Sinn Féin's 1916 myth

An Ciarraioch

Kerry County Councillor Michael Gleeson will be criticised for denying a connection between Sinn Féin and the 1916 Rising, but in historical terms, his point is indisputable. At the time, Sinn Féin was a constitutionalist body, and neither the Irish Volunteers nor the Citizen Army had any connection to Arthur Griffith. Even if one accepts that the War of Independence was conducted by Sinn Féin, the subsequent defections of Collins and De Valera had severed any revolutionary connection with the present party by 1926, let alone Provisional Sinn Féin's formation in 1970. So, to summarise, the five incarnations of Sinn Féin:

1. Constitutionalist SF (1905-16)
2. Revolutionary SF (1916-21)
3. Anti-Treaty SF (1921-26, less Cumann na Gaedhael)
4. "Rump" SF (1926-70, less FF)
5. Provisional SF (1970-)

BoJack Horseman

Better for the history forum?

ancapailldorcha

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate forum. Please note the History & Heritage charter.

Manach

The OP has present a well formatted case giving the political evolution of the SF party. However there is an underlying assumption that political parties retain a common set of ideologies / supporters that define them. This is not commonly the case in parties with deep historical roots. In one instance, the Tories of Burke would scarely recognise that of Cameron. Another would the US Republicians. From Godwin's Cabinet of Equals, it originally was a Northern Urban radicalised party championing central government as opposed to its present incarnation.
Thus SF retains its national ethos, it could be argue it has comparitatively changed to a lesser degree that the previous two.

Peregrinus

Manach wrote: »

The OP has present a well formatted case giving the political evolution of the SF party. However there is an underlying assumption that political parties retain a common set of ideologies / supporters that define them. This is not commonly the case in parties with deep historical roots. In one instance, the Tories of Burke would scarely recognise that of Cameron. Another would the US Republicians. From Godwin's Cabinet of Equals, it originally was a Northern Urban radicalised party championing central government as opposed to its present incarnation.
Thus SF retains its national ethos, it could be argue it has comparitatively changed to a lesser degree that the previous two.

Sure. But Gleeson isn't denying an organisational and organic continuity between Griffiths' Sinn Fein and Adams' Sinn Fein. On the contrary, I think he's affirming it. It's precisely because of that continuity that Adams' Sinn Fein has little connection with the 1916 rising - they are the successors of Griffiths' Sinn Fein, which had little connection with the 1916 rising.

Manach

@ Peregrinus, thanks for clarification. Though I'd thought their was a stronger interconnection with SF and the rising with various rank&file/leaderships holding multiple memberships in differing orgs, but I stand to be corrected.

dubhthach

Sure you might have individual volunteers who were members of SF at time, but none of the IRB military council or any of those involved in actual planning/leadership role were.

People forget in sense that Griffith's original proposal was "Monarchist" in tone, after all it was based on the example of Hungary, which he wrote about in his 1904 book: "The Resurrection of Hungary", you could argue that when it comes to Policy the only thing current SF shares with it's original incarnation is a policy of Absenteeism from Westminister.

riffmongous

dubhthach wrote: »

Sure you might have individual volunteers who were members of SF at time, but none of the IRB military council or any of those involved in actual planning/leadership role were.

People forget in sense that Griffith's original proposal was "Monarchist" in tone, after all it was based on the example of Hungary, which he wrote about in his 1904 book: "The Resurrection of Hungary", you could argue that when it comes to Policy the only thing current SF shares with it's original incarnation is a policy of Absenteeism from Westminister.

Interesting, I must read more about that!

kildarejohn

Why was 1916 referred to at the time as "the Sinn Fein rebellion" - e.g. in the Irish Times publication? http://www.findmypast.ie/articles/world-records/full-list-of-the-irish-family-history-records/military-service-and-conflict/sinn-f%C3%A9in-1916-rebellion-handbook--irish-times-weekly-supplement-1917-

Was it only unionists like the IT writers who called it that (in a derogatory sense) or did Nationalists call it that too?

