Upcoming Events

National | History and Heritage

no events match your query!

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply

offsite link Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony

offsite link Tom Parlon launches new career in comedy Anthony

offsite link Presumption of innocence does not universally apply in Ireland Anthony

offsite link The poor standard of Irish political journalism Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Could this (finally!) be the end for the Atlantic Integrationists? Fri Jan 17, 2020 19:18 | The Saker
[This analysis was written for the Unz Review] By now we all have heard the news, the entire Russian government has resigned and a new Prime Minister, Mikhail Mishustin, has

offsite link Russian FM Sergey Lavrov (acting) conducts the annual news conference evaluating Russian foreign pol... Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:08 | amarynth
  Comments and Timeline : Sputnik  

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2020/01/17 ? Open Thread Fri Jan 17, 2020 02:30 | Herb Swanson
2020/01/17 02:30:01 Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions

offsite link Battle of the Ages to stop Eurasian integration Fri Jan 17, 2020 00:48 | amarynth
By Pepe Escobar – posted with permission Coming decade could see the US take on Russia, China and Iran over the New Silk Road connection The Raging Twenties started with

offsite link Underwhelming Turkish Invasion Of Libya Thu Jan 16, 2020 20:45 | Scott
https://southfront.org/unde... In early 2020, Libya became one of the main hot points in the Greater Middle East with stakes raised by Turkey?s decision to launch a military operation there. On

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link Latest Updates Thu Nov 21, 2019 20:32 | Human Rights

offsite link US Holds China To Account For Human Rights Violations Sun Oct 13, 2019 19:12 | Human Rights

offsite link UN Human Rights Council Should Address Human Rights Crisis in Cambodia Sat Aug 31, 2019 13:41 | Human Rights

offsite link Fijian women still face Human Rights violations Mon Aug 26, 2019 18:49 | Human Rights

offsite link Saudi Human Rights Violation Fri Aug 09, 2019 20:41 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Cedar Lounge
"A flaky website that purports to be ?leftist,? The Cedar Lounge Revolution, occasionally makes a relevant point or two."

offsite link Long life? and prosperity? 12:08 Fri Jan 17, 2020 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Signs of Hope ? A continuing series 11:25 Fri Jan 17, 2020 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Stamp it out? 10:40 Fri Jan 17, 2020 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link An unexpected election? 10:07 Fri Jan 17, 2020 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Election Literature?s Treasure Trove? 07:50 Fri Jan 17, 2020 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Short History of Sinn Fein

category national | history and heritage | opinion/analysis author Wednesday June 07, 2006 22:10author by B Ó Ruairc Report this post to the editors

sinn féin, sinn féin amháin

Who are Sinn Fein?

Why those you may be thinking of clearly aren't.

In 1902, Arthur Griffith, Editor of the United Irishman, presented to the third annual convention of Cumann na nGaedheal the most revolutionary political idea since the fall of Parnell; it was that the elected Irish Members of Parliament should refuse to sit in Westminster, demand reinstitution of the Irish Parliament of 1782, and pledge allegiance only to a king of Ireland, not to the King of England. While the Liberator, Daniel O’Connell, had once considered such unilateral action, he had not forced the issue. Griffith provided a strategy of passive resistance by turning an assembly of Irish MPs into a de facto constitutional convention. Modeled on Frank Deak’s policy, which resulted in the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary in 1867, Griffith serialized his abstentionist program in the United Irishman as the Resurrection of Hungary, and then published it as a pamphlet and distributed it widely in 1904. The direct result of this idea was the formation of Sinn Féin on 28th November 1905, as an abstentionist political party, with internal self-reliance as its principal plank, pledging never to recognize or use the services or forces of the enemy. The founders of Sinn Féin were Arthur Griffith, Seán T. O’Kelly, Bulmer Hobson, Countess Markiewicz and Seán Mac Diarmada. In addition to contesting a Parliamentary election in North Lietrim in 1908, Sinn Féin was also active locally, electing a number of men to county councils and other local bodies.

Historian, lecturer, Conradh na Gaeilge president and Radio Free Éireann (public service broadcasting, 99.5 FM in New York) commentator Nollaig Ó Gadhra points out that the big change in Sinn Féin came in the Árd Fheis of 1917, when the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) under the guidance of Michael Collins and the Irish Volunteers under Cathal Brugha, caused Sinn Féin to change its policy from monarchist to republican abstention. After the Rising, Sinn Féin adopted an election manifesto for all elections, insisting upon the Irish Republic Proclaimed on Easter Monday, 1916. Éamonn deValera, campaigning in an Irish Volunteer uniform, was elected for East Clare in June 1917. At the Árd Fheis of Sinn Féin in October 1917, Arthur Griffith graciously stepped down from President to Vice President of Sinn Féin, to allow the election of deValera, who, after the death on hunger strike of Thomas Ashe, was the senior surviving Commandant from 1916.

This was the Sinn Féin which contested the general election of 14 December 1918, promising to NOT represent their constituents or their country in the mighty Westminster Parliament in London, but rather to set up, without foreign let or hindrance, a Republican assembly which would form an Irish government for Ireland. Sinn Féin won over 79% of the popular vote in all Ireland, and 73 of 105 seats, in what can only be described as a plebiscite for independence. The delegates who assembled in the Mansion House in Dublin formed the First Dáil Éireann and issued the Irish Declaration of Independence on 21 January 1919 (legally the equivalent of the American Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress, promulgated on the 4th of July 1776). That Easter Monday, 1916 is regarded as the significant date is a consequence of the pre-existing Army Council of the Irish Republican Army – Óglaigh na hÉireann (the IRA) insisting upon the First Dáil Éireann recognizing the Irish Republic proclaimed in arms in 1916, as a condition for the IRA coming under the authority of the government formed by the First Dáil Éireann. [See also Dorothy Macardle, The Irish Republic (New York, 1965).]

