Download 1 - UvA-DARE

3
The Weapon of the Weak
On May the sixth, 1882, Lord Frederick Cavendish and Thomas Henry Burke
were taking a walk through Phoenix Park in Dublin. The former was enjoying his very
first day as Ireland’s Chief-Secretary, the most senior political office in the British
administration of Ireland, and had arrived with the boat from England only a few
hours before. Suddenly, a horse carriage appeared out of nowhere, came to a sudden
stop and produced four men armed with long surgical knives. Originally, as later
turned out, the four killers had only been after the Chief-Secretary, Lord Cavendish,
but upon spotting the Under-Secretary Thomas Burke in his presence, they quickly
adjusted their plans and violently stabbed both men to death, rapidly fleeing the scene
afterwards.
The assassinations in Phoenix Park described above proved to be a relevant
event with regard to the Chicago Citizen’s assessment of the Irish struggle. The exact
manner in which they affected its appraisal of this struggle is the first issue that will
be explored in this chapter. Thereafter the attention of this chapter will be turned
towards the general motives inspiring the Irish-American ‘dynamitards.’ On the basis
of the editorials from the Citizen, it will take a closer look at the radical form of Irish
nationalism they adhered to and the ideology sustaining it. From where did these
beliefs originate and what did the men advancing them intend to achieve by means of
its most notorious manifestation, dynamite? Apart from dynamite, did they bring
forward additional means to further their cause?
The Phoenix Park Murders
Not only were the Phoenix Park murders significant for the effect they had on
Finerty and his journal, they were also to have a great impact on the success and
course of the struggle for Irish independence for years to come. Naturally, English
public and political opinion was abhorred by the murders. Charles Parnell reacted
with great dismay. By that time he had long and cautiously been cultivating a political
collaboration with British liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone in his struggle for
Home Rule, an attempt that seemed more and more promising, but which continued to
depend strongly on a generally positive image of the Irish people.
Parnell had invested a lot of patience and hard work in his attempts to
convince the British public and the Tory politicians in Parliament of the Irish right
and capacity to govern themselves. The fact that Parnell and Gladstone had made any
progress at all in this venture was remarkable in itself considering the amount and the
force of the prejudices which characterized the British public opinion towards the
Irish and the Irish question. The Phoenix Park murders at once shattered this carefully
constructed and extremely fragile trust and consequently put a stop to the gradual
approach between the Irish agitators and the English politicians.
The murders reflect very poorly upon the Irish in general and on Parnell in
particular. They generated British accusations and suspicions about Parnell himself
somehow being involved in the murder plot. 1 Furthermore, they also reflected badly
upon the English Liberal Party and its Prime Minister Gladstone for associating and
trying to make accommodations with the representative of such a barbarous people.
The New York Times imagined the first question the opposition would ask Gladstone:
“What do you hope to gain by offers of conciliation which are answered by
assassination?”2 Parnell for his part was so devastated by the events in Dublin and
their immediate consequences that for a short moment he was just inches away from
abandoning his entire nationalistic political effort. Instead deciding to proceed, it
nevertheless took him a long time to get to the point from which new advancements
could be made. 3
It turned out that the assassinations had been the work of a small band of
radical revolutionists who called themselves the Irish National Invincibles. These men
had lost all hope that nonviolent political agitation would ever be able to wrest from
the British Parliament concessions of such a scale as they ultimately desired and
expected, which was nothing less the establishment of a republican form of
government in Ireland. England, they reasoned, was not to be convinced by words
alone. Surely, words were useful up to a certain point, but they went only so far and
were they ever to have the desired effect, they would have to be backed up by strong
and resolute action.
1
R. F. Foster, Modern Ireland, 359n.
New York Times, May 7th, 1882.
3
T. N. Brown, Irish-American nationalism, 125.
2
Opinions towards the Phoenix Park murders among the Irish in Ireland and in
the rest of the world were more ambivalent than those among the British public,
which naturally condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Many Irish also
condemned the killing of British officials but many other Irish saw the assassination
as a triumph of justice, as an atonement of British sins. The reaction of the Irish
radicals was plain. In America, the Fenian Brotherhood attacked the hypocrisy of any
Irishman who mourned over the death over Burke and Cavendish: “If you, our fellowcountrymen, have tears to shed, shed them over your own flesh and blood, savagely
slain under circumstances of grossest atrocity and barbarity in the past […].” 4
Clues to Irish pubic opinion concerning the expediency of the assassinations
might be found first in the intense hatred that was expressed for James Carey, one of
the Invincibles who the British arrested and who later, as an informant to the British,
betrayed most of his fellow conspirators of the Phoenix Park murders, and a little later
in the open celebrations with which the news of his murder was received by Irish men
and women all over the world. An article from the New York Times of … conveyed
the general atmosphere on the Irish streets following the news of Carey’s murder:
“There were bonfires made in celebration of the death of James Carey. Effigies of
Carey were burned and mock funerals were held in various Irish towns tonight. Eight
enormous bonfires were built around Carey’s late residence. There were also fires in
other streets throughout the city. Bands marched through the streets playing national
airs, followed by crowds of people, who cheered as they marched. […] The officials
fear that the Fenians will be much emboldened by these demonstrations.” 5
James Carey, after he had provided the English with the names and identities
of most of the members of the Invincibles, was granted protection by the British
government. In the world’s first ever witness protection program, James Carey was
given a new identity. However, on board of a ship which would carry Carey and his
family all the way to South Africa where he would continue his life in guarded
anonymity, a fellow Irish passenger named Patrick O’Donnell killed him before the
ship could reach its destination. O’Donnell was put on trial in England. He did not
deny having killed Carey but he did deny having murdered Carey intentionally. He
4
5
New York Times, May 21st, 1882.
New York Times, August 1, 1883.
claimed that he had shot the former Invincible in self-defense during a struggle that
followed after Carey had begun to suspect that O’Donnell had become aware of his
true identity. Carey felt so threatened that he attacked O’Donnell according to the
latter, who then killed Carey as a measure of self-defense. The British jury and the
judges, however, would not have any of it and sentenced O’Donnell to death by
hanging.
