land hunger and agrarianism during the Civil War of 1922–23 in southern Ireland, though he is careful to identify and discuss the other motives that were also sources behind such a dramatic and terrorizing phenomenon.3 Tipperary not only provides abundant evidence for his argument but also demonstrates the range of other significant motives that were frequently in play. Among the reasons for this extremely widespread destruction of mansions were certain military and political factors that should also be carefully investigated. The very first Tipperary mansion to be burned during the Civil War was Castle Fogarty, belonging to Major-General Valentine Ryan [End Page 224] and located at Ballycahill near Thurles on 19 April 1922.4 In the absence of the owner, members of the British Army and the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) had previously occupied the castle for an extended period ending in February 1922, when it was reportedly "taken over by members" of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) "in a dilapidated condition."5 Whether these occupiers from opposing sides contributed in some way to the castle's destruction is uncertain, though the armed presence of British soldiers and the RIC may have prompted the agrarian militants to delay taking action.6 What is clear is that agrarian motives played the largest role in the destruction of this Tipperary mansion. Providing evidence of the agrarian motives at issue were a combination of violent events extending over many months in 1922 and 1923. Beginning in March 1922 Ryan was subjected to what became "continuous outrage" when cattle were driven off his demesne and "after much difficulty and searching by motor car, etc., were finally discovered 25 miles away." Then incendiaries set fire to his mansion (as noted earlier) on 19 April; they also burned his hay barn, hay, and harness room and its contents on 27–28 April; raiders destroyed his avenue gates and ornamental timber on 6 and 7 June; and just ten days later they burned down the house of his steward James Cusack.7 [End Page 225] Not yet done, incendiaries set fire to 55 tons of Ryan's hay early in December 1923.8 The infliction of multiple injuries also attended the destruction of the mansion of Charles C. C. Webb, the owner of Kilmore House near Nenagh in north Tipperary, and the storied residence of Ro
爱尔兰内战期间蒂珀雷里郡的大房子被烧毁* James S. Donnelly Jr.(传记)蒂珀雷里郡对1922年至1923年内战期间被称为“最后一次土地战争”的任何研究都特别感兴趣。1922年1月至1923年4月期间,在这个郡烧毁的衰落的爱尔兰地主贵族和贵族的大房子(29栋豪宅)比爱尔兰其他任何地方都多。还有待发现的是,在这个特定国家引发如此大规模的纵火行为的各种动机的结合最近,特伦斯·杜利(Terence Dooley)引起了人们对1922年至1923年爱尔兰南部内战期间土地饥饿和农业主义所起的更大作用的关注,尽管他仔细地识别和讨论了其他动机,这些动机也是这种戏剧性和恐怖现象背后的来源蒂珀雷里不仅为他的论点提供了充足的证据,而且还证明了其他经常起作用的重要动机的范围。造成这种极为广泛的宅邸破坏的原因之一是某些军事和政治因素,这些因素也应该仔细调查。内战期间被烧毁的第一个蒂珀雷里庄园是福格蒂城堡,它属于瓦伦丁·瑞安少将,位于瑟尔斯附近的巴利卡希尔,于1922年4月19日被烧毁。在主人不在的情况下,英国军队和皇家爱尔兰警察(RIC)的成员曾在1922年2月之前占领了这座城堡,据报道,当时它被爱尔兰共和军(IRA)的成员“接管”。“破旧不堪。”这些来自对立双方的占领者是否在某种程度上促成了城堡的破坏尚不确定,尽管英国士兵和RIC的武装存在可能促使农业武装分子推迟采取行动很清楚的是,农业动机在蒂珀雷里府邸的毁灭中发挥了最大的作用。1922年和1923年持续数月的一系列暴力事件提供了证据,证明了争议中的农业动机。从1922年3月开始,瑞安遭受了“持续的愤怒”,牛被赶出了他的领地,“经过重重困难和汽车搜索等,最终在25英里外被发现”。4月19日,燃烧弹点燃了他的官邸(如前所述);4月27日至28日,他们还烧毁了他的干草仓、干草、马具室和里面的东西;6月6日和7日,袭击者摧毁了他的林荫道大门和装饰木材;就在十天后,他们烧毁了他的管家詹姆斯·库萨克的房子。事情还没有结束,纵火犯在1923年12月初点燃了55吨赖安的干草。蒂珀雷里北部尼纳附近的基尔莫庄园的主人查尔斯·c·c·韦伯的豪宅,以及位于阿赫罗山谷的著名的罗伯特·梅西·道森·桑德斯的住宅,也造成了多人受伤。1922年5月29日至30日的晚上,韦伯和他的家人以及他的仆人“刚躺在床上没多久,就有人向一楼的窗户开了几枪,窗户被大石头进一步摧毁。”随后,一群人闯进来,在地板和易燃的家具上浇上汽油,点燃了这个地方,在几个小时的时间里,除了一个房间外,整个建筑和里面的东西都在大火中被完全摧毁了。”幸运的是,韦布和所有其他住户“没有受伤地从房子里逃了出来,但除了他们所站的地方,没有任何东西能从大火中获救。”正如韦伯本人在与爱尔兰拨款委员会的通信中所述,尽管他的豪宅被毁让他感到沮丧,但这一巨大损失只是他麻烦的开始。“1922年,一个阴谋形成了,”韦伯坚持说,“要把索赔人赶出爱尔兰,”这场运动伴随着一系列的暴行,除了烧毁基尔莫之外……
{"title":"Big House Burnings in County Tipperary during the Irish Civil War","authors":"James S. Donnelly","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910484","url":null,"abstract":"Big House Burnings in County Tipperary during the Irish Civil War* James S. Donnelly Jr. (bio) County Tipperary is of particular interest in any examination of what has been termed the \"last land war\" in the midst of the Civil War of 1922–23.1 More Big Houses (twenty-nine mansions) of the fading Irish landed gentry and aristocracy were burned in this county than in any other in all of Ireland between January 1922 and April 1923. What remains to be discovered is the combination of motivations that prompted incendiarism on such a widespread scale in this particular county.2 Quite recently, Terence Dooley has drawn attention to the much greater role played by land hunger and agrarianism during the Civil War of 1922–23 in southern Ireland, though he is careful to identify and discuss the other motives that were also sources behind such a dramatic and terrorizing phenomenon.3 Tipperary not only provides abundant evidence for his argument but also demonstrates the range of other significant motives that were frequently in play. Among the reasons for this extremely widespread destruction of mansions were certain military and political factors that should also be carefully investigated. The very first Tipperary mansion to be burned during the Civil War was Castle Fogarty, belonging to Major-General Valentine Ryan [End Page 224] and located at Ballycahill near Thurles on 19 April 1922.4 In the absence of the owner, members of the British Army and the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) had previously occupied the castle for an extended period ending in February 1922, when it was reportedly \"taken over by members\" of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) \"in a dilapidated condition.