The democratic voice of the Irish people had spoken (vox populi, vox Dei), and their elected representatives sought the recognition of their national self-determination as promised by American President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, on which basis the Armistice ending the Great War on 11 November 1918, had been accepted by the Central Powers. Ireland was denied recognition and a seat at the Versailles peace conference. The ensuing conflict between the forces of the Imperial Government in London and the Irish Republic has become known to history as the “Black and Tan War” (1919-1921). But, the military lessons of Dublin 1916 having been studied in the internment camp of Frongoch, the forces of the Irish Republic waged an asymmetrical conflict against the alien forces of occupation. Modern guerilla warfare entered on to the twentieth century. England, though still in control of many strong points, could no longer coerce Ireland into remaining peacefully within her empire. A Second (Republican) Dáil Éireann came together in August 1921 (124 Sinn Féin and 4 Unionist members). Nollaig Ó Gadhra, in Civil War in Connacht (Cork & Dublin: Mercier Press, 1999), points out that the Sinn Féin delegates regarded their mandate to be as Teachta Dála Éireann (TDÉ), that is, deputies to the assembly of all Ireland (not just 26 counties, as presumed by the British Government of Ireland Act, 23 December 1920 – for which no Irishman voted). There was a truce, and a delegation sent to negotiate a peace was sent to London. This delegation, under the threat of “immediate and terrible war,” and without referring the text to the government of the Irish Republic in Dublin, signed Articles of Agreement [The Treaty] on 6 December 1921. The “Treaty” was accepted by a vote of 64 to 57 on 7 January 1922 (Brian O’Higgins, in more than one issue of the Wolfe Tone Annual, pointed out that only three of the TDs accepted it on its merits, the remainder who voted for it said it would be a “steppingstone to the Republic” – all of the women TDs voted against the Treaty). The issue was to be referred to the people in a general election on 16 June 1922, by a “Pact” between Éamonn deValera and Michael Collins (negotiated by Harry Boland) there was to be a coalition “Panel” government of pro- and anti-Treaty members, whichever faction dominated. The Republican Second Dáil was to reassemble on 30 June 1922, under its Ceann Comhairle, who would then summon the new Third Dáil. Brian O’Higgins points out that, on 28 June, at the instigation of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, the Provisional Government of the Free State attacked the Republican (Army) Executive in the Four Courts, thus seizing power through a coup d’état, precipitating civil war. The Second Dáil Éireann never met to dissolve itself in 1922. The Republican political leader was deValera, President of Sinn Féin. After the deaths of Griffith and Collins, on 12 and 22 August 1922, the political leadership of the Free State fell to William Cosgrave, who, having abandoned the Republic, did not call his party Sinn Féin, but Cumann na nGaedheal (later Fine Gael).

When, in 1926, deValera, sensing the opportunity to wrest power from Cosgrave, wanted to be able to enter the 26-County Dáil of the Free State (the creation of the British government) should he gain a majority of TDs, he was forced to form Fianna Fáil, a new party, with a new name, for that purpose. In 1929, in Leinster House, deValera, stating that he was not saying the same thing as he had said in 1922, acknowledged that “there are people outside this house who can claim the same legitimacy as we can,” but who differ on the road to be taken to the Republic. Those people were Sinn Féin, the IRA and Tom Maguire and the other surviving members of the Republican Second Dáil Éireann.

In 1937, under deValera, the 26-County state (still the “fruit of the poison tree” – to use a legal explanation of the pedigree of the mutated descendant of the 26-County Irish Free State enacted by the Westminster Parliament and imposed by collaborators politically analogous to the later Vichy government in that part of France not immediately occupied by the Nazis in 1940) adopted the “Éire” constitution, which was republican in form, but allowed the continued Partition of Ireland (while claiming sovereignty over “the entire island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas” – an article later dispensed with).

Seán Mac Bride, who had been Chief of Staff of the IRA in 1936, feeling that he could work within this framework, resigned from the movement, but did not call his new political party Sinn Féin, but Clann na Poblachta. Republican Sinn Féin former Donegal Councilor Joe O’Neill points out that before Mac Bride’s acceptance of the 1937 constitution the alienation of the mass of the people from the Free State could be seen in the fact that the majority of the eligible 26-County electorate boycotted the general elections altogether.

In 1938, the surviving members of the Second Dáil Éireann, the legitimate government of the Irish Republic, dissolved itself (in accordance with a 1921 Dáil statute requiring it to do so should its membership be in danger of falling below seven), passing the mantle of legitimacy to the Army Council of the Irish Republican Army. Sinn Féin continued as the abstentionist Republican party, remaining loyal to the Irish Republic Proclaimed in arms on Easter Monday, 1916, ratified by the Irish electorate in 1918 and established by the First Dáil Éireann in 1919.

In 1950 the torch was passed by Sinn Féin President Margaret Buckley to a new generation of Republicans. Sinn Féin was reorganized and new leaders emerged, among them Seán Cronin, Séan Kearney, Joe Murphy, Tomás Mac Curtain, Gearóid Mangan, Tom Doyle, Charles Murphy, Paddy McLogan and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh. Sinn Féin, still abstentionist, contested elections. On May 6, 1955, two Sinn Féin (abstentionist) candidates were elected to the Westminster Parliament: Tom Mitchel for Mid-Ulster, and Phil Clarke for Fermanagh-South Tyrone. Both men were disqualified by the British as “convicted felons” (read: political prisoners or prisoners of war). Mitchel ran again in a bye-election August, tripling his margin of victory; again he was disqualified. A third election in May 1956 saw him defeated after another so-called “nationalist” was persuaded to enter and siphon off a little over 6,000 votes (to Mitchel’s over 24,000) to elect a Unionist. Sinn Féin had demonstrated the existence of strong Republican/anti-Partition sentiment in those six of the divided Irish Province of Ulster’s nine counties known as “Northern Ireland.” Another consequence of Sinn Féin’s activity was to demonstrate to the world the denial of democracy by the British government in the 6-County statelet. [See also J. Boyer Bell, The Secret Army (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1979).]

The next step in the quest for national re-unification (inspired, in part, by the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Soviet occupation) was the IRA physical force campaign of December 1956 – February 1962. In the March 5, 1957 26-County general election Sinn Féin elected abstentionist TDs in each Province: in Leinster, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh; in Ulster, Eunian O’Hanlon (brother of Fergal, killed in action at Brokeborough RUC Barracks on New Year’s night); in Connacht, John Joe McGirl; in Munster, John Joe Rice, garnering some 65,640 first preference votes in some nineteen constituencies. Again the political point was made.

In the 1960s there was an attempt by Marxists with an reformist agenda to infiltrate the Irish Republican movement. When pogroms and the violent suppression of the civil rights movement in the “North” led to a cry for Republican support, the Marxists were found wanting. During the winter of 1969/1970 another split occurred in the movement. It was reflected in Sinn Féin; the Marxists-Leninists-Stalinists (in possession of the Gardiner Street office – thereby calling themselves “Officials”) sought to end abstentionism. The traditional Republicans, agreeing with Commandant General Tom Maguire, sole surviving member of the Republican Second Dáil Éireann, that they had “neither the right nor the authority” to end abstentionism, gave their allegiance to the Provisional Army Council. The traditional Republicans of Sinn Féin (including Joe Clarke of 1916 fame) set up offices at 2a Lower Kevin Street in Dublin. In 1972, the so-called “Official Sinn Féin” (the “Stickies”) withdrew from even nominal support of an armed struggle they could not control, and later had a name change to the Workers Party, then the Democratic Left; their remnant are now to be found in the Irish Labour Party.