Even before he was sentenced and executed, O’Donnell was already idolized
by many Irish the world over as a legendary Irish martyr, the slayer of the traitor
Carey. He had given his life for the Irish cause and for the salvation of Irish national
honor. In the United States a national fund was established by Irish-Americans to
raise money for the trial of O’Donnell. Tens of thousands of dollars were collected
throughout the United States by Irish foundations, societies and newspapers. Finerty’s
Chicago Citizen was no exception. Every week the paper printed a list containing the
names of that week’s contributors to the O’Donnell Defense Fund, followed by the
amount of their contributions. Advertisements even encouraged readers to buy their
own portrait of O’Donnell, so that they could honor this national hero in their own
homes. 6
For weeks the Citizen printed every bit of news about the trial. O’Connell was
praised as a national hero. “The splendour of O’Donnell’s heroism and glory of his
self immolation have no parallel in the history of the world,” one article said, 7 and the
journal spoke of the shot that would “resound forever in the hearts of the Irish race.” 8
The defense fund’s ultimate stated purpose had been to arrange for the best lawyers
who would set out to prove O’Donnell’s innocence from first-degree murder and
eventually have him walk free. As long as the process was underway, the Citizen
adhered to this course and expressed the hope that O’Donnell would eventually be
acquitted and released.
However, once the news had reached the Citizen that all their efforts had been
of no avail and that O’Donnell had been sentenced to death by a ‘hanging jury’ and a
partisan judge, the newspaper suddenly stated that from the start it had never really
believed in any other outcome than this conviction and swore that “Never again will
The Citizen, or any other Irish-American journal, raise a cent to defend any Irishman
6
Citizen, February 23, 1884.
Citizen, September 29th, 1883.
8
Citizen, April 19th, 1884.
7
in a British court of law.” 9 It had been a futile and hopeless effort from the start, it
argued. Realistically, the Citizen argued, there was never a chance that any amount of
money or support would ever prevent what seemed to have been a certainty from day
one: “[O’Donnell] had to hang anyhow.” This opportunity to set an example and
make a statement was just too expedient for the British. The – in the eyes of the
Citizen’s editors– false conviction did a lot to help strengthen the growing conviction
of the newspaper that the English could not be bargained with and would never be
moved by rational argument or the rule of justice.
Moreover, after the conviction the Citizen denounced and deplored the
defense’s ‘miserable plea of self-defense,’ which argued that O’Donnell had not
intentionally killed Carey. 10 It either didn’t believe it or it didn’t want to believe it. If
O’Donnell was to become the great hero of the Irish race and his death by the hands
of the British executioners was ever to arouse the entire Irish race into massive
support for the national cause, then the shooting of Carey had to have been a heroic
and deliberate act in the name of Ireland, and the perpetrator should bravely have to
carry the consequences and not deny his superior motives.
Refusing to doubt O’Donnell’s motives, Finerty blamed other people for
tarnishing O’Donnell’s name and staining his glorious act. Arguing that O’Donnell’s
“selfconstituted friends are pursuing a policy that will rid him of all his laurels,”
Finerty and his paper would do anything to protect their own interpretation of the act.
It wrote: “O’Donnell, by the killing of Carey, did his native land an incalculable
service. It was the boldest avengement of history, and the most honorable,” and
asserted that O’Donnell was “fired with an impulse which every true Irishman has felt
and which shall give him a position among the heroes of our race.”
Other, less noble interpretations had to be prevented from reaching the pages
of the history books, the Citizen thought. Luckily for Finerty, as he was being taken
away after the verdict, O’Donnell was alleged to have shouted: “Three cheers for Old
Ireland! Hurray for the United States! To hell with the British Crown!” Now there
was a real patriot. “Such [ill.] could only have come from a man who [ill.] no remorse
for a crime, but who secretly gloried in his act as a proof of his devotion to his
race.” 11
9
Citizen, December 8th, 1883.
Ibidem.
11
Citizen, December 29th, 1883.
10
It seems like the O’Donnell trial served as a catalyst and constituted a turning
point for Finerty and his Citizen regarding their opinion on how the battle against the
British tyrants must be fought. Before the trial the language in the paper’s articles had
already been aggressive toward the English and the Ulster Orangemen who had so far
bore the brunt of the paper’s verbal assaults. But it looks like the Citizen seized the
O’Donnell trial as an opportunity to shift the course of Irish-American nationalism
from political agitation to ‘active revolution,’ which amounted to physical violence.
The Citizen declared that: “Henceforth, there will be a truce to “conservative
expression” and to “slow but sure methods of reform.” The English have again thrown
down the gauntlet red with Irish blood. Our race must accept the challenge, and it
will.” Then the paper announced: “henceforth the party of violence will be supreme in
Irish politics.” 12
The Citizen’s tone and rhetoric now became markedly more inciting and
openly aggressive. O’Donnell’s trial had been “the last of Ireland’s experiments with
“British fair play,”” it said, and Finerty was now convinced that “Argument is no use.
Agitation is powerless. Diplomacy is a myth. Let all Irishmen combine again, whether
openly or secretly, for revolutionary action.” A denunciation of agitation was a
denunciation of Parnell, the leader of Irish agitation. In an interview with a reporter
from the Chicago Herald, printed in the Citizen, Finerty was asked if the death of
O’Donnell would be avenged. He answered: ““Believe it? Sure as the sun shines.
O’Donnell must be avenged or the Irish race will be dishonored.” 13
Irish national honor was a thing of paramount importance for Finerty. When
this honor was insulted or compromised he felt that Irishmen were justified to do
whatever was necessary to restore it. The Irish had lost their own country to the
British. Robbed of their own state, their honor was pretty much all that the Irish had
left; it was all that they had to show for in the world. Radical Irish-nationalists like
those of the Citizen must have thought that the Irishmen would forfeit all the respect
that was left for them from the nations of the world if they would passively submit to
the continuing British crimes and humiliations. They had to show that they were a
proud and formidable people worthy of international support and self-governance.
Irish willingness to oppose British rule by all means demonstrated such
worthiness, the Citizen argued. O’Donnell, the “gallant avenger of his country’s
12
13
Citizen, December 8th, 1883.
Citizen, December 22nd, 1883.
outraged honor,” had saved the Irish honor, and “the rest of the world, as well as
Irishmen,” the Citizen claimed, “exulted when the magnetic tidings were announced
that one chivalrous man had redeemed his race and country from the dire disgrace of
having produced such a wretch as Carey.” 14 Of course, non-violent constitutional
nationalists were equally intent on demonstrating to the world the Irish’ right to
autonomy. But they thought that Irish restraint and patience in the light of continuing
British aggression and provocations was morally superior to uncontrolled aggression
and more likely to earn and attract the sympathy and cooperation of the rest of the
world.