\"5 Whether these occupiers from opposing sides contributed in some way to the castle's destruction is uncertain, though the armed presence of British soldiers and the RIC may have prompted the agrarian militants to delay taking action.6 What is clear is that agrarian motives played the largest role in the destruction of this Tipperary mansion. Providing evidence of the agrarian motives at issue were a combination of violent events extending over many months in 1922 and 1923. Beginning in March 1922 Ryan was subjected to what became \"continuous outrage\" when cattle were driven off his demesne and \"after much difficulty and searching by motor car, etc., were finally discovered 25 miles away.\" Then incendiaries set fire to his mansion (as noted earlier) on 19 April; they also burned his hay barn, hay, and harness room and its contents on 27–28 April; raiders destroyed his avenue gates and ornamental timber on 6 and 7 June; and just ten days later they burned down the house of his steward James Cusack.7 [End Page 225] Not yet done, incendiaries set fire to 55 tons of Ryan's hay early in December 1923.8 The infliction of multiple injuries also attended the destruction of the mansion of Charles C. C. Webb, the owner of Kilmore House near Nenagh in north Tipperary, and the storied residence of Ro","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910477
Editors' Introduction:The Civil War of 1922–23 Marie Coleman (bio) and James S. Donnelly Jr. (bio) During the "Decade of Centenaries" much new scholarly work has appeared in the form of books and articles on the War of Independence of 1919–21 and the Civil War of 1922–23. Both of these subjects have been greatly enriched by this renewed attention over the past ten or a dozen years. This enhancement of the corpus of scholarship has been facilitated by the granting of new scholarly access to large collections of historical records, including the witness statements collected by the Bureau of Military History in Dublin; the detailed personnel records of the Military Service Pensions Collection in the same city; the county-based series of compensation claims hosted by the Irish National Archives, Dublin; and the compensation claims submitted to the Irish Grants Committee, held by the National Archives, London. Nevertheless, it is probably true that the War of Independence has attracted more interest from scholars and other writers than the Civil War of 1922–23. In recognition of this imbalance, the coeditors of this special issue of Éire-Ireland have worked to assemble a collection of essays from distinguished scholars that is intended to help redress this imbalance. While other scholars have given special attention to military aspects of the Civil War, the coeditors and contributors to this volume have ranged much further afield. John Borgonovo, for example, while concerned in part with the military actors heading the "Munster Republic," is much more interested in the workings of anti-Treaty civil administration and the economic resources of Cork republicans. On the other hand, contributor Adrian Grant is certainly dedicated to exploring where those whom he terms "neutral Northerners" fit in the military plans and arrangements of southern politicians and military [End Page 5] leaders. But in his close examination of this important topic, he takes a fresh biographical approach. The political dimensions of the Irish Civil War have not gone unexplored, but Bill Kissane takes a nontraditional approach that is much less concerned with political leaders and much more interested in the decisions and thinking of Irish voters. His essay provides a close inspection of voting patterns and the reasons (or theories about reasons) that help to explain the early development of the party system in the fledgling Free State. The roles and circumstances of women and children (especially the latter) also merit much more attention than they have so far received. Both Mary McAuliffe and Helene O'Keefe focus on these important subjects in the context of County Kerry, which was a cockpit of civil-war conflict and became notorious for the actions of General Paddy Daly (or O'Daly) and his Dublin Guards. McAuliffe dissects the fraught interactions between militant anti-Treaty women and members of the National Army and finds that Free State soldiers frequently abused these wome