Crooked Jack

People like to rail against Sinn Féin "claiming" the Rising. Of course Sinn Féin have never done any such thing. i've been to plenty of SF events, most recently the O'Donovan Rossa tribute and at no point did anyone there try to claim the Rising was Sinn Féin's. Those opposed to Sinn Féin often throw this up there as a strawman argument but SF themselves have never claimed it. It's interesting that in 1916 the likes of the IT labeled the Rising an SF rebellion and 100 years later the IT is full of articles railing against SF trying to "claim" it.

Peregrinus

kildarejohn wrote: »

Why was 1916 referred to at the time as "the Sinn Fein rebellion" - e.g. in the Irish Times publication? http://www.findmypast.ie/articles/world-records/full-list-of-the-irish-family-history-records/military-service-and-conflict/sinn-f%C3%A9in-1916-rebellion-handbook--irish-times-weekly-supplement-1917-

Was it only unionists like the IT writers who called it that (in a derogatory sense) or did Nationalists call it that too?

It was widely called that at the time, and not just by unionist sources. From memory, there are reports of Dubliners at the time discussing "the Shinners" occupying the GPO, etc.

But, although this usage was common, it was strictly speaking inaccurate. But of course the IRB, as a secret oath-bound organisation, didn't have (or seek) a high profile. People understood that this was a radical nationalist rebellion, and the most visible radical nationalist organisation at the time was Sinn Fein.

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was widely called that at the time, and not just by unionist sources. From memory, there are reports of Dubliners at the time discussing "the Shinners" occupying the GPO, etc.

From memory? Good on ya, an auld fella like you learning to use the internet.

But, although this usage was common, it was strictly speaking inaccurate. But of course the IRB, as a secret oath-bound organisation, didn't have (or seek) a high profile. People understood that this was a radical nationalist rebellion, and the most visible radical nationalist organisation at the time was Sinn Fein.

This is true but it seems to stem from laziness or a misunderstanding of Sinn Féin; remember, as pointed out, SF were not particularly radical at the time; not even republican.

Peregrinus

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is true but it seems to stem from laziness or a misunderstanding of Sinn Féin; remember, as pointed out, SF were not particularly radical at the time; not even republican.

They were "radical" compared to the dominant Nationalist movement, which was the Irish party. Yes, they weren't republican. On the other hand, they advocated unilateral action, a policy of disengagement, abstentionism, etc, and this looked radical by comparison with the tactics of the Irish party. They also weren't prepared to settle for home rule, or even dominion status.

Aimead

Peregrinus wrote: »

People understood that this was a radical nationalist rebellion, and the most visible radical nationalist organisation at the time was Sinn Fein.

I’ll confess that I am highly ignorant of 1916’s history, but I can’t help wonder if modern day journalism fails can possibly help shed some light on how the events were reported back then. Some examples to illustrate:

Some clown puts on a guy fawkes mask and does X. This gets reported as ‘Anonymous’ does X. Even though many different events are completely unconnected, if you were to read back and see these unconnected events being reported as ‘Anonymous did X’ you’d be forgiving for thinking these different and unconnected actions had been done by the same people.

Some group in the Middle East does X. How often will this be (incorrectly) reported as ‘ISIS or Al Qaeda’ does X?

Someone (likely deliberately) misquotes some weather/climate report. How many articles will we see with ‘Climate Scientists say X’?

Whether or not Sinn Fein were the primary protagonists (or whatever their role was) in 1916, I’ve seen enough journalism fails like the previous examples that it would be likely the events of 1916 would always have been reported with reference to Sinn Fein if they were the most visible group at the time. I think assessing 1916 has to keep the flaws in journalism in mind.

Crooked Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

They were "radical" compared to the dominant Nationalist movement, which was the Irish party. Yes, they weren't republican. On the other hand, they advocated unilateral action, a policy of disengagement, abstentionism, etc, and this looked radical by comparison with the tactics of the Irish party. They also weren't prepared to settle for home rule, or even dominion status.

But surely all a journalist at the time would have to have done would be read one of the many proclamations plastered around Dublin at the time with no mention of SF and clear references to the IRB, IV and ICA.