The Citizen argued that not only the honor of Ireland but also that of America
had been gravely compromised by the manner in which the O’Donnell trial had
proceeded. Patrick O’Donnell claimed that he was an American citizen and that fact
alone, Finerty argued, should have been more than enough reason for the United
States government to exhaust all diplomatic and legal options to assist him in proving
his innocence, for example by buying him extra time or providing him with an
American jury. But instead the American government had done nothing to help
O’Donnell during his trial and hadn’t even raised a word of protest when he was send
to the gallows.
Finerty saw this as a public humiliation for America, as a disgraceful stain on
the American reputation. In 1783 the Americans had won their independence from the
British Empire by beating the English on the battlefield. America had since become a
big player on the world’s stage, but, according to the Citizen, had now forfeited much
of her credibility as a new superpower by letting this inexcusable provocation by the
British go unanswered. Finerty, in an address to an Irish crowd called it a disgrace and
“the depth of infamy” that a nation of 55 million hadn’t been able to save the life of a
citizen for just a single week. 15
Instead, America had just stood by and watched as one of her own citizens was
‘murdered’ by the evil and corrupt British court system. What had happened, Finerty
wondered out loud, to the great men of America’s revolutionary days, the
Washingtons and the Hamiltons? Surely, these men would never have allowed such
an insult. “There was a time,” the Citizen spoke in its characteristic inflated language,
“when the cannon of America, feeble today, would have answered the insult and the
14
15
Citizen, September 29th, 1883.
Citizen, August 23rd, 1884.
defiance of England. That was in the heroic age of the nation, when, at Baltimore and
New Orleans, the American sword washed off the diplomatic rust from its glorious
blade in the best blood of the red-coated bordes Ross and of Packenham.”
O’Donnell’s death sentence and the unlawful way in which it was reached was such a
bitter insult to American pride and dignity that it was nothing short of a declaration of
war, according to the Citizen. 16
There was indeed some truth to the Citizen’s assertion that the American
government had been unwilling to aid or rescue Irish-American radicals in British
hands. During the one and a half decades following the Civil War, in which the Irish
had ingratiated themselves with native America by conspicuous participation,
American Fenians caught by British authorities could count on the aid and sympathy
of their own government. And we’ve already seen in the previous chapter how some
controversy between the American and the British governments provided an
additional reason for the former to condone the Irish radicals. So for a period after the
Civil War the US government immediately dealt with each capture and imprisonment
of an Irish-American by the British on an individual basis. But around 1880 the
American government’s attitude and official policy with regard to the general fate and
welfare of the arrested Irish-Americans had shifted.
This change in the American administration’s official response towards IrishAmerican caught terrorists was caused by several factors, one of which was a change
around 1880 in Irish nationalists’ tactics. More overtly violent and therefore less
generally acceptable expressions of the Irish desire for national self-determination
alienated large portions of American society and caused American sympathy for the
Irish struggle in general and for Irish-American extremists in particular to decline. 17
The Phoenix Park assassination was one of those occasions which caused damage to
the reputation of Irish nationalism in the United States. Few people in America could
identify or wished to be associated with such subversive and reprehensible acts as the
killing of Burke and Cavendish.
16
17
Citizen, December 29th, 1883.
M. J. Sewell, ‘Rebels or revolutionaries’, 224-9.
The Citizen and Dynamite
After the O’Donnell case, as we have just seen, the Citizen began to preach
violent resistance against Britain more passionately and more openly. Radical IrishAmerican nationalists had introduced a new tactic into the fight which they rather
euphemistically called ‘scientific warfare,’ referring to a recent scientific invention
that had given hope and power to the oppressed and powerless all over the world: the
invention of dynamite. Alfred Nobel had invented dynamite during the 1860s. In his
book about the relevance of dynamite, historian Stephen Brown noted that “Dynamite
and other high explosives, cheap, relatively easy for individuals to manufacture on
their own, and highly portable, have been used as the weapon of social conflict by
anarchists, terrorists, and rebels since their invention.” 18
Irish-American radical nationalists had noticed how Russian Nihilists were
applying dynamite in their attempts to assassinate the country’s leaders and highranking officials and realized the potential impact this new mode of warfare could
have on the Irish struggle in the future. In a letter printed on the pages of the Citizen, a
reader said: “Dynamite, if used judiciously, is a grand, and I believe a God-sent
weapon to fight our too strong and too numerous enemies.” 19 The adoption by Irish
revolutionaries of dynamite-warfare marked “a new phase of Irish revolution,” the
Citizen itself claimed, “and the most terrible yet presented.” 20 As to those Irish people
who opposed them, the Citizen regarded them “slaves whose lips refuse to express
gratitude.” 21
Many angry and embittered Irishmen welcomed the invention of dynamite as a
blessing from the sky. Most native Americans and many other Irish in both Ireland
and America, however, were opposed to dynamite for moral and pragmatic reasons.
Michael Davitt, one of the leading Irish nationalists, was one those nationalists who
were convinced that nothing good could ever come from the use of dynamite as a
weapon against the British. Davitt, once an ardent Fenian who had personally suffered
greatly at the hands of the British, had in his later years been captured by the ideology
of socialism. For many months the weekly columns Davitt wrote for another Irish
18
S. R. Brown, A most damnable invention: dynamite, nitrates, and the making of the modern world
(New York) 118.
19
Citizen, December 8th, 1883.
20
Citizen, June 7th, 1884.
21
Ibidem.
newspaper were printed in the Citizen. In one of those articles Davitt explained why
he thought the wounding and killing of British citizens was only contra-productive.
Davitt believed that the poor toiling classes in English cities such as
Manchester and London were suffering under the same English capitalist classes as
the poor rural Irish and were thus in reality allies in the Irish and in fact the worldwide
struggle for social justice. Irish dynamite terrorism would only alienate these potential
allies and make them enemies of the Irish cause. Furthermore, Davitt argued, British
angry responses to the dynamite attacks would probably be directed towards the many
Irish living and working in the English cities. So apart from killing innocent people
and hurting the ‘sacred cause’ by alienating the English working-class element, Davitt
argued that Irish dynamiters also compromised the lives of many of their own
countrymen. 22
The Citizen responded to this latter allegation not by denying that British
retaliation would fall on the Irish population in England, but instead by confirming
this assertion and stating that such British retaliatory measures would ultimately have
advantageous effects on the fight for Irish nationhood. One article stated that the
Citizen had “no doubt that the English, as they threaten, will make bloody reprisals on
the Irish population resident among them. If so, the Irish in England, driven to
desperation, will retaliate in kind […]” 23 British reprisals would only stir up a more
intense hatred among the Irish and make them more willing to fight and make
sacrifices for Ireland’s glorious cause.