{"title":"Editors' Introduction: The Civil War of 1922–23","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910477","url":null,"abstract":"Editors' Introduction:The Civil War of 1922–23 Marie Coleman (bio) and James S. Donnelly Jr. (bio) During the \"Decade of Centenaries\" much new scholarly work has appeared in the form of books and articles on the War of Independence of 1919–21 and the Civil War of 1922–23. Both of these subjects have been greatly enriched by this renewed attention over the past ten or a dozen years. This enhancement of the corpus of scholarship has been facilitated by the granting of new scholarly access to large collections of historical records, including the witness statements collected by the Bureau of Military History in Dublin; the detailed personnel records of the Military Service Pensions Collection in the same city; the county-based series of compensation claims hosted by the Irish National Archives, Dublin; and the compensation claims submitted to the Irish Grants Committee, held by the National Archives, London. Nevertheless, it is probably true that the War of Independence has attracted more interest from scholars and other writers than the Civil War of 1922–23. In recognition of this imbalance, the coeditors of this special issue of Éire-Ireland have worked to assemble a collection of essays from distinguished scholars that is intended to help redress this imbalance. While other scholars have given special attention to military aspects of the Civil War, the coeditors and contributors to this volume have ranged much further afield. John Borgonovo, for example, while concerned in part with the military actors heading the \"Munster Republic,\" is much more interested in the workings of anti-Treaty civil administration and the economic resources of Cork republicans. On the other hand, contributor Adrian Grant is certainly dedicated to exploring where those whom he terms \"neutral Northerners\" fit in the military plans and arrangements of southern politicians and military [End Page 5] leaders. But in his close examination of this important topic, he takes a fresh biographical approach. The political dimensions of the Irish Civil War have not gone unexplored, but Bill Kissane takes a nontraditional approach that is much less concerned with political leaders and much more interested in the decisions and thinking of Irish voters. His essay provides a close inspection of voting patterns and the reasons (or theories about reasons) that help to explain the early development of the party system in the fledgling Free State. The roles and circumstances of women and children (especially the latter) also merit much more attention than they have so far received. Both Mary McAuliffe and Helene O'Keefe focus on these important subjects in the context of County Kerry, which was a cockpit of civil-war conflict and became notorious for the actions of General Paddy Daly (or O'Daly) and his Dublin Guards. McAuliffe dissects the fraught interactions between militant anti-Treaty women and members of the National Army and finds that Free State soldiers frequently abused these wome","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1353/eir.2023.a910482
Adrian Grant
Neutral Northerners during the Irish Civil War:A Biographical Study Adrian Grant (bio) One could be forgiven for assuming that the Irish Civil War was a conflict that split the entire nation, with everyone clearly taking one side or the other. The term "civil-war politics" dominated political discourse and analysis in the Twenty-Six Counties until quite recently and perpetuated the notion that supporters of the two main political parties in the Republic of Ireland were the descendants of those who had fought for or supported one side or the other during the Civil War.1 It would be more accurate to describe this twentieth-century political phenomenon as "Treaty-split politics," given the fact that a large proportion of not only the general population but also the IRA itself remained neutral during the Civil War. As Bill Kissane has demonstrated, numerous civil-society organizations maintained a neutral line throughout the conflict, advocating peace to no avail.2 The Labour Party also maintained a neutral position, or as its leaders perhaps more accurately termed it, an "antimilitarist" one. Labour assumed the role of official opposition in Dáil Éireann, and in doing so, signaled its intention to accept the institutions of the Free State that emerged from the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Sensing the lack of appetite for further violence in the country, the Labour leadership believed that this strategy presented the best means of advancing a progressive agenda on social and economic issues.3 However antimilitarist