Ruairí Ó Brádaigh was elected President of Sinn Féin (“Kevin Street,” later “Provisional” Sinn Féin, later Sinn Féin (subsequently Republican Sinn Féin)) and maintained the allegiance to the bright dream of Pádraic Pearse and the men of 1916, and to the traditional Republican abstentionist policy. As the political party of the Irish Republican movement, Sinn Féin not only supported the struggle to end English occupation of Ireland, seeking a British declaration of intent to withdraw from Ireland, and the release of all political prisoners, but also, in 1971, proposed a vision for a New Ireland, to be presented to an all Ireland Constituent Assembly, based on the principle of subsidiarity and self-reliance, grounded in Ireland’s ancient past but using the latest democratic political and economic analyses to help restore, as Sinn Féin Vice President Daithí Ó Conaill put it, “the ancient prosperity of Ireland.” Promulgated through the efforts of Seán Ó Brádaigh and the Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, and later by Éamonn Mac Thomáis, as Editor of An Poblacht, it was the Éire Nua plan, which would reunify Ulster as one of four Provinces, each with its own devolved government, while incorporating a Charter of Liberties (analogous to the American “Bill of Rights”) which would assure the religious and civil liberties of all of the people of Ireland, in the spirit of the Proclamation of 1916. [See also William Irwin Thompson, The Imagination of an Insurrection, Dublin, Easter 1916: A Study of an Ideological Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967); see also, Margaret Buckley, “A Proud History gives Confidence of Victory: Sinn Féin 1905-1956” (Dublin, Sinn Féin, 1956).]

Dissident elements, swayed by the siren song of potential political power in a Partition government, from time to time proposed the abandonment of abstentionism. Lifelong Republican and Irish Northern Aid co-founder Michael Flannery said to one such group who told him that they might elect four TDs and hold the balance of power in Dublin, that “if was not right for us to go into Leinster House with 44 TDs in 1926, it is certainly not right for you to go in with only 4.” Ed Moloney, in A Secret History of the IRA (New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2002), very accurately describes how a radical, Northern, power-hungry clique secretly manoeuvred to wrest control of Sinn Féin from the veteran leadership, and lead it away from its traditional policies, including abstentionism, in the process. One major difference from most other defections (except the initial “Stickies”) was that they sought to retain the name of Sinn Féin, whilst abandoning its principles.

In 1986 Republican Sinn Féin / Sinn Féin Poblachtach, re-organized under the leadership of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Daithí Ó Conaill, and continues in the tradition of the Sinn Féin which embraced the 1916 Rising and elected the deputies which formed the First Dáil Éireann. The adjective Republican was added to demonstrate the continuity with 1916, continued abstentionist opposition to the Partition of Ireland and to highlight the contrast with any other party or organization which might seek to trade on the good name of Sinn Féin. The Éire Nua plan (see Daithí Ó Conaill, “Towards a Peaceful Ireland” (Dublin: Sinn Féin Poblachtach, 1991)) continues as a vibrant part of the program of Republican Sinn Féin under the leadership of An Uachtarán (President) Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, re-confirmed at the 100th Árd Fheis of Republican Sinn Féin in November 2004.

sinn féin, sinn féin amháin

author by Sinn Féin Supporterpublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 22:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Get real you dissident idiot.

Sinn Féin Abú - Bí linn in Shinn Féin!

Related Link: http://www.sinnfein.ie/join
author by RSF is SFpublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 23:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Heres a challege for you. Why don't you attempt to point out what is false. Just try.

I'm fully aware though, that dealing with matters in a truthful manner (for adult provies) and and intelligent way (for zombies like yourself) is a difficult task.

Refute if you're able.

author by Truthpublication date Wed Jun 07, 2006 23:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Throughout the history of the orgainisation attempts were made to transform Sinn Féin and the broader Republican Movement into a constitutional and reformist organisation. Beginning with a takeover of the leadership of the Republican Movement this group finally made their push at the 1986 Ard-Fheis. In a gerrymandered vote they breached the Constitution of Sinn Féin by forcing through a resolution advocating taking seats in Leinster House, this despite the fact that those advocating such action are precluded from membership of Sinn Féin. Again those who remained loyal to that Constitution and the Republic, which it upholds, withdrew reconvening the Ard-Fheis at a different venue. They brought with them intact the Constitution of Sinn Féin.

Related Link: http://www.rsf.ie
author by bswpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 00:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The vote to recognise Leinster House as the parliament of the 26 county State, and to take seats if elected, was taken in 1986 at what the majority agreed was a properly convened ard fheis. Some people disagreed with this policy, and split away from the party at that point, forming Republican Sinn Féin, which still adheres to an abstentionist policy.

Some of them are still going on about this.

Republicans now have a choice. They can join RSF, or they can join SF.

RSF seems to devote a lot of its energy to going over the arguments that lead to its formation, while SF deals with campaigns that readers of indymedia would know well, like Rossport, the Bin Charges, the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the continuing occupation of the six counties and their rule from Westminster.

No one is stopping anybody from joining RSF, and articles like the one above are informative and give an idea of what the party is all about. I hope lots of people interested in Republican politics will read it.

author by Sharon - Individualpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 00:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

' WTF
by Sinn Féin Supporter Wed Jun 07, 2006 21:59
Get real you dissident idiot.'


" But we uphold the right of others to have a view which might be different from ours . There is nothing wrong with dissent . "
- Gerry Adams , 'Village' magazine interview , 29 July 2005 , page 6 .

Apparently , Gerry's 'troops' do not agree with him regarding 'dissidents' (that is , those that dissent from Free Statism and Stormont.)

Sharon .

Related Link: http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com
author by Johnpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 01:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

How much do you get paid by the Brits to talk shite or are you just a natural shit-talker.

author by okpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 02:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

you are right, the brits are paying someone......but i dont believe it is sharon. the british are paying sinn fein and helping them to collect money in america. some irish republican revolutionary tout-ridden party sinn fein has become................................

The Times June 06, 2006

US at odds with allies over bar on Sinn Fein fundraising
From Tom Baldwin in Washington

BRITAIN is pressing President Bush’s Administration to lift a fundraising ban imposed last year on the leadership of Sinn Fein, The Times has learnt.

But Mitchell Reiss, Mr Bush’s special envoy to Northern Ireland, has so far refused to heed calls from the British and Irish governments. They believe that Sinn Fein should be rewarded for renouncing its armed struggle and decommissioning IRA weapons.