So the Citizen advocated ‘scientific warfare’ as the most effective and
legitimate way of opposing English occupation. What did the journal imagine would
be the role of the American Irish in this liberating effort? Should Irish-Americans
cross the Atlantic, place and detonate the bombs themselves? Or instead, should they
only organize the operations from the United States, provide funds and other material
support and leave the rest to the people in Ireland? How much risk were the IrishAmericans willing and able to take in the fight against Britain?
A critical Irish-American reader from Boston reacted to an early-1884 article
in the Chicago Citizen. In the article, called “Deeds, not Words,” an editor from the
Citizen had spoken in favor of dynamite warfare against the English, and had made
the claim that the dynamiters were the only real agents of change because they alone
22
23
Citizen, November 24, 1883.
Citizen, June 7th, 1884.
were willing to use forceful and risky measures. The Irish reader from Boston
strongly disagreed with this interpretation of affairs and argued instead that “Parnell is
the apostle of the doctrine of deeds, and the men who are the apostles of the doctrine
of words are men who at the distance of thousands of miles urge upon their
countrymen at home the adoption of policy which their common sense must tell them
that their countrymen at home are neither prepared or able to support.” 24
The Citizen’s attitude towards the projected role of the American Irish in the
national cause is somewhat clarified in an article from the early days of the dynamite
campaign. Irish attempts at frightening the English with dynamite, the writer argued,
were not yet effective. He went on to argue that the scale of the efforts had been too
small as to effect any notable improvements in the “temper of the British public in
regard to Ireland.” If the ‘practical revolutionists’ really wanted to strike terror into
the hearts of the British enemies, the writer argued, a larger and more coherent
organization led by well trained men had to be established. This would be imperative,
he argued, because in response to the Irish dynamite threat, England’s detection and
security system had become quite formidable and most secret Irish nationalist
societies involved in dynamite schemes were being infiltrated and uncovered by Irish
spies in British service, both in Ireland as well as in America. This had led to much
tension and suspicious among the rank and file of these organization. Furthermore, the
harbors in England were constantly subjected to the most rigorous and effective
measures to detect and intercept suspected cargo and persons, which made it difficult
and risky for the dynamiters.
The writer came to the conclusion that the only Irishmen who could remain
undetected while preparing for dynamite attacks against England were those Irishmen
who were and had been living in England for a long time, the people he called the
‘Hiberno-English.’ They wouldn’t have to face the problem of entering Britain
undetected and furthermore, no suspicion would be cast upon them because they had
been living in Britain for such a long time. The writer had no doubts whatsoever as to
the strong hatred for everything British still lingering in their hearts, even after all
those years living amongst Britons. He did mention that it would be quite indecent
towards these men to ask of them to face “the gap of danger” all alone.
24
Citizen, March 1st, 1884.
In reality, however, the Irish dynamite-element was almost exclusively IrishAmerican, from the planning to the financing to the execution. In the United States,
Irish-American radical nationalists were free to go about plotting, planning and
advertising their ‘outrages’ in the open, unhindered and unpunished by American
authorities. For a long time this state of affairs remained a great source of diplomatic
discord between the Americans and the British governments. The British were
extremely annoyed by the apparent American unwillingness to prevent the Atlantic
crossing of Irish-American terrorists and dynamite. American dynamiters had to
search for ways to enter Britain and import the dynamite. But producing it in America
and exporting it out of the country did not pose a problem. The Citizen quoted an
article from the New York Herald which captured British irritation: “Once more the
cry is raised in London that the dynamite comes from America, that the trouble is
entirely American, that the Americans are awfully wicked and that they ought to catch
someone and hang him […]” 25
One of the British grievances was the American reluctance to deal with the socalled ‘dynamite press.’ Through the pages of these Irish-American newspapers IrishAmericans all over the country were allowed to conspire and talk freely and loudly of
planned assassinations of high-ranking British judges and politicians and of upcoming
dynamite ‘outrages’ in Britain, and no caution or secrecy was required to collect
private funds for these schemes. Naturally, the Chicago Citizen belonged to this
dynamite press. The British thought that the passive and negligent posture of the
American government towards such illegal and pernicious activities was highly
improper and in violation of the principles which governed relations between friendly
nations. Britain demanded intervention by the American authorities and asked for full
American cooperation with British authorities in the prevention of Irish dynamite
attacks on British soil and in the apprehension and trying of the perpetrators.
So the American government was unwilling to help apprehended IrishAmerican in British prisons but was neither prepared to prevent them from ending up
in those prisons in the first place. In addition with the American sympathy generated
by Irish participation in the Civil War, their existed a pragmatic political reason for
American reluctance to crack down on Irish-American dynamite. The Irish-American
community constituted a large voting bloc and for a long time American politicians
25
Citizen, March 8th, 1884.
were afraid to loose Irish-American votes and decided not to confront the issue of
dynamite. An article in the New York Times, printed in the Citizen, said that Irish
politicians in America “not only choose their politics on Irish grounds, but demand
that American politicians shall sympathize with Ireland as deeply as they do
themselves” and it continued, “The American politician never fails to respond to this
requirement. He knows how suicidal a failure would be.” 26
In connection with this, one article in the Citizen observed that “In the present
temper of the American people, Englishmen do not expect much assistance from
America in unearthing dynamite conspiracies or in tracing out plots to blow up
government buildings in England.” American laxity with regard to Irish-American
dynamite conspiracies in the United States subsided along with the change in the
American attitude towards the Irish and their cause, which was already mentioned
above. This shifted mood was demonstrated in politics during and after the 1884
presidential campaigns and assumed some concrete form in the subsequent
introduction in the American Congress of the Dynamite Bill, which signified greater
American willingness to assist Britain in the prevention of further terrorist outrages on
British soil. 27
Motives for Dynamite
One might wonder what mindset motivated the men who applauded the
bombing of British cities and the men who actually placed these bombs beneath
English bridges, public buildings and monuments and who were willing to risk their
own lives and those of the British citizenry. One of the terms the dynamitards used to
designate themselves is elucidating in this context. They often called themselves
‘desperate men,’ which implied both an acknowledgement of the futility and
randomness of their violent mode of warfare, and an excuse or justification for it.