Neither was SF a particularly big party at the time. It seems to be a case of "pin it on this crowd and if were wrong what are they gonna do about it." Boy did they get that one wrong

ChicagoJoe

dubhthach wrote: »

Sure you might have individual volunteers who were members of SF at time, but none of the IRB military council or any of those involved in actual planning/leadership role were.

People forget in sense that Griffith's original proposal was "Monarchist" in tone, after all it was based on the example of Hungary, which he wrote about in his 1904 book: "The Resurrection of Hungary", you could argue that when it comes to Policy the only thing current SF shares with it's original incarnation is a policy of Absenteeism from Westminister.

I would have thought a 32 county British free Ireland would have been more obvious and to the economic and sovereign control of the country instead of diluting it as much as possible to Brussels like their puppets in FG/FF/LP. But like a poster has stated, isn't it telling that in 1916 the Redmondites, unionists, quislings etc labeled the Rising a SF rebellion and 100 years later the opponents of SF are now trying to disassociate SF from it as they try to smother the political questions it arises and fear the possible vote increase it will bring to SF.

ChicagoJoe

dubhthach wrote: »

Sure you might have individual volunteers who were members of SF at time, but none of the IRB military council or any of those involved in actual planning/leadership role were.

People forget in sense that Griffith's original proposal was "Monarchist" in tone, after all it was based on the example of Hungary, which he wrote about in his 1904 book: "The Resurrection of Hungary", you could argue that when it comes to Policy the only thing current SF shares with it's original incarnation is a policy of Absenteeism from Westminister.

Sean McDiarmada was a full time national organizer in SF and was the election agent of Charles Dolan in the North Leitrim Westminister bi election of 1908.

ChicagoJoe

Crooked Jack wrote: »

But surely all a journalist at the time would have to have done would be read one of the many proclamations plastered around Dublin at the time with no mention of SF and clear references to the IRB, IV and ICA.

Neither was SF a particularly big party at the time. It seems to be a case of "pin it on this crowd and if were wrong what are they gonna do about it." Boy did they get that one wrong

Yes and although small their was a swelling rise in support for them due to their anti conscription campaign, so therefore it could also have been thought by the IT, Irish Independent, Redmonites, British govt, unionists etc that to ' blame ' the Rising on Sinn Fein was a clever move, but as it turned out it was probably the stupidest move in Irish history.

jonniebgood1

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

I would have thought a 32 county British free Ireland would have been more obvious and to the economic and sovereign control of the country instead of diluting it as much as possible to Brussels like their puppets in FG/FF/LP. But like a poster has stated, isn't it telling that in 1916 the Redmondites, unionists, quislings etc labeled the Rising a SF rebellion and 100 years later the opponents of SF are now trying to disassociate SF from it as they try to smother the political questions it arises and fear the possible vote increase it will bring to SF.

Different eras Joe- There is no realistic comparable link between Sinn Fein of 90 to 100 years ago with Sinn Fein of today, other than they use the same name.

dubhthach

Let alone fact that the Original SF wanted to retain Ireland in personal union with UK, basically a return to situation in 18th century and not full independence, thence Griffith's use of Hungary as an example to strive towards.

dubhthach

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Sean McDiarmada was a full time national organizer in SF and was the election agent of Charles Dolan in the North Leitrim Westminister bi election of 1908.

Fair enough, was he still involved in SF in 1916 though? Post 1910 he's very much IRB focused.

donaghs

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Sean McDiarmada was a full time national organizer in SF and was the election agent of Charles Dolan in the North Leitrim Westminister bi election of 1908.

Was the 1916 Rising launched by Sinn Fein, or was it was launched to fulfill their political program, e.g. a Hungarian-style "dual monarchy"?

Nope.

At the same time, people can still have relatively similar aims etc. And I can accept that present-day Sinn Fein take can claim the 1916 Rising as a point of origin and inspiration.

Crooked Jack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Different eras Joe- There is no realistic comparable link between Sinn Fein of 90 to 100 years ago with Sinn Fein of today, other than they use the same name.

They've much more in common with SF from 1917 onwards

Crooked Jack

SF councillor outlining pretty much what I said earlier

http://www.mainevalleypost.com/2015/08/11/cllr-gleesons-comments-on-1916-petty-and-vindictive-cllr-ferris/

DarkyHughes

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Kerry County Councillor Michael Gleeson will be criticised for denying a connection between Sinn Féin and the 1916 Rising, but in historical terms, his point is indisputable. At the time, Sinn Féin was a constitutionalist body, and neither the Irish Volunteers nor the Citizen Army had any connection to Arthur Griffith. Even if one accepts that the War of Independence was conducted by Sinn Féin, the subsequent defections of Collins and De Valera had severed any revolutionary connection with the present party by 1926, let alone Provisional Sinn Féin's formation in 1970. So, to summarise, the five incarnations of Sinn Féin:

1. Constitutionalist SF (1905-16)
2. Revolutionary SF (1916-21)
3. Anti-Treaty SF (1921-26, less Cumann na Gaedhael)
4. "Rump" SF (1926-70, less FF)
5. Provisional SF (1970-)

It's not Sinn Fein's myth. The propaganda of the day blamed the rising on Sinn Fein & the Republicans took full advantage of it. Before that Sinn Fein's policy was for a dual monarchy between Britain & Ireland just like Austria & Hungary. That's were Griffith & the original Sinn Fein leaders got their political ideas The Resurrection of Hungary .

After 1916 the Republicans & Monarchists came to a agreement that if Sinn Fein won the 1918 election that Ireland would be a Republic & then the Irish people would choose via referendum what type of government they wanted either a Republic or a constitutional Monarchy & if they chose a Monarchy no British royal family member would be invited to sit on the Irish throne.

But of course Churchill & DLG wanted some blood to spill first & to split the party anyway they could. There's only ever been one Sinn Fein they've just had different policy changes. Same with Labor.

Peregrinus

DarkyHughes wrote: »

It's not Sinn Fein's myth. The propaganda of the day blamed the rising on Sinn Fein & the Republicans took full advantage of it. Before that Sinn Fein's policy was for a dual monarchy between Britain & Ireland just like Austria & Hungary. That's were Griffith & the original Sinn Fein leaders got their political ideas The Resurrection of Hungary.

Griffith himself was never a monarchist by conviction. He advocated the dual monarchy model for pragmatic reasons - he thought it would attract support from some nationalists who weren't republican, and he could point to a functioning example to prove the viability of the model. And Sinn Fein never committed itself to the dual monarchy. Their stated objective was an independent national legislature for Ireland, deriving its authority from the people; the dual monarchy was a way of achieving that while retaining some link with Britain, for those who wanted it.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

After 1916 the Republicans & Monarchists came to a agreement that if Sinn Fein won the 1918 election that Ireland would be a Republic & then the Irish people would choose via referendum what type of government they wanted either a Republic or a constitutional Monarchy & if they chose a Monarchy no British royal family member would be invited to sit on the Irish throne.

I hadn't heard this. Do you have a source? The only point of the dual monarchy as far as Sinn Fein was concerned was to win over some who wanted to retain a British link, and a monarchy without a British monarch would seem to be offensive to the Republicans and useless to even the monarchists in Sinn Fein.

laoch na mona

i think it has more to do with modern sinn fein identifying with the repuplican tradition of 1916, particularly with the politics of connelly, mellows and pearse ect. Similarly they identify with the tradition of physical force republicanism which includes 1916, the troubles, the Fenian movement, the war of independence ect.


in this sense it's easy to understand why the would organise commemorations, they march in bodenstown every year

Crooked Jack

laoch na mona wrote: »

i think it has more to do with modern sinn fein identifying with the repuplican tradition of 1916, particularly with the politics of connelly, mellows and pearse ect. Similarly they identify with the tradition of physical force republicanism which includes 1916, the troubles, the Fenian movement, the war of independence ect.


in this sense it's easy to understand why the would organise commemorations, they march in bodenstown every year

Exactly. Theyve been commemorating 1916 and other events for 100 years. There may be parties jumping on the bandwagon here but it's not Sinn Fein