Both sides are playing down any talk of a significant row, although sources in London have confirmed that “there is a clear difference of opinion between us on this issue”.

A senior US official acknowledged that it was “ironic” that Britain, having spent years fulminating over the millions of dollars raised by the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid) to finance Sinn Fein and the IRA, should be seeking to get a fundraising ban lifted.

Restrictions were reintroduced by the Bush Administration last year after controversy over the IRA’s alleged role in the murder of Robert McCartney and the £26.5 million Northern Bank robbery.

These do not stop Friends of Sinn Fein (FOSF) raising up to $1 million a year. Instead, the ban limits the scope of visas issued to leaders such as Gerry Adams, preventing him from participating in fundraising. He had relished his star status in America since an earlier travel ban was lifted by President Clinton more than a decade ago.

Much of the $10 million-plus raised by FOSF has paid for luxury hotels and first-class flights for the party leadership, as well as the cost of staging events in the US. Less than 10 per cent of the money was registered to Sinn Fein back in Ireland.

Mr Bush’s ban has proved costly and personally humiliating for Mr Adams. In March FOSF had to refund more than $100,000 to supporters who attended a St Patrick’s Day breakfast in Washington with the Sinn Fein leader. The party president then missed a political event in Buffalo, New York State, when he was delayed at an airport by security staff who spotted his name on a federal terrorist alert list.

Since then, Mr Reiss is understood to have held talks with Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, over lifting the ban. The British Government’s official position is that this “remains a matter for the US authorities”. But privately, Mr Hain believed that Sinn Fein deserved credit for the progress made during the past year and, perhaps, needs to demonstrate to its own community that their sacrifices have been recognised.

Mr Reiss, however, believes that the ban remains a useful lever on Sinn Fein in general — and the party’s refusal to sign up to Northern Ireland’s policing structures in particular.

Mr Reiss confirmed yesterday that he had spoken to the British and Irish governments about the ban, adding: “We remain in close consultation on this matter.”

He told The Times: “This is not so much about pressure from the US Government. If there is any pressure it is from inn Fein’s own constituents to remove sociopaths from their neighbourhoods.”

Significantly, he highlighted his recent article in an Irish-American publication, which stated: “In a worst-case scenario, Sinn Fein will not join policing for many, many years. Who polices these communities until then?” British officials believe that recent remarks from Sinn Fein leaders indicate that it is preparing to change its mind on participating in policing.

A special conference may be held in September, which could help to persuade the White House to lift the fundraising ban by November — the month when Sinn Fein last year hosted a $5,000-a-table dinner in New York.

mi6pirasf21_1.jpg

author by Noel Carmodypublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 04:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

bsw wrote : RSF seems to devote a lot of its energy to going over the arguments that lead to its formation, while SF deals with campaigns that readers of indymedia would know well, like Rossport, the Bin Charges, the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the continuing occupation of the six counties and their rule from Westminster.

Truth is RSF members in Clare were the first group to hold pickets at Shannon long before your members got the "ok" to.( You know after the whole country was already up in arms about it) In fact, RSF in Clare were there for the first gulf war. Was quite lonely in those days. In any case RSF was involved in every anti iraq war protest. As for Rossport, RSF's paper SAOIRSE was again the first to report about the case and made its readers aware last summer of similiar deals done in Kerry and Donegal. I'm sure when and if the protests reach RTE reporting levels in those cases p"sf "will then be there. You can tell us readers of indymedia then how RSF did nothing about it, but you'd be telling lies. Just as you did below. RSF is about alot more than 1986, thats because Republicanism is about alot more, and thats what RSF are about. There's no denying it.

author by Not Just RSFpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 05:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

WRITING in the Sunday edition of the Derry Journal journalist and author Éamonn McCann said that in his view, as far as Republicanism was concerned, the authentic claimants to the political legacy of the 1916 Rising were Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Republican Sinn Féin.

He said: "The Proclamation didn't promise a fight to achieve the Republic. It proclaimed the Republic as an actually-existing entity. It is for this reason that IRA volunteers ever since have pledged not to strive for the achievement of the Republic but to defend the Republic already achieved. In this perspective, a deal which others might see as a step towards the ultimate objective will be seen as contemptible retreat from the struggle.

"In detaching himself from the Provisionals in 1986 because they'd accepted the legitimacy of the Leinster House parliament, Ó Brádaigh stood by the Republic established on Easter Monday. Looked at from this angle - as legitimate an angle as any other - there is no question: Mr Ó Brádaigh and his followers stand alone in true succession to Easter Week.

author by Sharon - Individualpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 09:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I am not paid by the British , John . Nor am I salaried by this State .
You have the wrong 'Sinn Fein' in mind .

Sharon .

author by seanpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"In the 1960s there was an attempt by Marxists with an reformist agenda to infiltrate the Irish Republican movement."

This is typical of the type of propaganda you see from all the disprate/desperate "republican" family.
The people that the author is referring to were long standing members of the republican movement,
Sean Garland was a veteran of the 50's campaign and gets a mention in the republican ballad Sean South, Cahal Goulding was another veteran, De Rossa was interned in the 1950's. Most of the so-called "infiltrators" were in fact long standing republicans.

I can only assume this is a RSF "history" of SF.

author by pat cpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Goulding and Garland & De Rossa were already in the Republican Movement. By infiltration I suspect they mean Roy Johnston & some other CP members. One of these people has won several libel cases on this very issue so I wont name him. I'll just add that hes a prominent Anti EU campaigner.

author by organisepublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"In 1902, Arthur Griffith, Editor of the United Irishman, presented to the third annual convention of Cumann na nGaedheal the most revolutionary political idea since the fall of Parnell"

this is an over statement if i ever heard one.

author by seanpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

My point exactly. I would doubt that Goulding as OC asking for the involvement/input of communists would be considered infiltration. The author implies entryism, a political tactic by which an organisation encourages members to infiltrate another organisation in an attempt to gain recruits, or take over entirely. In situations where the larger organization is hostile to entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are, in fact, an organization in their own right. This is not the case in the republican movement in the 1960's and is typical of republicans (all factions) 'moulding' history to fit into their cause at the expense of the truth

author by pat cpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 13:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is where the Conspiracy Theories begin. There are/were those who believed that Roy was an "Agent of the Kremlin". Whatever about his politics or his contribution to Republicanism, I reckon Roys only connection with the Kremlin was visiting it as a tourist.