English evil was said to have driven them to this desperation. The Citizen claimed that
centuries of English cruelty had produced a ‘maddened’ Irish nation and had driven
the Irish people to ‘political insanity.’ 28 Insane and desperate men couldn’t reasonably
26
Citizen, April 10th, 1886.
Citizen, January 31st, 1885.
28
Ibidem.
27
be expected or counted upon to act rationally and sensibly. This paragraph shall
attempt to explore and elaborate on this subject.
What justified dynamite warfare against England according to the Citizen?
How did the Citizen explain itself and how did it defend its ideas and actions? First of
all it addressed the practical motives. Pointing out current Irish circumstances the
journal ruled out any peaceful measure as a feasible option. England’s iron grip on
Ireland supposedly ruled out any agent other than ‘the sword’ through which Irishmen
could address an unjust state of affairs. They argued that for the near future the
omnipresent English authorities rendered any armed rising in Ireland foolish and
impossible. “The situation is this,” the Citizen explained, “England has entirely
disarmed Ireland. She has filled every town and fort with troops. She has left the
people no military resources, and then she asks Ireland to confine herself, unarmed as
she is, solely to the rules of war? Can anything be more absurd?” the Citizen asked its
readers rhetorically. Dynamite, that “new and terrible enemy of despotic power,” was
the only weapon, the only instrument of defiance left in the hands of vengeful
Irishmen. 29
Each different circumstance demanded a specific response and a specific
remedy and in the case of Ireland, the Citizen argued, the befitting remedy was
dynamite. Instructive in this context is the Citizen’s response to the Haymarket Affair.
When a dynamite bomb exploded at a labor demonstration at the Haymarket in
Chicago, in May 1886, killing at least eleven people under whom many policemen
and wounding many more, the Citizen was quick to condemn the use of dynamite in
America. They decidedly disapproved of terrorism within the democratic American
context. In the United States, the Citizen claimed, the ballot could purportedly
“remedy every existing evil” and “must decide the struggle one way or the other in the
end. Anarchy will never do it.” 30 This last utterance raises the question what objective
anarchy would ever be able to achieve in Ireland. Anyhow, no such democratic roads
as open to disadvantaged and angry people in the United States were available to the
Irish in Ireland, the Citizen reasoned, conveniently forgetting Parnell en his
increasingly successful political campaign.
Next, the emotional motives. The Citizen reasoned that the last thing the Irish
should do was to tamely submit to English will, for such passive capitulation, it
29
30
Ibidem.
Citizen, May 8th, 1886; August 7th, 1886.
argued, meant “the blight of death.” 31 The Citizen warned Britain not to fall “into the
error of supposing that she is dealing with a poor and isolated Ireland, whom she can
kick and caress at pleasure.” 32 It argued that before the Irish had adopted violence as a
means of defiance, the Christian world had “either derided [Ireland] as a beggar or
despised her as a slave.” 33 (It might be supposed that the ‘beggar’ was a reference to
the Irish politician.) But supposedly, assertive and defiant Irish radicals had modified
that image and saved the Irish from disgrace.
So the humiliating experience of being conquered was quoted as one of the
major justifications. In fact, the Citizen reasoned, Ireland’s centuries long suffering at
the hands of the British provided not only a justification but also a moral obligation to
resist. For many centuries England had perpetrated acts of “supreme and unjustifiable
atrocity that put her outside the pale of civilized nations.” 34 English oppression
sanctioned any form of resistance, including dynamite, the paper stated. All
justification could be found in the “bloody handbook of English suppression,” it
wrote. 35 The Citizen argued aggrievedly that the English press and the ‘echoing’
Anglo-American press were guilty of applying double standards, for they remained
silent on the countless and ongoing atrocities against Irishmen but reacted with
indignation and horror when now and then a desperate Irishman decided to do
something back. The journal contrasted the heroic and courageous Irish dynamiters
with the evil and cowardice British mercenaries who, “armed to the teeth, daily assist
sheriffs in Ireland to evict a helpless, and utterly unarmed peasantry […].” 36
The Citizen further expounded on the historical roots of Irish desperation, and
recalled how “the starvation of the Irish peasantry, the utter disarmament of the
country, the flooding of it with soldiers and armed constables, the utter uselessness of
agitation to obtain the end sought by the Irish people, the right of self-government,
and the refusal of the British government to concede even the moderate justice
demanded by Mr. Parnell, [had] produced a feeling of despair, out of which
desperation is born as a matter of course.” 37 Much reference in this respect was made
to the Great Famine, which the journal presented as undeniable proof of British evil.
31
Citizen, June 7th, 1884.
Citizen, October 10th, 1885.
33
Citizen, February 20th, 1886.
34
Citizen, January 31st, 1885.
35
Citizen, October 10th, 1885.
36
Citizen, January 31st, 1885.
37
Ibidem.
32
What act could possibly be crueler than the starving to death of more than a million
innocent people? Anything the Irish were doing or could do to the British would never
come anywhere near this act in sheer scale and atrocity.
At a gathering on dynamite warfare in 1883 in Brooklyn, New York, one of
the speakers claimed that the new violent mode of warfare was a strategy of selfdefense and was therefore “sanctioned by both religion and natural law.” 38 The
dynamiters often applied this argument of self-defense. “Desperate methods of a war
Ireland will be compelled to wage for self-preservation,” the Citizen once claimed. 39
The proponents of dynamite didn’t consider themselves terrorists. In their earlier life
quite a few had personally experienced the effects of English rule. Many now lived in
America because Britain had forced them into exile. They argued they were soldiers
fighting a war to defend their country and deliver its people from an alien invader and
during a time of war different sets of rules simply applied. “England shows no mercy.
Why would Ireland show mercy?” the Citizen wondered. 40
The Citizen presented not only Britain’s conduct in Ireland, but also her
actions and operations in other parts of her worldwide empire, and especially those in
Africa and India, as additional proof of English rapacity and as justification for the
measures applied by the Irish dynamiters. England was said to be “the assassin in
India, the robber in Burmah, the annexationist in Africa and the bully in Canada.” 41
The 1882 British bombardment of Alexandria was brought forward by the Citizen as
one of the examples of British imperial misrule. The paper called this operation a
criminal act which “stamped her as a savage not fit to be an associate of civilized
nations.” 42
How did the Citizen explain and defend British the civilian casualties
occurring as a result of Irish outrages? In reality, as we shall see, only a limited
number of British civilians were actually wounded or killed as a result of IrishAmerican terrorist attacks. Be that as it may, the journal refused to consider the
British public as innocent. It argued that during all the centuries of cruel and bloody
oppression the British people had never protested Britain’s unjust policies in Ireland.