the [End Page 139] country may have become in 1922, the constitutional issue remained at the forefront of Irish political discourse. Republicans generally viewed Labour supporters with contempt for this strategy, arguing that they had effectively taken the pro-Treaty side and were actively legitimizing the Free State through their actions.4 While the IRA was definitively split over the Treaty, not all members were willing to carry their strongly held opinions into a violent confrontation with former comrades. The Neutral IRA Association was formed in December 1922, and its membership was open to those who had been active during the War of Independence but were opposed to the Civil War. It claimed a membership of around 25,000 and advanced peace proposals to the political and military leaders of the civil-war belligerents.5 These went unheeded, despite the strength in numbers of neutral IRA members and public support from a large number of local-government bodies. Again, while these individuals remained neutral in the Civil War, it is clear that most of them were not supporters of the Treaty or the Free State.6 In Ulster the IRA generally followed the national trend, with its divisions declaring either in favor of or against the Treaty. The exception was the 4th Northern Division under the command of Frank Aiken; this was the only division in Ireland to declare a formally neutral position on the Treaty. Aiken and some of his men later took the anti-
{"title":"Neutral Northerners during the Irish Civil War: A Biographical Study","authors":"Adrian Grant","doi":"10.1353/eir.2023.a910482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eir.2023.a910482","url":null,"abstract":"Neutral Northerners during the Irish Civil War:A Biographical Study Adrian Grant (bio) One could be forgiven for assuming that the Irish Civil War was a conflict that split the entire nation, with everyone clearly taking one side or the other. The term \"civil-war politics\" dominated political discourse and analysis in the Twenty-Six Counties until quite recently and perpetuated the notion that supporters of the two main political parties in the Republic of Ireland were the descendants of those who had fought for or supported one side or the other during the Civil War.1 It would be more accurate to describe this twentieth-century political phenomenon as \"Treaty-split politics,\" given the fact that a large proportion of not only the general population but also the IRA itself remained neutral during the Civil War. As Bill Kissane has demonstrated, numerous civil-society organizations maintained a neutral line throughout the conflict, advocating peace to no avail.2 The Labour Party also maintained a neutral position, or as its leaders perhaps more accurately termed it, an \"antimilitarist\" one. Labour assumed the role of official opposition in Dáil Éireann, and in doing so, signaled its intention to accept the institutions of the Free State that emerged from the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Sensing the lack of appetite for further violence in the country, the Labour leadership believed that this strategy presented the best means of advancing a progressive agenda on social and economic issues.3 However antimilitarist the [End Page 139] country may have become in 1922, the constitutional issue remained at the forefront of Irish political discourse. Republicans generally viewed Labour supporters with contempt for this strategy, arguing that they had effectively taken the pro-Treaty side and were actively legitimizing the Free State through their actions.4 While the IRA was definitively split over the Treaty, not all members were willing to carry their strongly held opinions into a violent confrontation with former comrades. The Neutral IRA Association was formed in December 1922, and its membership was open to those who had been active during the War of Independence but were opposed to the Civil War. It claimed a membership of around 25,000 and advanced peace proposals to the political and military leaders of the civil-war belligerents.5 These went unheeded, despite the strength in numbers of neutral IRA members and public support from a large number of local-government bodies. Again, while these individuals remained neutral in the Civil War, it is clear that most of them were not supporters of the Treaty or the Free State.6 In Ulster the IRA generally followed the national trend, with its divisions declaring either in favor of or against the Treaty. The exception was the 4th Northern Division under the command of Frank Aiken; this was the only division in Ireland to declare a formally neutral position on the Treaty. Aiken and some of his men later took the anti-","PeriodicalId":43507,"journal":{"name":"EIRE-IRELAND","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135736664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}