Contrary to popular belief, during the days of the USSR, large sections of the Kremlin were open to the public. I visited the Kremlin on three seperate occasions myself, to linger for a moment by the grave of John Reed and the recess in the wall which contains Big Bill Heywoods ashes.

author by Cliona Butler - Village Magazine letterspublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 14:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Villagers: Letters to the Editor
Thursday, June 8, 2006

RSF '100th' ard fheis - Ó Bradaigh was founder member

With great amusement I read Donnacha McGills assertion that Republican Sinn Féin (RSF) celebrated its 100th ard fheis last year. I am only 34 and was present in the West County Hotel Lucan in 1986. This followed a walk-out from the Sinn Féin ard fheis at which the policy of abstentionism was dropped. A group of people – including Ruairí Ó Bradaigh, Daithí O'Connell, Des Long, Lita Campbell, Mary Ward, Geraldine Taylor, John Joe O'Neill and Eimear O'Connor – were placed on a caretaker executive from which the party RSF was formed. That was 1986. Hence the original assertion that Ó Bradaigh was a founder member of RSF would be correct. However, I am happy to say that when I turned 16 I didn't join the new party RSF.

Cliona Butler, Mallow, Cork

Related Link: http://www.villagemagazine.ie
author by P O'Neillpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 15:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

He is someone with a multible personality and can be;
Arthur 'angloirish' Griffith
the Divil of Eire
Mick 'the provo' Collins
Frank 'Berlin or bust' Ryan
Joe 'Biker' Crystal
Sean 'swastika' Russell
Count the Catholics Corrigan
Seamus 'Bankjob' Costello
Tomas McGiolla and his gorrillas
PaPaProinsias 'Amnesia' DeRossa
Sean 'more Irish than the Irish' McStiobhain
Rory 'take a shower' O'Bradaigh
Sean 'unkle Jo' Garland
Gerry 'two gaffs' Adams
MI5 McGuinness
Tommy 'I refuse to recognise this cell' McKevett

Hope I have successfully upset all of the 'almost' 40 shades of green. I wouldn't want any of them at any Party i was invited to never mind join - would you?

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 16:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dear Cliona, walking out of an ard fheis meeting which has broken the sinn fein consitution and thus made its self illegal according to the rules of Sinn Fein is not the same as leaving sinn fein. In the same way the republican movement did not leave the Irish Republic when DeValera led the TD's who remained faithfull to their vow to defend the Republic out of a meeting which saught to overthrow the Republic and replace it with a free state established under British law. Nor did O Bradaigh leave Sinn Fein when he led faithfull delegates out of a meeting in which the officials tried to lead the movement into the free state and British law at the start of the nineteen seventies.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 16:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

As it happens I just read your letter in Village Magazine, which you have kindly copied for us here. Im afraid you werent paying attention at that meeting you attended, the executive was a caretaker executive of Sinn Fein, upholding the Sinn Fein constitution. According to the Sinn Fein constitution in 1986 discussion of entering Leinster House was banned. Before Adams and Co. put forward a motion to enter Leinster House he needed to change that rule by a majority vote. He did not do this so his motion to enter Leinster House was breaking the existing Sinn Fein constitution. There was no question of O Bradaigh forming a new party - he preserved the old one in tact. The word Poblachtach was added to emphasise the republican beliefs of the party. This was not a new idea. It had been discussed in the early part of the 20th century when many republicans in Sinn Fein were dissatisfied with Aurthur Griffith's monarchist views. No doubt Mr. Adams considers small details like rules and constitutions a needless waste of time - but for lesser mortals they provide a structure which gives the ordinary party members a say in their party, and serves to contain the egoism and ambition of some of their leaders.

author by Mac Gearailt - Cumann na Saoirse Náisiúntapublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 17:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The original post is an accurate historical analysis of Sinn Féin. The Provisional political party using the name Sinn Féin broke the constitution of Sinn Féin, and broke from the republican tradition of Sinn Féin, in 1986. It is not numbers that define Sinn Féin. It is principles and political positions which define it; and the Provisional Movement has abandoned those defining principles and positions. It is not Sinn Féin, and ought to cease misusing and besmirching the name.

"There can be no such things as an Irish nationalist accepting the loyalist veto and partition. You cannot claim to be an Irish nationalist if you consent to an internal six county settlement and if you are willing to negotiate the state of Irish society with a foreign government."
- Gerry Adams, November 22 1984 (AP/RN)

"If at any time Sinn Féin decide to disown the armed struggle they won't have me as a member."
- Gerry Adams at the 1986 Ard Fheis

"There is those who tells us that the British Government will not be removed by armed struggle. As has been said before, the history of Ireland and of British colonial involvement throughout the world tells us that they will not be moved by anything else".
- Gerry Adams, 1986 (1986 Ard Fheis, AP/RN)

"Sadly, the inference that the removal of abstentionism would lead to the demise of military opposition to British rule has indeed called into question the committment of the IRA to pursue this struggle to a successful conclusion. I reject any such suggestion, and I reject the notion that entering Leinster House would mean an end to Sinn Féin's unapologetic support for the right of Irish people to oppose in arms the British forces of occupation. That, my friends, IS A PRINCIPLE which a minority in this hall might doubt, but which I believe all our opponents clearly understand. Or position is clear, and it will never, never, never change. The war against British rule must continue until freedom is achieved.
...we are told, among other things, that we are counter-revolutionaries, and that if we lose this vote, we will be discredited. It's sad and surprising that this could have been said by a Republican. The British government have a different opinion of us, however. They fear this movement. They fear this leadership. They have every right to fear us because, in or out of Leinster House, we lead the most dangerous and committed revolutionary force in Ireland for 65 years.
...Finally, those opposed to us on this issue know there isn't going to be any split in Sinn Féin. They also know that the ranks of the IRA contain a minority of Volunteers who, while opposed to the removal of abstentionism from Leinster House, have committed themselves to stand shoulder to shoulder in unity with our comrades. They will not split. They will not walk away from the armed struggle. They are the real revolutionaries. If you allow yourselves to be lead out of this hall today, the only place you're going is home. You will be walking away from the struggle. Don't go, my friends. We will lead you to the Republic."
- Martin McGuinness at the '86 Ard Fheis

"No Irish nationalist could support any treaty which institutionalizes British government claims to a part of Irish national territory. Indeed, the term - 'constitutional nationalism' - used by Mr.Mallon (SDLP) and his colleagues to describe their political philosophy is a contradiction in terms. The only constitutional nationalist in Ireland today is Sean McBride. He puts his nationalism within a framework of Irish constitutionality. Mr. Mallon, however, puts his within the framework of British constitutionality. Irish nationalism within British constitutionality is a contradiction in terms."
- Gerry Adams, 1986
("The Politics of Irish Freedom", Gerry Adams, Brandon Book Publishers, Ltd., Dingle, County Kerry, Ireland 1986, page 112, lines 26-35. NOTE: REMOVED FROM 1995 and 1996 EDITIONS).