Unquestionably, the Citizen asserted, they had known about the atrocities which had
38
Citizen, December 29, 1883.
Citizen, June 12th, 1886.
40
Citizen, December 8th, 1883.
41
Citizen, August 14th, 1886.
42
Citizen, February 14th, 1885.
39
accompanied centuries of oppression and exploitation of Ireland, and yet they had
never undertaken anything to stop them. Not only had they failed to object to them,
the journal argued, they had fully endorsed them. In the eyes of the Citizen, this made
the people of England just as culpable as the British rulers giving the orders and the
men executing them. In the words of the Citizen:
Whatever a few English Radical newspapers may declare, the masses of the English
favor a policy of brutal coercion for Ireland. This being the case, no Irishman, in
America or elsewhere, ought to feel sorrowful because of Irish violence in Great
Britain or in Ireland itself. The “state of war” still continues. Everything is force, and
forceful acts are sure to beget bloody retaliation. Men who are face to face with
relentless tyranny are not going to be deterred from the use of dynamite or the
poniard by the outcries of terror-stricken foes or moralizing friends. 43
Goals of Dynamite
In his book on Chicago’s Irish nationalists from 1881 to 1890 historian
Michael Funchion states that “Though interested in making Ireland a nation, IrishAmericans were equally concerned, perhaps more so, with humiliating proud
Britannia.” Indeed, on multiple occasions the Citizen and its chief editor expressed
similar sentiments. Finerty, Funchion asserted took “delight every time the British
suffered humiliation.” 44 The journal seemed to derive satisfaction from each and
every occasion on which England brought international shame upon herself. It
welcomed every military defeat or political scandal with great satisfaction and
amusement. “It must be pleasant,” it said on one of those occasions, “to all true
Americans, as well as to all true Irishmen, to see England quailing in a fashion at once
so ludicrous and disgraceful.” England’s pretensions to the position of a first-class
military power, it observed, were “laughed to scorn in Europe, Asia and Africa today.” 45
This raises questions about how the Citizen assessed its priorities. Like we saw
earlier in this essay, the IRB in Ireland considered it as it first priority to procure
complete separation through conventional warfare and open rebellion against the
English oppressor. The Irish-American ‘irreconcilables’ of the Citizen considered
43
Citizen, November 24, 1883.
M. F. Funchion, Chicago’s Irish nationalists, 32-3.
45
Citizen, May 9th, 1885.
44
such military schemes to be very manly and honourable, in fact even more so than
dynamite. They also wholeheartedly subscribed to the principles and the motives
which underlay this mode of warfare and fully shared its objective of complete
separation. And just like the Irish Fenians themselves during the 1880s, the Citizen
deemed this strategy inoperable and unrealistic at the present.
The main thing which set the Irish-American Fenians apart from those in
Ireland was the former’s unwillingness to await the arrival of the day when the Irish
would be strong enough to rise up in arms against the British. Until that day finally
came the Citizen indicated that they approved of “any means, however violent and
repulsive to general humanity, for [England’s] annoyance or destruction.” 46 In a
reaction to a dynamite outrage in 1885, an article in the Citizen cried out euphorically:
“let us be thankful for God’s mercy, manifested in splendid violence, which makes
tyrants tremble on their thrones […].” 47 The Citizen’s thoughts and comments on
dynamite often contained the motives of scaring and irritating the British. In one
article Finerty praised the dynamiters for causing the English “very great
inconvenience,” which seems only a very limited objective. On another occasion it
admitted that the danger represented by dynamite “may be purely imaginary.” But
England, the paper contended, “quails before imaginary terrors.” 48
Apparently the Citizen didn’t cherish such high expectations concerning
dynamite warfare as the Irish Fenians did concerning their strategy. The journal
cherished different and more limited ambitions and considered any dynamite attack
successful once it succeeded in frightening or agitating England’s political leaders and
its citizens for a few moments. It seems as though for both adherents and perpetrators,
dynamite rather served as a tool of vengeance, as a personal outlet for bottled-up
frustration and aggression towards England and more as a demonstration of continued
defiance in the face of foreign oppression than as a serious means towards the
attainment of self-governance.
According to the logic of the Irish Fenians of the 1860, historian Richard
English asserted, “political achievement lay less in contemporary victories than in the
bequeathing of a rich legacy to later nationalist generations.” The same held true for
the Irish-American Fenians of the 1880s. None of the Irish revolutionaries of the past
46
Citizen, August 7th, 1886.
Citizen, January 10th, 1885.
48
Citizen, August 7th , 1886.
47
whose names and deeds they held in such high esteem had come even close to
realizing their dream. But it was not the act and its result that mattered the most. What
was most important was the manifested intention. As Richard English formulates it:
“The kind of methods you used demonstrated the kind of nation you were […].” 49
The Irish dynamiters often succeeded in their limited objective of taunting and
occasionally terrifying the British public and its leaders and representatives.
Nevertheless, these ‘active revolutionists’ as they also called themselves occasionally,
continued to envision the dawning of that beautiful day when Ireland would finally
cast off the British imperialist yoke, even if they realized that they themselves would
probably neither live to see this day nor be instrumental in bringing it substantially
nearer. But the ideal of national deliverance remained firmly fixed in their mind, and
in the meantime the objective of annoying and harassing the British as much as
possible seemed sufficiently honorable and satisfactory.
Principally aiming for a symbolic effect and despite all its aggressive rhetoric
the Citizen more than once expressed its admiration for the skill and ability with
which Irish dynamiters managed to avoid human casualties. The paper once called the
objective to spare lives “a very commendable feature of their programme.” 50 In
reaction to an outrage in London a Citizen editor remarked that the fact that no one
had been killed or seriously injured was “an agreeable outcome of the attempts,”
because this demonstrated that the conspirators “desire more to inflict financial loss
upon their enemies than to destroy non combatants.” The Citizen was willing,
however, to make an exception for the present English constabularies whose death
they would not have regretted as these men had long forfeited their innocence. 51
Instead of killing and injuring British citizens, the preferable purpose of the
dynamiters was to create and maintain among Britain’s urban residents a constant and
threatening sense of uncertainty and imminent danger. Seemingly uncontrollable and
representing an ‘unseen and lurking’ danger, the dynamiter constituted a dreaded
enemy. But the damage as a result of dynamite remained limited. Apart from the
reluctance of the dynamiters to cause massive physical damage this seems to have
also been the result of amateurism and sometimes just plain bad luck on the part of the
dynamiters. It was not so much due to an efficient and watertight British security
49
R. English, Irish Freedom, 187-90.
Citizen, January 31st, 1885.