[The Belfast Agreement] "upholds the Unionist veto".
- Gerry Adams, Provisional Ard Fheis, 1998.

"We want to do business with Ian Paisley. We would be quite pleased to vote for Ian Paisley as First Minister."
- Gerry Adams, September 17 2004 (Irish Independent)

“Republicans are prepared to work on an executive. We are really prepared to administer British rule in Ireland for the foreseeable future. The very principle of partition is accepted, and if the unionists had had that in the 1920s they would have been laughing” - Provo Francie Molloy (Sunday Times [Irish Edition], March 28)

"We will never be reconciled with British rule in Ireland nor will we accept any dilution of the national demand. The sovereignty and unity of the Irish Republic are inalienable and non-judicable. They can't be given away and are not a matter for reconsideration. They are absolute."
- Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, at the 1986 Ard Fheis

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 17:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I might also say Cliona, that by your own logic, members of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael who laughed at Gerry and Martin celebrating PSF's 100th ard fheis were right to laugh. By your logic Ruiri O Bradaigh also founded Provisional Sinn Fein - since he lead a minority of delegates out of a Sinn Fein Ard Fheis. It seems by your logic the only ones who have any real right to call them selves Sinn Fein are in the Labour party.

author by pat cpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 17:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

DL split from the WP. So its the WP who have the real franchise. All other groups split from them.

Collins in 1922.
Dev in 1926.
McBride in 1946.
O'Bradaigh in 1970.
Costello in 1974.
Harris in 1990 (took a few chiefs with him).
DeRossa 1992.

Republican Left and the ORM also split. Perhaps someone would give more details on them.

author by Tonypublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 18:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Republican Left and the ORM also split. Perhaps someone would give more details on them.

Not really true. There was a meeting of the ORM were it was proposed to organise a Party to be called Republican Left. It never happened, the ORM remain, although their activities are based largely on An Eochar, a OIRA ex prisoner group and little political activity. They organise an Easter Commemeration on Easter Monday in Belfast (Sunday at Milltown is booked out with all the vaious republican groups) and Easter Sunday in Newry. I would be more accurate to say RL was stillborn.

author by pat cpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 18:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I do remember RL operating as a group in Dublin. They supported Pro Choice events. Some of them are now in the ISN.

author by pat cpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 18:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I didnt mean that RL split from ORM or that those organisations had a split, whatever about members leaving. I meant that they had split from the WP.

author by Davy Carlinpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 18:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

{Some} of u Shinners? {If that is what u are} really need to move on from ‘everyone’s a Brit’ mantra and the ‘u are all idiots’ rants - u have towards anyone who has a differing view.

This attitude has 'grown in recent times – I have seen.

{If} it is really Shinner supporters, then it shows a lack of confidence in taking on the core points, I believe.

On the article itself I found it really interesting as I seek a deeper and more informed opinion within oneself on all aspects of the Republican Movement {s} and SF{s} - etc.

Similar as I am doing in relation to Anarchism, in detail.

Indeed in all aspects of life starting of from youth and the questioning of Religion, I have always sought my own answers – eventually – as most such ‘organisations I have found have always got self interest as its primacy , however subtle or ‘otherwise - it shows.

More especially if one believes they are on the ‘back foot

I have to say though that while I hold disagreements with Republicans on a 'number of posts though, I have found, by and large, that the 32, RSF and IRSP{cadre} provide a more 'respectful avenue for debate here on Indymedia {by and large}.

Saying that I believe that such activists should not let themseves be provoked as so to 'bite back' - - - as the 'Provokers {whomever they are} will have already lost the argument and debate anyhows by their 'input.

Although there are a number of Shinners who do engage with ‘respect held for others rights to hold differing views, - I do see a trend of ‘attack ‘attack setting in more overtly in recent times, this in various areas of activism and also with 'newer cadre.

Personally I have found recent debates and discussions on Republicanism - the Hunger Strikes - Collusion etc interesting and informative - and got to see others points of views which, on many occasions, are not given the chance to be aired either through main stream censorship of attempted 'tarring'

Such debates on Republicanism etc are good and persons from my generation and younger who were but kids during much of such periods can get to hear such points from those involved at the time rather than having to trawl through, in part, ' eventual revisionist books and articles

Therefore such debates and discussion are indeed essential, and for those who carry them out in that ‘respectful way, well I believe that other activists are more prone to both listen to what u are saying and to take things onboard - as apposed to that of those who ‘attack as so to ‘seemingly wish to avoid the question in hand.

Having experienced such over the last year or two with the SWP, I have come to understand that most such organisation’s Cadre can be like that – more especially if they feel if their organisation is under ‘attack’

Whatever the case I am finding this thread both interesting and informative and hope the RSF and SF experienced heads {and others}, if they are to debate, do debate in a way which realises that others who grew up in such recent times are interested in hearing ‘all sides’ as so to make up their own minds as to the merits of the ‘Claim to the mantle’ of 1916 and ‘True Republicanism etc – as had been done for some within the 81- Hunger -strike debate etc which had seen an interesting {the end?} article by Danny Morrison in the Andytwon news in recent times.

Again, and in that regard - whether or not one agrees with Danny Morrison, the way though he engaged and now sets out his arguments, one is far more likely to read and listen to what he has to say and be moved towards his point of view on a specific matter –

A lesson?

Just a few thoughts-

PS – Ain’t the weather great for a change!!! – ATB - D

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 19:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Davy you are right - Republicans cutting each others throats is not a pretty sight and it dosnt help anyone except those who support the continued British occupation in Ireland. I think you'll find that one of the main reason provisional contributors tend to just slag off RSF rather than engage in debate - DOD is an honourable exception - is that they are on shaky idealogical ground in this debate. The reason for this is that while they have embraced British constitutional politics, they have not rejected their revolutionary origins. On the one hand they say they recognise and adhere to British and free state law, while at the same time they maintain a party militia which British law says is illegal. According to British and free state law Bobby Sands was a criminal - and yet PSF still say the British and free state parliments have no right to make such a law. It seems that only the Army Council of PIRA has the right to say one of its volunteers is a criminal. This means that PSF still regards the army council of PIRA as a higher authority than the British or free state parliments. The PSF mayor of Kerry reciently said that she did not have the authority to condemn the killing of Gerry McCabe - even though the IRA green book outlaws engaging free state forces militarily. Sitting between these two stools is becoming harder and harder and PSF are an easy target for the right wing media and traditional republicans.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 19:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

By the way Cliona, how does a party that still dosnt exist set up a caretaker executive? And who ever heard of a caretaker executive founding the party which set it up?

author by mepublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 20:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You are all fools.