51
Citizen, June 7th, 1884.
50
system, for the Irish extremists repeatedly demonstrated that they were able to
penetrate to the very heart of British power and prestige.
The whole thing seemed almost like a game, like a highly charged cat and
mouse play between the dynamiters and the British policing authorities, which were
on constant high alert but despite all safety and precautionary measures continued to
be outsmarted by this relatively small band of conspirators who set out to defame
Britain’s reputation by striking at her most symbolic and heavily-guarded national
monuments. With these attacks the perpetrators defied and exposed the twin myths of
British invulnerability and Irish helplessness. They attempted to expose British
impotence when faced with Irish courage, passion and ingenuity and wanted to make
them feel that they were at the mercy of a power which they could neither see nor
control. Dynamite gave these men the illusion that they still retained some agency and
control in Ireland’s struggle.
Despite causing mostly only symbolic, financial and emotional damage the
British public demanded and the British authorities responded with remorseless
exemplary punishment of those men caught for outrages and those suspected of them.
Between 1883 and 1885 twenty-seven Irish-Americans were thrown into British
prisons where they were basically left to languish. The Citizen continually voiced its
indignation over the cruel treatment and the hopeless plight of these men and against
the corrupt British justice system which had put them there. But the terrifying
consequences of apprehension at the hands of the British also made the intentions of
the dynamiters seem even more heroic and patriotic. Each Irish terrorist hanged or
thrown into prison by the British became a martyr for the Great Cause and provided
additional motivation to avenge the British.
The men of dynamite entertained no serious aspirations to procure
independence for Ireland through dynamite except, as we shall see, on a few
occasions when they actually hoped something grander might be obtained through
dynamite. But overall they believed that this task belonged to a later generation. These
desperate men cherished one scenario however, in which national deliverance would
be realized within their own lifetimes, and that was when some foreign enemy would
distract or weaken Britain to such a degree that she would be forced to weaken or
surrender her claim on Ireland. Furthermore, a nation in war with Britain would be
much helped by an alliance with Ireland.
This was a widely shared sentiment throughout the Irish-American community.
“England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity,” was the slogan that captured this hope.
“May we live in the hope that God will raise up an enemy to England that will smite
her even as Samson smote the Philistines?” the Citizen asked its readers in one article.
In another article the Citizen called upon all the Irish: “Let the Irish in Ireland and the
men of Irish blood in America keep cool, but keep the flag flying. Let them prepare to
take advantage of England’s difficulties and misfortunes […].52 This coolness and
preparation would pay off eventually, because the Citizen was certain that “Great
Britain must eventually get into some difficulty which would compel her to allow
Ireland to snap her chains and be the mistress of her own destinies.” 53
That is why there arose great anticipation among the ranks of the Citizen every
time that England became involved in some foreign war or conflict. In the early
months of 1885, for example, when a war between Britain and Russia seemed
inevitable, the Citizen could hardly contain its excitement. “If Russia and England
were at war to-morrow,” the Citizen imagined, “the latter nation, with all her wealth
and strength, might be only to glad to purchase the good will of the Irish race by
concessions vastly greater than the most extreme Home Ruler would dream of
asking.” 54 Although the Citizen admitted to feeling no sympathy for Russia because
of the tyrannical character of its reign (the Citizen often compared and identified the
Irish cause with that of Poland, which struggled under Russian oppression), it
regarded Britain as an even greater tyrant. Furthermore, any state that Britain regarded
as its enemy could count on the sympathies of the Irish people. 55
Grandiose plans were drawn up to send an Irish delegation to the Russian tsar
to forge a Russian-Irish alliance. 56 Naturally, such an alliance never came about.
While hoping that soon God would raise up an enemy to England, the journal
simultaneously regretted the current state of affairs which forced the Irish to resign to
such a degrading and subordinate position. It stung terribly that for a successful
outcome of its struggle for independence Ireland still remained at the mercy of foreign
parties and external circumstances. In its own words, the Citizen lamented “the
52
Citizen, April 4th, 1885.
Citizen, March 22nd, 1884.
54
Citizen, August 21st, 1886.
55
Citizen, May 2nd, 1885.
56
Citizen, March 21st, 1885.
53
necessity that forces [Ireland] to plead the cause of her nationality in the court of the
stranger and the tyrant […]. 57
Alternatives to Dynamite
For John Finerty and the Citizen, dynamite constituted the foremost agent of
resistance, but the journal identified additional ways to express anti-British sentiment
and national pride and identity. National American politics was one of those. The
Citizen thought it could be harnessed to harass the English foe. Britain and the United
States were diplomatically friendly nations but that didn’t take away the Citizen’s
suspicion about the former’s imperial designs on North America. Such ambitions, it
argued, were always lurking just below the thin layer of British formal courtesy. The
Citizen reminded its readers that during the still recent American Civil War Britain
had supported the Confederacy and the paper warned that when a new opportunity
would come along for her to take back what she once possessed, she would seize it.
England, the Citizen held, dreamed of regaining political supremacy in America “not
only when she is asleep, but also when she is wide awake.” 58
The Citizen’s founder and editor-in-chief John Finerty, once he was elected to
Congress as an independent Democrat in 1882, harnessed all his political influence to
advance Irish and hinder British interests. Before long he was making pleas before
Congress for the expansion and strengthening of the US army. The army, he stated,
was not worthy of its great generals among whom, he unsurprisingly argued, were a
great many men of Irish ancestry. Even more alarming to Finerty was the deplorable
condition of his country’s naval forces. The Citizen lamented America’s “criminal
apathy in regard to our navy and coast defenses.” 59
America’s weak and tiny fleet stood in stark contrast to Britain’s huge and
powerful fleet, which was still unrivaled throughout the world. America needed a fleet
that was ready for battle. Should she need to assert her power in her sphere of
influence, Finerty mentioned the Panama Canal, or should some foreign country
decide for whatever reason to attack the United States or to harass its commercial fleet,
57
Citizen, November 3, 1883.
Citizen, January 24th, 1885.
59
Citizen, July 31st, 1886.
58
the Americans would be powerless, Finerty argued. “It is impossible for us,” he said
in a speech in front of Congress, “to have any moral influence with European powers
without a navy.” 60 Hiding his true motives, Finerty reasoned that the project for
strengthening America’s fighting forces would only serve the public American
interest by protecting the United States’ worldwide influence and by providing great
opportunities to domestic industries. He desired that “every one of these ships should
be built of American material and only by American workmen.” 61
The tariff issue was another American political issue that acquired significance
to Finerty and the Citizen due to its relation to Britain. Finerty deemed a trade tariff
crucial as a measure to protect American manufacturing. Once free trade reigned, he
argued, American markets would be flooded with foreign manufactures, especially
from England. Under the motto “burn everything that comes from England but the
coal,” the Citizen passionately resisted free trade. “Individually,” Finerty declared, “I
consider free trade an anti-American doctrine.” 62 He framed those who were in favor
of free trade as unpatriotic individuals “who derive their inspiration mostly from
America’s deadliest foe – England.” 63 Before Congress he spoke of the attempts of
the British lobby in America: “In America [Britain] seeks to accomplish by pamphlets
and dinners what in China and in Ireland she won by the bolder operation of brute
force. She wants to be the workshop of the world, and the American advocates of
what is called “free trade” are doing their utmost to gratify her ambition.” 64
In the passing of most American political measures that could benefit Britain
and in the rejection of all that worked to its disadvantage the Citizen perceived the
manipulative hand of the British. Complots and conspiracies were everywhere. The
1884 presidential elections provide a telling example. During his national campaign,
Democratic presidential candidate Grover Cleveland publically and provocatively
voiced his concern and disapproval over the pernicious influence of the Irish political
element on the Democratic Party and on American politics in general. When to the
great dismay of the Citizen Cleveland won the elections, the journal concluded that
British intrigue and machination must have been at work. There was no doubt about
this. As one article formulated it: “There are people who would not believe that the
60
Citizen, November 10, 1883; March 15th, 1884.
Citizen, March 22nd, 1884.
62
Citizen, March 15th, 1884.
63
Citizen, March 29th, 1884
64
Citizen, May 10th, 1884.
61
sun was south in the northern hemisphere every day at 12 o’clock, if it did not suit
them to believe so, and there may be people who do not believe that Grover Cleveland
was elected by English influence.” 65
In addition to physical force and American politics the Citizen named other,
more indirect and peaceful ways to express Irish defiance and nationalism. For
example through national songs and poetry. Politically and militarily Ireland had been
conquered by England, the journal argued, but as long as Irish culture and traditions
remained alive and vital the British conquest of Ireland would be incomplete. The
Citizen placed most emphasis on cultural themes and motives and avoided divisive
ethnic and religious ones. Irish national history supposedly possessed an important
instructive value and imbued the Irish with a unique and distinct character. As one
reader put it in a letter to the Citizen: “When Irish music and song shall cease to have
a lingering enchantment for the soul of our nation, England’s chain will be bound
around her securely forever, and her indestructible vitality will be a thing of the past.”
The Citizen itself wrote: “We cannot surely be earnest in our desire to make Ireland
free, if we are wholly unsolicitous about Ireland’s language and music.” 66
The Citizen also attached great significance to the revitalization and
preservation of the old Gaelic language. It still regretted the fact that both the Irish
and the Americans had adopted English as their national language, for wasn’t that the
tongue of respectively their present and former oppressor? The paper claimed it would
rather have seen America adopt French instead as English as the national language
and argued that this would have made more sense as well because the French
language was not only one of the world’s most beautiful languages in addition to
being universally known and spoken, but the French nation had also been “America’s
ally in her hour of need.”
Language, the journal reasoned, was not only a neutral medium through which
people communicated. “We need our language and our history to know ourselves,”
one article claimed. “The death of the national language is a sure sign of national
decadence.” 67 It regarded the English language as the main vehicle of British cultural
values and the principle agent of Britain’s imperial conquest. The Americans and the
Irish were increasingly adopting English customs and values, the Citizen worriedly
65
Citizen, January 24th, 1885.
Citizen, January 31st, 1885.
67
Citizen, March 28th, 1885; Citizen, January 24th, 1885.
66
observed and it attributed this alarming trend to the adoption of English as the
national language. In arguing this the Citizen echoed the nationalist Thomas Davis, an
important Irish national figure of the 1840s, who had said that “to lose your native
tongue, and learn that of an alien, is the worst badge of conquest – it is the chain on
the soul,” 68 and that “A people without a language of its own is only half a nation.” 69
The Citizen reprimanded the ‘modern school of Irish political agitators,’ by
which they meant both the contemporary Irish politicians and those of the past,
mainly O’Connell, for neglecting or otherwise not sufficiently attending to their duties
with regard to the promotion and maintenance of the crucial aspects of Irish culture
and nationality. Irish politicians didn’t seem to mourn the demise of their country’s
cultural and lingual heritage and failed to realize its great significance in the
strengthening of the national idea. Their efforts, the Citizen argued, were of a purely
pragmatic nature and if Ireland could free itself from Britain by effectively becoming
British than they would go ahead anyway. But the Citizen observed that “however
coldly some of the prominent leaders of public opinion in Ireland may feel towards
Gaelic, the masses of the Irish people, if a popular vote were taken, would vote in an
overwhelming majority for fostering the national language under a native parliament
[…].”70
The Citizen made all kinds of – mainly rhetorical – attempts to rekindle the
cooling embers of Ireland’s cultural pride. Among other initiatives, it proposed the
foundation of a movement directed towards reviving and keeping alive Irish
traditional sports and games, 71 extensively recounted and venerated Ireland’s glorious
past and the great deeds of its heroes and promoted the instruction of the Gaelic
language at Irish schools. 72 Almost every week’s issue contained at least one Gaelic
text or poem, along with translation, from a reader or from a famous historical or
contemporary Irish writer or poet. The journal deemed the restoration and
preservation of Irish and Celtic cultural institutions extremely relevant as a form of
passive resistance to British imperialism and as an expression of Irish cultural vitality.
68
R. English, Irish Freedom, 141.
Ibidem, 147.
70
Citizen, May 1st, 1886.
71
P. Darby, ‘Emigrants at Play’, 58.
72
Citizen, January 31st, 1885.
69