The objective of the Irish people is to overthrow the British Imperialists from Ireland.

These wee groups could easily be set up by the Brits to divert us away from the struggle.

author by bright sparkpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 20:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

?
answers on a postcard.

author by Noel Carmodypublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 20:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"In 1902, Arthur Griffith, Editor of the United Irishman, presented to the third annual convention of Cumann na nGaedheal the most revolutionary political idea since the fall of Parnell"

this is an over statement if i ever heard one."

Yet without abstention would we have seen the mass popular struggle of the 1920's? Perhaps you feel revolution comes thru having a disco on the streets, "reclaiming" it somehow? Perhaps if young people wear enough black and deface a statue to Connolly, the system shall change? Does economic and national liberation come out of leinster house? How?

Abstention should be as the only way in which Revolutionaries work. Not just for Republicans, but for Anarchists and Socialist as well. How could it be possible to change the system for within? Abstention is the key step to organising mass protests.

2 excerpts from Seaghán Ó Murchú 's review of the RO"B biography http://lark.phoblacht.net/SOM0905064g.html

"
Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in Poor People's Movements: How They Succeed, Why They Fail reveal: weaker parties gain from disrupting the political process. Elites may respond with repression and destruction of protest. Or, they may make concessions if they cannot easily defuse the disruption. But the key for success is that the weaker party remains weaker! White paraphrases that 'short of a revolutionary situation, protesters may force a government to respond but they cannot dictate the nature of the response.' (290) Concessions by the elite seek to lure the protesters into 'normal political channels' so its leaders are absorbed 'into stable institutional roles.' White shows how this trapped the SDLP on this route once they abandoned absentionism and entered Stormont in 1974. They endorsed the statelet's collection of overdue rents and rates. They consented to their co-option. Meanwhile, internment continued. This example may seem tangential in a biography. Only one other time does White bring in comparative political scholarship. But this also clarifies RÓB. Adams and McGuinness and Morrison laughed at the 'suits' who represented the stuffy geezers and Fenian worshippers rather than the denim-clad fist-raising proles. White carefully contends that RÓB would and has proved to be the more committed, uncompromising, radical. As far back as the mid-1960s, RÓB foresaw that the Marxists could cause a split. But, in the meantime, hoping that this division could be resisted, he decided to work with his comrades, no matter their allegiance, to further the militant along with the political cause. When the breaks came in 1970 as in 1986, RÓB considered himself the truer radical. So convinced is RÓB of his ideals that he would rather wait for a wider revolution one day that could transform Ireland rather than enable constitutional efforts that only prop up an unjust, capitalist, and voracious status quo."

and..

"White cites Rosa Luxemburg and Richard Michels. Michels presents the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy' that crushed socialist leaders of the early twentieth century. These radicals, (White notes how Adams and his defenders had in their earlier Marxist phase demanded abolition of all Irish private property--against RÓB's reminder that even in Eastern Europe some privatisation was still allowed and defensible within a humane and compassionate socialism that refused the class-based, and demonstrably sectarian in its application, rigidity of his Northern working-class opponents) once they had organised and attained power, could not give it up. The radicals became respectable. Their positions had to be maintained, their perks sustained. Power never returned to the people in whose name the socialists had gained their votes and earned their party's victory.

Rosa Luxemburg in Revolution or Reform criticised reformers who promised to destroy the legislatures they entered vowing to defeat: 'Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for the modification of the old society."

Republican Sinn Fein seek the establishment of that new society though Eire Nua. They know that only the people can bring genuine change, not parliaments.

author by Carmody againpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 21:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Very intresting qoutes there, Mac Gearailt. as anybody with an honest bone in their body can see, only one man quoted kept his word. Only one polical organisation has stayed the course and stood by the Republic.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 08, 2006 22:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The contribution of "by me" is such a lovely example of the inability of some provisionals to analyse thyemselves or anything around them - beyond these kind of soccer hooligan chants.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 02:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I was interested to see in Mac Gearailt's excellent compilation, that Martain McGuiness said at the 1986 ard fheis that he would lead sinn fein to the Republic. It seems that even in 1986 McGuiness did not understand the Republican position, i.e. that the Republic has existed since it was declaired in 1916 and that the function of IRA volunteers is to defend it - not to create it. Men like O Bradaigh were already part of the Republic - they did not need to be lead to it.

author by Reality checkpublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 08:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

“Leading the blind by Donnchadh
It seems that even in 1986 McGuiness did not understand the Republican position, i.e. that the Republic has existed since it was declaired in 1916 and that the function of IRA volunteers is to defend it - not to create it. Men like O Bradaigh were already part of the Republic - they did not need to be lead to it.”


Thank you Donnchadh.

There we have it everyone. The oppressed nationalist minority in the north was not living under the British imperial jackboot. They were living in “the Republic” all the time. What fools the unionists and the Brits are, thinking they held the six counties for the Empire.

As, for the south, the Free State never existed, neither did the Civil War. The republic declared in 1949, that 99.99% think they have been living in since: that is part of a parallel and meaningless 'reality'.

When Martin McGuinness said that “the Republic”, meaning a 32 County state, needed to become a reality for the people of the Six and 26 Counties, he was clearly deluding himself. Why, it already existed. Ruari O’Bradaigh, sitting not far from Martin in the same room, lived in it, or rather it lived in him – truly an idealist (I think the Republic,, therefore it is!). If everyone could just think like Ruari (and Donnchadh) the problem would be solved.

(Donnchadh, you say you want to debate. To do that you need to put up an argument that connects what you want to achieve with practical achievable means of attaining it.)

author by Donnchadhpublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 14:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dear Reality Check, because the territory of the Republic is occupied does not imply that it has ceased to exist. The territory of the Republic was occupied in 1916 and in 1918 when the first 32 county Dail Eireann convined. Maybe you believe that Pearse, De Valera etc were just living a fantasy and that British Imperial might is the only reality.

author by bright sparkpublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 16:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

at the top of this article it is clearly written that Arthur Griffith wanted a seperate kingdom of Ireland and that was the position of the first, only and true Sinn Fein.

who did Sinn Fein want as King?

author by pat cpublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 17:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think they wanted some German Prince to take the throne. Ludwig the not so mad.

author by Mac Gearailt - Cumann na Saoirse Náisiúntapublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 19:26author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Bright Spark, it also states that "the big change in Sinn Féin came in the Árd Fheis of 1917, when the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) under the guidance of Michael Collins and the Irish Volunteers under Cathal Brugha, caused Sinn Féin to change its policy from monarchist to republican abstention", that founder Arthur Griffith voluntarily stepped down to make way for deValera, and that "this was the Sinn Féin which contested the general election of 14 December 1918, promising to NOT represent their constituents or their country in the mighty Westminster Parliament in London, but rather to set up, without foreign let or hindrance, a Republican assembly which would form an Irish government for Ireland".
The adoption of a republican constitution was universally accepted by party members. There was no split in 1917, and so there is no debate as to whether this new constitution created a new party. It was Sinn Féin, and it was this (republican) Sinn Féin which stood in the 1918 General Election.
This is the important legacy. The dual-monarchist position of a nascent SF is an interesting historical footnote, and nothing more.

author by heartbroken - nonepublication date Fri Jun 09, 2006 22:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors



Recently a friend and I reflected not only on the defeat the provisionals have delivered to Irish Republicanism but the humiliation and shame they have brought on themselves in the process.

My friend reflected" all they are short of doing is appointing Thatcher an honoury member of the adams "think tank"/ard comhairle or telling the "sheep" she is a figure to learn from"- i smiled sadly and we moved on.

A few days ago I learned that Adams visiting the Basque country said the following " the beginning of the irish peace process could not have happened without the support of the Tories in Britain" (see Newshound of this week ).

The first years of the process adams refers to saw M. Thatcher as leader of the Tories.

I feel sick. I would appeal to members of the provisionals leave this organisation.

author by Sharon - Individualpublication date Sat Jun 10, 2006 02:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In connection with 'the first years of the process' :

' In what they called their "Position Document' to the SDLP , (P) Sinn Fein stated - "Sinn Fein is totally opposed to a power-sharing Stormont Assembly and we state that there cannot be a partitionist solution . Stormont is not a stepping stone to Irish unity ." '
- 'The Irish Times' newspaper , 7th September 1988 , page 7 .

Perhaps Mrs. Thatcher and the Tories later convinced Mr. Adams and Company otherwise .

Sharon .

Related Link: http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com
author by wise uppublication date Sat Jun 10, 2006 13:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Gerry Adams did not say that. Here is the link to the nuzhound story:

http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24/noticia/en/politics...ma=en

PS. Would the peelers stop posting stupid comments on here.

author by wise uppublication date Sat Jun 10, 2006 13:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If you want to start shooting Brits - noone is stopping you.

All these comments are just about Sinn Féin. None about the Brits.

"Sharon", why are you sitting on the internet all day instead of buying guns and coming to Ireland to to kill the Brits?

I must assume that you are a Brit or just messed up in the head with nothing better to do.

author by Sharon - Individualpublication date Sat Jun 10, 2006 14:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

' Reply to "Sharon"
by wise up Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:36
If you want to start shooting Brits - noone is stopping you.'

Are you , yourself , in favour of an armed campaign ? Or would you see it as 'dissidents with no support attempting to damage the peace process' ?

' All these comments are just about Sinn Féin. None about the Brits.'
The Provisionals are part-financed by Westminster (salaries and expenses) - the comments here reflect that fact .

' "Sharon", why are you sitting on the internet all day instead of buying guns and coming to Ireland to to kill the Brits? '
I am not "on the internet all day" , as the low level of posts from me on this Forum will confirm , and I live on this isle : in Clondalkin , Dublin , actually ! BTW - I am born , bred and reared in Dublin , in case you now imply that I am a 'blow-in' .

' I must assume that you are a Brit or just messed up in the head with nothing better to do. '
No - not "a Brit " , and no more "messed up in the head " than , I presume , you are - but I , too , have a political interest in the way this isle should be goverened and , again , like yourself , am capable of voicing my opinions on this Forum . In regards to having "nothing better to do " : this weekend alone , RSF is running a large draw in the Clondalkin area whilst holding its Bodenstown commemoration three or four miles up the road . Plenty to do ! Do you want to lend a hand ... ;-) ?

Sharon .

Related Link: http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com
author by terrierpublication date Sat Jun 10, 2006 20:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Not even Ludwig the not so mad. The one & true SF never really thought seriously of offering the monarchy of Ireland under the intellectual or constitutional framework of "dual monarchy" (by which the party began) to any European prince. In fact the British king/emperor would continue.

There were 3 "kings"
George V (1922-Jan. 1936)
[technically George V assumed the title "King of Ireland" in 1927 which got around his being head of state of both the Free State and Ulster]
Edward VIII (Jan. 1936) (he abdicated)
George VI (Dec. 1936-1937) thats when De Valera got his bunreacht in.

Mr o'Higgins played a role in this too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_the_Irish_Free...State

author by Mac Gearailt - Cumann na Saoirse Náisiúntapublication date Sat Jun 10, 2006 23:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sinn Féin "proposed the establishment of an independent republic, after which the people could decide whether they wanted a monarchy or republic, subject to the condition that if they chose a monarchy, no member of the British Royal Family could serve as monarch."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in

author by terrier - "quite shagged out at this stage"publication date Sun Jun 11, 2006 00:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

So it seems there was a stage in the Wagnerian history of Sinn Fein where republicanism was embraced or if not actually embraced and put to a big meeting and voted on and debated..... it became the lasting strategy, hmmmmm.............to be more precise it wasn't embraced - it just "sort of happened"................... ???
This is very significant for understanding the course & development of Irish nationalism in the XX century. Griffith was never really a monarchist, & between 1905 and 1916 we are not left many examples of Irish monarchist positions or praxis. But we must recognise a pragmatism in Griffith's "hungarian position" in that it played to many members of the Irish National or Home Rule party then at Westminster of organising throughout the island. We can not either quickly dismiss the "monarchist pragmatism" or "route to republicanism" questions when considering the Free State, the Civil War, the Oath of Allegiance, the continuation of Partition, the peculiarity of the Bunreacht, the declaration of the "Republic" by the drunken FG delegates to Canada in the post war period ----- right up to today.
The parties to Irish self-determination debated the fine points of what "Ireland" they wanted, they left little doubt of what "nation" they intended to create - but they saw precious little attention given to what the "r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c" meant or was going to mean. Which is why I always ask people to think about it - & how to explain it - & how to reclaim it - not just thinking it was a divine covenant handed down at Easter '16.

:-) "Leopold the not so mad". why really Pat. ;-)

author by Donnchadhpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 03:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think the 1916 Proclaimation and the Democratic Program of the First 32 county Dail Eireann give a very clear indication of where the Republic could have gone before the British created counter revolution usurped it and unleashed the horrors of partition, stormont and the free state.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2020 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy