full report on the geography of fenianism · full report on the geography of fenianism background...

Full Report on the Geography of Fenianism � Background There has been significant interest in the historical roots of terrorism since the trauma of 9/11. There has also been a good deal of attention paid to the responses made by states to terrorist threats. In particular, the extent to which states suspend normal civil liberties has received close attention in light of anti-terror manoeuvres by the United States. As people grapple with these issues, there has been intense interest in the work of Giorgio Agamben.1 This is because Agamben focuses on the exercise of sovereignty through suspending the protections of the law and something like this seems to be happening with many responses to terrorism. Derek Gregory has raised these issues from the perspective of geographical research.2 I have been working for some time on Irish nationalism and have published on the Young Ireland movement of the 1840s.3 I have also studied the relations between Irish nationalism and the cosmopolitan ideologies of feminism and literary modernism.4 I am working towards an account of three spatial models of national identity: nation, diaspora, and cosmopolis. The Fenian moment in Irish nationalism (c.1858-1922) raises questions both about terrorism and about diaspora for this movement was significantly sustained by the resources and ambitions of Irish-America. Perhaps these two aspects (the diaspora and the use of terror) are related. � Objectives The experience of the British state in policing Irish terrorism in both the nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries has rarely been made the subject of inquiry in Political Geography outside the works of Jim McLaughlin, James Anderson, and Pete Shirlow.5 I decided that it would be helpful to take up the story of Irish violent republicanism from this perspective of a geographical reading of Agamben. This resolves into three objectives. First, to provide a geographical reading of Agamben in the context of colonialism. Second, to see what this means for an understanding of the relations between Ireland and Britain both in the colonial period and during the renewed terrorism of the 1970s-1990s. Third, to see how we might study the geographical roots of terrorism in the context of the Irish diaspora. I think that in my translation of Agamben’s notion of states of exception into the related geographical notion of ‘spaces of exception’, I have made explicit something that was poorly developed in Agamben’s theory, viz. the role of territoriality in the operation of ‘exceptional’ measures such as the ‘ban’, or the suspension of ‘habeas corpus’. I would argue, further, that by relating these ‘spaces of exception’ to the process of colonialism I have proposed a significant revision of the relations between exception and sovereignty. I think that in my discussion of colonial and postcolonial spaces of exception I have identified some important paradoxes in the nature of relations between Britain and Ireland. However, this has raised questions both about Irish Republicanism in Britain, and about the nature of the legal geography of Britain and Ireland in the 1970s-90s that require more work. There is surprisingly little secondary work on either of these topics yet they are important to the ambitious argument I want to make. I believe that by developing an account of diasporic politics in terms of experiences, resources, networks, diplomacy, performance and ideology, I have found a way of describing more precisely how the diaspora produces its effects within nationalist movements. Previous accounts have focused in the main upon resources and ideology but have paid little attention to the

To cite this output: Kearns, Gerry(2007). The Geography of Fenianism: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-0499. Swindon: ESRC

importance of new experiences in new places nor has there been adequate attention to the diasporic mechanisms of networks, diplomacy and peformance. � Methods The first feature of this research is the attempt to operationalise the theoretical work of Giorgio Agamben. I have described how I did this in a chapter in a book on research methods in historical geography.6 Broadly speaking, by looking for the invocation of exceptions to normal law, we get evidence, I would suggest, of the state under stress. In this, I take from Agamben a methodology but not a conclusion, for Agamben sees the suspension of normal law as a sign of sovereign power whereas in my research I came to see it as a weakness deriving from lack of popular legitimacy. The second aspect of my research was an extended search of both published and unpublished materials that might throw light upon diasporic politics in terms of experience, resources, networks, diplomacy, performance and ideology. Unpublished works (There is a list of the main archival sources used in Appendix 1) The most helpful unpublished materials for my purposes proved to be the materials gathered as part of the policing of the Fenian movement. The main holding of these is in the National Archives of Ireland, in Dublin. The second main sets of materials are what we might call the business papers of the movement. This includes correspondence about the organisation together with membership and subscription lists. Many of these materials survived and are now in the collections relating to prominent Fenians held, mainly, in Cork and Dublin. Published worksIn Dublin, Cork, London and Washington, I found Irish nationalist newspapers. I examined them most intensively in two ways. First, data on the Dynamite Fund was abstracted from the Irish World (Colindale, London). In the second place, Irish newspapers (Dublin and Cork) and Irish-American newspapers (Washington and London) were read intensively for the periods around the three main Fenian funerals I studied (Terrence Bellew McManus, 1861; John O’Mahony, 1877; Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa, 1915). In addition to the many published works on the movement by Fenians and former Fenians, I found much relevant data in the published accounts of the various meetings of the Fenian Brotherhood that I found in the Library of Congress, Washington. � Results Theoretical perspectives It is, certainly, possible to operationalise Agamben’s theory of sovereignty. I have given an extended illustration in a paper that explored the various geographical spaces of exception created by British rule in Ireland.7 Doing so, however, raised various questions about Agamben’s own account of sovereignty. Broadly speaking, Agamben sees sovereignty as having had more or less the same character since classical times. The sovereign is the person who exercises power not by following the law but by being the only one who can suspend the law in order to exercise power. The fullest elaboration of sovereignty is, for Agamben, rule through this suspension and it is normally visited upon particular categories of subjects. In this respect, Agamben has paid particular attention to the concentration camp as the place where citizens, stripped of political rights, become merely biological subjects, ultimately no more than bare life. Yet, the exercise of the exception by the British in Ireland was most characteristic of periods and places where British sovereignty was most questioned. The normal rule of law failed because Irish people


would not accept it–as jurors, witnesses, or accused criminals. The exception was the form in which a virtual sovereignty was exercised in a colonial context where suspension was the only way law could be asserted at all. I have developed this set of ideas about the relations between colonialism and the suspension of law in two papers on the current war on terror.8 These reflections have led me to think about a more formal comparison of British-Irish relations in the last thirds of the nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries respectively. I am working to develop a contrast between colonial and post-colonial spaces of exception but I have more work to do before I can justify the somewhat surprising conclusions I am developing about the paradoxes behind both sets of exception in the British-Irish case. In terms of my first two objectives (about Agamben and colonialism; and about spaces of exception in Britain and Ireland), then, I feel I have met the first and have prepared the ground for a more ambitious assault on the second. Diasporic politics The third of my objectives was basically to answer the question: what contribution did the diaspora make to the evolution of Irish nationalism. My first contribution was to break this question down into six dimensions although they are certainly related.

1. Experience The emigration of people out of Ireland during and after the Famine was unprecedented in scale. All who left Ireland at this time were marked by that trauma as, of course, were the survivors they left behind. In the United States, there were at least four significant shapers of Irish experience that carried significance for their engagement with nationalism. In the first place, the Irish were exposed to the prejudice of others who figured their Irishness as a disability. The so-called ‘Know-nothings’, who besmirched the Irish as unreliable foreigners in Anglo-Saxon North America, were the focus of particular Irish resentment in the 1840s and 1850s.9 In the second place, the Irish were subject to much less close priestly control in the USA than in Ireland or Britain. In the third place, the Irish were full citizens in many parts of the USA. Addressing political exiles from Ireland in 1871, John Boyle O’Reilly welcomed them to ‘the blessings of free government in a prosperous land’.10 This experience of freedom was profound. The English catholic Cardinal Manning blamed Irish disaffection in Britain at least in part upon the influence of their American cousins: ‘a population in close kindred and living sympathy with millions who have tasted civil and religious equality, and are thriving under the laws of the United States’.11 Finally, the experience of the Irish in the US army was very important. They were able to rise to levels of command denied to them in the British army and they were also steeled by their service during the bloody Civil War. These themes were well attested in the police materials I examined. The undercover detective Desmond Ryan urged the retention in prison of one Fenian ‘as he had served in the American Army, and as I believe that the men who served in the Army were by far the most difficult to contend with’.12 More prosaically another Irishman was bound over to keep the peace after drunkenly shouting ‘To H-ll with the Queen & British Government. I am an American’.13 Returning from the McManus funeral in Dublin in 1861, Captain Smith reminded an audience in Philadelphia; ‘Irishmen at home are bound hand and foot. You here are free (loud cheers), and you have at your disposal all the means necessary for their deliverance (loud cheers)’.14

There were much tighter constraints on political and military activity in England but some of the Fenians arrested in Ireland had experience in either the British army or in the British militia. John Lennon, for example, was in the Liverpool Volunteers where he learned to use a gun, as his friend noted in writing to him from London: ‘I am glad to hear that you got promoted in the Volunteers and I hope you like them. I never had a fancy for them nor don’t care for joining them but for all that I would like to know how to use the Rifle that would be the only thing that


could induce me to be a volunteer. I might require it to help to drive the Saxons out of Ireland’.15 Others were uncomfortable about swearing an oath of allegiance to the British crown even for the purpose of acquiring the martial skills to unseat it. Another of Lennon’s friends wrote to him: ‘If I was you John I would get out of the Brigade as soon as possible. I don’t like taking that oath of allegiance’.16 The relationships among this group of young Dublin men, making their way in England and gradually taking up the Fenian cause, can be established in some detail because Lennon’s correspondence was taken when he was arrested in Dublin to whence he had returned in pursuit of Fenian action. Many of the letters seem to express things in code as if they feared their letters might be intercepted but at other times their frank republicanism is evident. There are several such sets of correspondence in the police files.

Not all Irish nationalists admired the effects of American freedom upon their compatriots. The Irish Fenian leader, John O’Leary, found them arrogant: ‘They fancy themselves growing smart almost with the air they breathe, and feel as if they had become free by that declaration of independence which is forever floating about the moral atmosphere’.17 One of the leaders of American Fenianism was John O’Mahony and he, for one, was frequently caustic about the style of nationalism developing among the Irish in America: ‘I am sick of Irish Catholics in America. I am sick of Yankee-doodle twaddle, Yankee-doodle selfishness and all Yankee-doodledum! […] Irish tinsel patriots, the people’s leaders on gala days’.18 Others noted the extravagance of rhetoric that developed in the United States. For example, Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa although known as a firebrand himself was exasperated with Irish-American demands that he accept nothing less than an unconditional pardon before leaving British prison: ‘By jove they are spunky … I have met hundreds of men who would die for Ireland and have often lamented my own deficiency in this respect. I could never work myself up to more than a resolution to risk life’.19 It is clear that Irish-Americans were more likely to support radical than moderate measures. Charles Parnell found that while he could raise in America funds for radical action demanding Irish land reform, he was much less successful when he shifted to a campaign in favour of the merely constitutional Home Rule.20

2. ResourcesOne of my principal aims was to document the ways the diaspora sustained Irish nationalism both at home and abroad. Table 1 in Appendix 2 is derived from statistics presented by John Savage to the Annual Convention of the Fenian Brotherhood of North America.21 From other statistics reported in the Irish People (9 June 1866), we can (see Table 2, appendix) be more precise about the chronology of support during these first years of the Fenian conspiracy.22 It is striking that the rate of fund-raising appears to rise and fall with the perceived likelihood of rebellion, being particularly high in mid 1867. However, the achievement of the early period when, over some seven years, O’Mahony managed to send to Ireland about £9,000 per year is particularly impressive. It is also striking that this early period was the one when the movement retained least for its own use within the United States. This raises two possibilities that need further research to disentangle. Either, contributors did not realise that very little of their donation reached Ireland or they were happy with what the movement was doing, locally and for them. It is likely that Comerford’s argument that Fenianism was principally a recreational sport rather than a serious political commitment holds more water for North America than for Ireland or Britain.23

There is a wide range of sources that bear upon the question of the geography of support for Fenianism within the United States. I have concentrated on the early period but I would like to take the story through to 1916 in future research. Table 3 in the appendix gives some details for these early activities. In Table 4 the amounts raised by each State or Territory are expressed as their share of the national total and in Table 5 this in turn is expressed in ratio to the share that each unit had of the national Irish-born population.


The first great national call was for the funeral of Terrence Bellew McManus. He had been one of the most important rebels in 1848 and when he died in San Francisco in relative penury, the strong sense of his sacrifice for Ireland (he had been a very wealthy merchant in Liverpool) moved many to suggest that he should be returned for burial in Dublin.24 Of some $4,000 raised to fund this, about one half came from New York and one quarter from California. Only Indiana and New Hampshire contributed at beyond the rate implied by their share of the national Irish-born population. The second data-set relates to some $8,429 raised as part of the first of what were to be many ‘Final Calls’, one last effort to raise money before the insurrection in Ireland was to be hazarded.25 The dominance of New York is much reduced here and a genuinely national movement is developing. This can also be seen by the spread of Fenian groups, or circles, represented at the Fenian Brotherhood Convention of 1865.26 By 1866, the movement had become more militant, at least for some. The disaffected Fenian, General Millen, gave the British consul in the United States a detail account of the 90 Fenian circles, out of about 1,000 in existence, who made a return of men willing to fight in Ireland.27 This list was dominated by men living in Massachusetts. Indeed the movement at this time was split both ideologically and regionally. There was a group, in Chicago, who wanted to move from a secret society, characteristic of rural Ireland, to an open conspiracy more in keeping with American values of democracy. This Chicago group planned an attack upon British interests in Canada hoping to draw the United States into the fight. The support for this Senate group was industrial and mid-Western as revealed by the places they raised money and to which they sent guns for the raid on Canada.28 In contrast, the Fenians who continued to organise for the invasion of Ireland raised most of their funds from the established centres on the east coast.29 Both wings of the movement raised very little for Ireland during the time that the movement was in fact at its greatest strength back home, about 1865.

When the insurrection in Ireland seemed most likely, 1865, the British government suspended Habeas Corpus and made hundreds of arrests. The details of those arrests made under the suspension act–in other words, arrests where no charge was laid–were collected in a series of ledgers held at the National Archives of Ireland.30 From these ledgers, I have derived a detailed picture of those individuals that the British authorities, and they were at this time very well informed, believed to be important. It is clear that the conspiracy in Ireland was sustained in the main part by local activists (see Table 6 in the Appendix). About three-quarters of those arrested were Irish residents, one-sixth were from the United States and only one-tenth from Britain. In March 1866, Millen, the Fenian leader, gave to the British consul in the United, a very detailed account of Fenianism in Ireland and Britain.31 Millen’s information about Ireland was based on the visits of agents from the United States but his knowledge of Scotland was sketchier and of England thinner still. He believed there to be 3,360 Fenians in the British army. He knew of 645 civilian Fenians in Scotland. His figure for England was based alone on Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool and excluded London, which from other materials was an important focus of the conspiracy. Nevertheless the comparison between the 5,500 he reports for England and the 64,936 for Ireland indicates just how dominant were Irish residents in the movement. Before the arrests of 1865, Devoy, who was organising them, claimed that of 26,000 British soldiers in Britain and Ireland, 8,000, or half the Irish contingent, were sworn Fenians.32

After the arrests, after the conspiracy had been thoroughly revealed, the rump of the organisation made a rising in 1868 that failed badly. Many more were arrested and many exiled, some were convicted and served time in British prisons. The revival of the movement began in the late 1870s. Rossa and his Skirmishing (or Dynamite) Fund was central. The enthusiasm with which this was taken up is evident.33 Under Rossa, the fund raised about $20,000 in under a year. In total between 1876 and 1882 the Skirmishing Fund raised $78,000.34 This was a genuinely mass movement. The majority of contributions were for exactly one dollar, and more were for


less than this than for more (see Table 7 in Appendix). In terms of geographical spread (see column 11 in Tables 3 to 5), there was a very wide spread of contributions. Indeed, if anything this was the least New York focused of any of the campaigns I have examined. Rossa had hoped this would be a census of the Irish in America and from hundreds of places they sent their mite. This appeal reached places that had not been previously organised by Fenianism and reveals both the intense hatred felt for Britain among so many Irish-Americans and the desire to see some action against Britain. Rossa promised to spend the money on dynamite and boasted that he had men ready to go and plant it. And he did and he had. The bombing campaign of the 1880s is an under-studied episode in the global history of terrorism. Its roots were among this widely spread anger.

The revival of belief in the movement had benefits beyond this fund raising. In the United States people began joining again the secret conspiracies. But not really in Ireland and Britain. In 1875, with 30,000 in Ireland and 5,000 in Britain, the movement had fallen back from the levels of the 1860s. It did not really recover. Falling to 20,500 and 1,500 respectively in 1878 before recovering to perhaps 30,000 once more in Ireland by 1879. Attention shifted to economic rather than political struggles. There were perhaps only 1,500 in the Irish Republican Brotherhood in 1912.35 Yet between 1912 and 1916 the American branch of the movement multiplied members and fundraising. However, this last part of the story I have yet to research in detail.

3. Networks Irish nationalism was like many other European nationalisms in relying heavily upon newspapers as the basis of its imagined community. The paper was also the main source of income for the major figures in Fenianism. Newspapers gave the movement visibility and in this way encouraged fundraising and recruiting. Much of the correspondence that was seized when Fenians were arrested concerned their newspapers. There is a particularly interesting set of letters sent to James O’Connor who worked in Dublin for the Irish People, the Irish Fenian paper that was the focus of the local movement in the mid 1860s. One correspondent from his native Clonakilty warns him: ‘There is a difficulty in getting the paper in to circulation and it requires matter of local interest to stimulate it’.36 Communications were awkward and subject to interception. Fenians experimented with invisible ink, with code-words and with envoys as a way of holding together their trans-Atlantic conspiracy. It is striking how important was personal recognition. Michael Doheny, for example, escaped from Ireland because at the time, in 1849, that he absconded, the only detectives who knew his face were already in court testifying against other rebels.37 It was for this reason that in 1865 the British began photographing the Fenian suspects and sending copies of the mug-shots to British and Ireland ports whenever they were searching for one they had previously held in custody. Interestingly, the notes in the ledger on the Suspension of Habeas Corpus make it clear that although few prisoners knew it, they had the right to refuse to accept being photographed. The diasporic nature of the movement made the circulation of newspapers and photographs more important since the face-to-face knowledge of local communities was no longer the basis of politics.

4. Diplomacy The meeting of the Fenian Brotherhood in Chicago in 1863 was very important. Many who attended wore the uniform of the Union army in which they were currently serving. Lincoln gave the Irish soldiers leave to attend the convention.38 The British government was angry that the government of the United States seemed content to let the Fenian ‘Senate’ operate as a sort of government in exile. The Fenians declared the Irish Republic ‘virtually established’ at this Convention.39 This was an important innovation and it justified the Irish Republic Brotherhood issuing bonds secured against the resources of the future Irish Republic. These forms were vital


to the self confidence of the movement and carried right through to the establishment of the First Dail (or Parliament) in Ireland during war against Britain as way of contesting British sovereignty. In 1867 Fenians in London issued their own socialist ‘Proclamation of the Irish Republic’.40

The fact that Fenianism was an international organisation had significant consequences. It meant, for example, that the British attempts to control the movement were made more difficult. The British could not control the American press. Fenian leaders met in Paris and other European cities so that surveillance would be more difficult than in Britain or Ireland.41 The materials on the Habeas Corpus prisoners give repeated evidence of the British consul in Washington receiving representations from the American government on behalf of American citizens held in Irish or British jails. For example, the notes on Francis Bastable refer to a ‘letter from British Consul in America saying that he is a native born US citizen’.42

5. Performance The dynamite campaign of the 1880s was very obviously a performative act being based on the anarchist idea that striking one dramatic blow will inspire supporters and also force the state to reveal its true colours in the intemperate response to which it would be drawn. Certainly, Fenians, in refusing to accept that they were common rather than political prisoners, drew upon themselves ill-treatment that itself made their time in jail a political performance. In this way, the injustice of the British regime in Ireland was broadcast to Irish people throughout the diaspora and the iconic status of Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa was established through these reports. Performance was also central in showing the scale of the movement. When, in October 1876, American Fenians from the Clan-na-Gael approached the Russian ambassador in Washington for support in their struggle against British occupation of Ireland, they were told that the Russian impression was that ‘the Irish only seemed to be seeking minor reforms, and that public officials never failed to present loyal addresses to English Royal Princes when they visited Ireland’.43 This prompted the Fenians to involve themselves with local politics so that such public events as royal visits could be made the occasion for expressing more radical views.

In the early 1860s Fenian fundraisers in the United States were having difficulty persuading their local compatriots that there was still a nationalist movement in Ireland worth supporting. Meanwhile in Ireland, members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood were having difficulty convincing potential recruits that the Irish in America would indeed support them should they stage a rising. The funerals of McManus, in San Francisco (twice), in New York, in Cork and in Dublin were enthusiastic affairs reported in the American, British and Irish press. I have examined these reports. One Protestant newspaper delighted in the support shown to McManus in America because this made clear ‘that emigration has been of service to Ireland in more respects than one’.44 The veteran of Young Ireland, John Mitchel, wrote in very different fashion from Paris to the Irish American, suggesting that the main purpose in sending the body and a delegation back to Ireland was ‘to judge, according to the spirit in which they would be received, how a deputation of some ten thousand living rebels would be regarded if they should happen to come over on some early day to aid the people of our island in uprooting the British government and sweeping the last vestiges of it into the sea’.45 For this funeral, and for the comparable funerals of John O’Mahony (New York, Cork and Dublin in 1877) and Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa (New York and Dublin in 1915), I have examined newspaper accounts to see how the Irish in the United States and Ireland presented themselves to each other by means of parade and speech. I have plotted the routes taken by the processions and find that in 1915, these were, in both New York and Dublin, more ambitious in their track venturing far outside ‘safe’ territory as if in assertion of new self-confidence.


6. Ideology I am developing the idea of politics as ‘diasporic theatre’ and trying to specify how this

shaped the ideology of nationalism. I have noted above the extent to which many Irish-Americans needed to see action before they would contribute to the movement. I have also noted the extent to which Fenians tried to engage other governments in their struggle with the British. To do so, they tried to present their struggle as a fight for freedom against a barbaric occupier. In 1876, John Devoy was considering approaching Spain to see if it would join a war against Britain should one be started by Russia. In return for Spanish assistance in Ireland, the American Fenians would promote the idea that Spain should reclaim Gibraltar. Devoy recognised that the Spanish were far from ideal allies for: ‘The present illiberal policy of Spain at home and the Cuban struggle would […] place us, as liberals, in an awkward position before American public opinion’.46 Branches of the American movement repeatedly urged upon their colleagues in Ireland, the need to be seen to be non-sectarian and Devoy gave Parnell, as a condition of Irish-American support for his land reform and Home Rule campaigns that the movement must include ‘advocacy of all struggling nationalities in the British Empire and elsewhere’.47

These two features (the need to be seen to be taking action, and the need to address the values developed by people living in the diaspora) are important and largely unacknowledged features in the development of nationalist ideology. Experiences in the diaspora were significant influences upon political activity in Ireland. Irish nationalism became diasporic in ideological as well as material ways.

� Activities I have presented the following seminars and conference papers on this research: a. ‘Immigration, terrorism and the echoes of the Irish-British past.’ Seminar to the London Group of Historical Geographers, at the Institute of Historical Research, London, January 2005. b. ‘Bare life, political violence and the territorial structure of Britain and Ireland,’ to the annual conference in Political Geography, Boulder, April 2005. c. ‘Terror, colonialism and the constitution of British and Irish citizenship,’ to the annual conference of the Association of American Geographers, Denver, April 2005. d. ‘Geographical perspectives in the work of Giorgio Agamben,’ to the research seminar at the Department of Geography, University of Galway. e. ‘Ireland and the spaces of postcolonial exception,’ to the bi-annual conference of the European Social Science History Association, Amsterdam, March 2006. f. ‘The geography of terror’, contribution to Round Table on Derek Gregory’s ‘The Colonial Present’, to the annual conference of the Association of American Geographers, Chicago, March 2006 g. ‘Postcolonial spaces of exception in Ireland and Britain,’ to the annual conference of the Geographical Society of Ireland, Dublin, May 2006. I organised a series of six sessions on geographical readings of Agamben for the European Social Science History meetings in Amsterdam, March 2006. I also spoke about this research on Radio Four’s ‘Thinking Allowed’ programme in a 15 minute interview with Laurie Taylor. � Outputs ‘Bare life, political violence and the territorial structure of Britain and Ireland,’ in Derek Gregory

and Allan Pred (eds), Violent geographies: fear, terror and political violence (New York: Routledge, 2006) 9-34.


‘The geography of terror,’ Political Geography (in press) ‘Taking theory for a walk in Ireland,’ in Elizabeth Gagen, Hayden Lorimer and Alex Vasudevan

(eds), Practicing the archive: reflections on methods and practice in historical geography (London: HGRG, in press)

IrishWorld.xls. The dataset that gives details of the first 15,000 contributions made to the Dynamite Fund 1876-7

HabeasCorpus.xls. The dataset that gives details of all 1,260 arrests made under the suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1865-8.

� Impacts I received a number of emails from people in Britain, Ireland and the United States after I had spoken on the radio. � Future Research Priorities 1. I would like to take my study of Fenian resources a bit further and examine the dimensions of American support in the period 1880-1916, which I have documented only from published materials so far although there are many relevant materials in the McGarrity papers in the National Library of Ireland. 2. I would like to study the responses of Irish and British people in England and Scotland during the Dynamite campaign of the 1880s. Indeed, the nature of Fenianism in Britain is only barely sketched in the police materials I have examined thus far. 3. I would like to attempt a record linkage between the files I have on Fenians in Ireland, Britain and the United States. To do this properly involves a lot laborious work and will be making a grant application to take this forward. 4. I would like to research the funerals of Terence MacSwiney as fully as I have those of McManus, O’Mahony and Rossa. Unlike the others MacSwiney died in Britain, on hunger strike at Brixton and so his funerals necessarily involved the Irish and Irish-British in Britain more directly that any of the others. 1 G. Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and Bare Life (Stanford CA: Stanford UP, 1998 [1995]); idem, Remnants of Auschwitz: the witness and the archive (New York: Zone Books, 2002 [1999]); idem, State of exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005 [2003]). 2 D. Gregory, The Colonial Present (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005). 3 ‘Time and some citizenship: nationalism and Thomas Davis,’ Bullán: an Irish Studies Journal 5 (2001) 23-54; ‘“Educate that holy hatred”: place, trauma and identity in the Irish nationalism of John Mitchel,’ Political Geography 20 (2001) 885-911. 4 ‘Mother Ireland and the revolutionary sisters,’ Cultural Geographies 11 (2004) 459-483; ‘The spatial poetics of James Joyce,’ New Formations 57 (2006) 107-125. 5 J. Anderson, ‘Problems of inter-state economic integration: Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in the European Community’, Political Geography 13 (1994) 53-72; idem, ‘“Arrested federalization”? Europe, Britain, Ireland’, in G. Smith (ed.), Federalism: The Multiethnic Challenge (London: Longman, 1995) 279-293; J. Mac Laughlin, ‘Industrial capitalism, Ulster unionism and Orangeism: an historical reappraisal’, Antipode 12 (1980) 15-28; idem, ‘The political geography of “nation-building” and nationalism in social sciences: structural vs dialectical accounts’, Political Geography Quarterly 5 (October 1986) 299-329; P. Shirlow, Shirlow, Peter. (2003) ‘“Who Fears to Speak”: Fear, Mobility, and Ethno-sectarianism in the Two “Ardoynes”’, Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 3 (2003) 76-91; idem, ‘Belfast: the “post conflict” city’, Space and Polity 10 (2006) 99-107.


6 ‘Taking theory for a walk in Ireland,’ in Elizabeth Gagen, Hayden Lorimer and Alex Vasudevan (eds), Practicing the archive: reflections on methods and practice in historical geography (London: HGRG, in press). 7 ‘Bare life, political violence and the territorial structure of Britain and Ireland,’ in Derek Gregory and Allan Pred (eds), Violent geographies: fear, terror and political violence (New York: Routledge, 2006) 9-34. 8 ‘Naturalising empire: echoes of Mackinder for the next American century?’ Geopolitics 11 (2006) 74-98; ‘The geography of terror,’ Political Geography (in press). 9 Philip H Bagenal, The American Irish and their influence on Irish politics (London: Kegan Paul, 1882), ch. 4. 10 William O’Brien and Desmond Ryan (eds), Devoy’s post bag 1871-1928. Volume I. 1871-1880 (Dublin: C J Fallon, 1948), 17. 11 John Denvir, The Irish in Britain from the earliest times to the fall and death of Parnell (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co, 1892), 209. 12 Desmond Ryan, note on petition for release from Dunne, May 1866; National Archives of Ireland, Fenian Papers, F Series of papers 1866-79, Carton 2, VIII 3/712 F.1086 13 Ibid, 17 May 1866, F.1055. 14 Meeting of the Friends of Ireland in Philadelphia (Boston: The Pilot, 1864), 5. 15 Charles Kearny (London) to Lennon, 22 June 1865, f. 2-3; National Archives of Ireland, Fenian Briefs, Carton 4, Envelope 16, item xv, Lennon correspondence. 16 Ibid, Denis Heany (Manchester) to Lennon, f. 2-3. 17 John O’ Leary, Recollections of Fenians and Fenianism. Volume 1, Introduction by Marcus Bourke (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1969; London: Downey and Co., 1896), 109-110. 18 Desmond Ryan, The Fenian chief: a biography of James Stephens; with an introductory memoir by Patrick Lynch (Dublin: Gill and Son, 1967), 62. 19 Sean McConville, Irish political prisoners, 1848-1922: Theatres of war (London: Routledge, 2003), 247. 20 R. V. Comerford, The Fenians in context: Irish politics and society, 1848-82 (Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1998 [1985]), 247. 21 Catholic University of America. O’Donovan Rossa papers (Cork County Library. Microfilm); Box 2, Folder 42. Miscellaneous publications; no.15, Fenian Brotherhood, Proceedings 10th General Convention, 21 to 26 March, 1871, p.33. 22 As for Table 1; supplemented from William D’Arcy, The Fenian movement in the United States, 1858-1886 (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1947), p.180. £1=c.$5 at this time. 23 In questioning Comerford’s conclusion for Britain and Ireland, I am drawing both upon the counter-arguments of John Newsinger and from my own sense that the personal costs of being involved with the conspiracy were more serious than Comerford allows. Many things that appeared as leisure activities, such as sports events, were actually a cover for political meetings and military drilling; Comerford, Fenians in context; John Newsinger, Fenianism in mid-Victorian Britain (London: Pluto Press, 1994). 24 Data collected from issues of the Irish American for 1861, giving details of some 300 subscriptions. 25 Rossa papers; Box 1, Folder 4; Financial statement, May 10–June 10, 1865 [printed], one sheet. 26 D’Arcy, Fenian movement in the United States, 47. 27 ‘Names and addresses of circles in America which have sent forward names of parties thereto belonging who have signed the muster rolls for active service when called upon’; Fenian Briefs, A.124, National Archives of Ireland, Dublin.


28 D’Arcy, Fenian movement in the United States, 348. 29 Rossa papers; Box 1, Folder 2, ‘Ledger of accounts of various circles and individuals representing obligations to purchase Fenian Brotherhood bonds, 1865-7.’ 30 Register of arrests under Habeas Corpus Suspension Acts, 3 volumes. National Archives of Ireland, Dublin, CSO ICR – II; shelf 3|754|10; CSO ICR – II; shelf 3|754|11, CSO ICR – II; shelf 3|754|12. 31 Archibald to Larcom, 17 March 1866; Fenian Briefs, A.124, National Archives of Ireland, Dublin. 32 Terry Golway, Irish rebel: John Devoy and America’s fight for Ireland’s freedom (New York: St Martin’s Griffin, 1998), 47. 33 The Irish People April 1876 to February 1877 gives details of all contributions received. Shortly after this, April 1877, Devoy took over this fund from Rossa and the personal tone that had worked so well before this was never repeated as successfully. 34 William O’Brien and Desmond Ryan (eds), Devoy’s post bag 1871-1928. Volume II. 1880-1928 (Dublin: C J Fallon, 1953), 558. 35 Golway, Devoy, 190. 36 James Callanan to O’Connor, 13 October 1865, Fenian Briefs, Carton 4, Envelope 15, National Archives of Ireland, Dublin, 3|713|Box 4. 37 Ryan , Fenian chief, 41. 38 Oliver P. Rafferty, The church, the state and the Fenian threat 1861-75 (London: Macmillan, 1999), 146. 39 Ryan, Fenian Chief, 192. 40 Newsinger, Fenianism, 54. 41 Marcus Bourke, John O’Leary: a study in Irish separatism (Tralee: Anvil Books, 1969), 201. 42 Register of arrests under Habeas Corpus Suspension Acts, volume 1, 32. 43 William O’Brien and Desmond Ryan (eds), Devoy’s post bag 1871-1928. Volume I. 1871-1880 (Dublin: C J Fallon, 1948), 209. 44 The Derry Sentinel, quoted in the Cork Constitution, 8 October 1861, 2c. For reports on the funerals, I examined the following: two sympathetic Irish papers, the Freeman’s Journal and the Cork Examiner; two rather hostile Protestant papers, the Cork Constitution and the Londonderry Journal; two British papers, both broadly liberal at the time, the Times and the Liverpool Mercury; and one American Fenian newspaper, the Irish American. 45 Irish American, 14 December 1861, 2e. 46 O’Brien and Ryan, Devoy’s Post Bag I, 213. 47 Golway, Devoy, 108.


REFERENCE No.

� Appendix 1. Primary archive sources that proved useful � Cork County Library.

The Rossa Papers. A microfilm copy of business and political papers belonging to this leading Irish-American Fenian.

University College Cork.

The Luby Papers. Collection of materials relating to this leading Irish Fenian. Used by him to produce his history of the movement.

Irish National Archives, Dublin.

Register of arrests under Habeas Corpus Suspension Acts, 3 volumes. CSO ICR – II; shelf 3|754|10; CSO ICR – II; shelf 3|754|11, CSO ICR – II; shelf 3|754|12. This details the 1,200 arrests. From this the dataset of Habeas Corpus arrests was abstracted.

Fenian Arrests and Discharges 1886-9, 1 3|754|1. Papers relating to the management of the State trials of Fenians. Gives overall details of arrests, discharges and legal proceedings.

A. Files 128-133 (Fenians). Reports from British agent in New York on the Fenian movement in the United States

Fenian Papers, F Series, Carton 2, 1866. Police papers relating to investigation of Fenians in Ireland. VIII 3/712. Papers found with Fenians arrested in Ireland. Includes many materials on the movement in the United States including lists of prominent officers. Also includes much correspondence between Fenians in England and Ireland.

Fenian Papers, F Series, Carton 4, 1866. Police papers relating to investigation of Fenians in Ireland. VIII 3/712

National Library of Ireland, Dublin.

MSS 331-3. Accounts by Thomas Clarke Luby of Fenianism, of the Blanchardstown affair, July 1848 etc MS 5758. Correspondence of Charles Gavan Duffy with people prominent in literary and political affairs and with the editor of The Times 1842-1892. Duffy was an important Irish republican. MS 5771 A short account of the Fenian organisation in America, Anon. C.1873 MS 5958 Samuel Lee Anderson collection. Newspaper cuttings re “The Secret History of Fenianism” by John Rutherford, 1877. Anderson was in charge of the secret service in Ireland and he co-operated in the production of this very negative account of the Irish Republic Brotherhood.

MS 5964 Samuel Lee Anderson collection. General Millen’s Account of fenianism as from April 1865 to April 1866. The testimony of one of the American Fenians who was involved in organising the rising in Ireland.

MSS 5965-5969 S L Anderson Collection. Official diary kept in the Crown Solicitor’s Office, Dublin Castle, containing many entries relating to Fenianism, 1868-1871 and 1874

MS 15,377 T P O’Sullivan papers. Fragmentary materials towards a history of Fenianism, inc articles on Fenianism in various counties, c.500pp largely unsorted. A lot of materials collected by this prominent Irish republican.

MS 17,505 Joseph McGarrity papers. Documents re Clan na Gael activities and personnel, with item listing strength of IRB, 10 items, c.1914. Valuable collection of this leading Irish-American Fenian.

24


REFERENCE No.

MS 18,025 Devoy papers. List of members of Dublin Centres and Circles [of the IRB] 1pp, 1865. Account of the state of the movement by one of its most important organisers both in Ireland and in Britain.

MS 18,036 Devoy papers. Account by John Devoy of his visit to Paris to attend meeting of Supreme Council of IRB. Also some statistics re IRB in Ireland. 1878-9? An important document produced to reassure American backers that the Irish movement was still viable.

MS 18,046 Devoy papers. Prospectus, shares certificates, lists of subscribers and other financial documents concerning the Irish Nation newspaper NY, 9 folders 1884-5. Significant picture of Irish-American support for advanced republicanism.

MS 20,936 Photocopies of miscellaneous papers concerning persons arrested in connection with the Fenian raid on Canada, 18 items, 1866 [originals in possession of Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society]. Useful list of supporters of insurrection against British interests in Canada.

25


REFERENCE No.

� Appendix 2. Tables Table 1: Fenian remittances to the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, 1859-71

Administration

Years

Months

Amount received $

Sent to

Ireland, IRB $

Used in the USA, FB $

% receipts used by

FB O’Mahony,

January 1859-April 1866 7 4 463,000.00 346,620.56 116,379.44 25.1

Stephens/Kelly, May-December 1866

8 57,104.55 22,528.95 34,575.60 60.5

Moynahan, January 1867 1 1,294.60 856.00 438.60 33.9Gleeson, February 1867 1 3,933.39 1,035.40 2,163.69 55.0

Griffin, March-mid-August 1867

5.5 41,422.46 19,556.29 21,859.17 52.7

Savage, mid-August 1867-mid-March 1871

3 7 59,238.44 34,657.09 23,252.73 39.2

Totals 12 2.5 626,043.44 425,254.29 197,669.23 44.6 Table 2: Annual rate of remittances to the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, 1859-71

Leadership Period Annual rate of receipts, £

Annual rate of remittances to

Ireland, £

Annual rate of expenditure in

USA £ O’Mahony January 1859-April

1866 12627.27 9453.29 3173.98

January 1859-November 1863 620.69

November 1863-January 1865 5142.86

January 1865-December 1865 49745.45

December 1865-May 1866 76800.00

Stephens/Kelly May-December 1866 17131.37 6758.69 10372.68 Moynahan January 1867 3107.04 2054.40 1052.64 Gleeson February 1867 9440.14 2484.96 5192.86 Griffin March-mid-August

1867 18075.26 8533.65 9538.55

Savage Mid-August 1867-mid-March 1871

3306.33 1934.35 1297.83

Totals January 1859 to mid-March 1871

10256.00 6966.62 3238.27

26


REFERENCE No.

Table 3: Contributions, by State or Territory, to Fenian causes, 1863-77

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Alabama 500 2 3893 55

Arizona Territory 83

Arkansas 1428 93

California 1000 1270 3 45 60000 54421 1217

Colorado 3 1685 360

Connecticut 3 250 2 30 440 40 1 9 70632 432

Dakota Territory 253

Delaware 5907 5

Florida 737 18

Georgia 1000 5093 30

Idaho Territory 100 364

Illinois 83 1789 3 34 440 190 1 660 11 120162 1166

Indiana 76 175 2 9 9000 280 1 28698 283

Iowa 85 2 9 1500 20 3 40124 795

Kansas 104 2 12 1100 180 1 10940 379

Kentucky 1 52 2 10 100 40 1 4 21642 276

Louisiana 1 19 2000 17068 210

Maine 25 147 3 42 3480 460 1 15745 111

Maryland 21 46 100 3 23630 163

Massachusets 309 1435 33 485 39880 11340 8 20 4 216120 2210

Michigan 15 280 3 10 6500 120 5 42013 148

Minnesota 21746 417

Mississippi 3359 94

Missouri 68 1 27 5550 225 1 2 54983 752

Montana Territory 10 2 309

Nebraska 3 4978 312

Nevada 5035 813

New Hampshire 46 138 4 16 12190 240

New Jersey 49 40 3 30 6130 3181 12 40 9 86784 530

New Mexico 53

New York 1939 1209 14 179 76490 33513 87 2520 56 528806 1646

North Carolina 677 14

Ohio 123 170 5 24 6700 650 1 700 15 82674 526

Oregon 111 20000 1967 80

Pennsylvania 314 5 49 13520 4245 6 1080 36 235798 2300

Rhode Island 224 1 17 5180 957 2 1 31534 755

South Carolina 1 7 1 3262 27

Tennessee 83 1 8048 204

Texas 4036 509

Utah 1 55

Vermont 25 1100 1 14080 35

Virginia 10 1570 230 1 5190 28

West Virginia 44 2 6832 27

Wisconsin 1 3000 400 21 48479 448

Wyoming 2 45

27


REFERENCE No.

Washington DC 2 216 10000 500 1 80

US total 3692 8295 90 1054 275280 56571 122 5120 200 1840396 18946 (1) Contributions to the McManus fund 1861, $ (2) Contributions to Fenian HQ receipts 10 May to 10 June 1865, $ (3) Number of circles 1866 according to Millen (4) People willing to serve in Ireland 1866 according to Millen (5) Bonds issued 1866 (6) Cash returned 1866, $ (7) Number of circles 1866 (8) Guns distributed by Roberts/Senate wing for Canadian raid, 1866 (9) Senate wing. Circles in good standing 8 September 1869 to 10 March 1870 (10) Irish born 1871 (11) Contributions to Dynamite Campaign, April 1876 to February 1877, $ Table 4: US Fenian support, % from each state or territory

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Alabama 0.18 1.00 0.21 0.29

Arizona Territory 0.44

Arkansas 0.08 0.49

California 27.08 15.31 3.33 4.27 21.80 2.96 6.43

Colorado 1.50 0.09 1.90

Connecticut 0.08 3.01 2.22 2.85 0.16 0.07 0.82 4.50 3.84 2.28

Dakota Territory 1.33

Delaware 0.32 0.03

Florida 0.04 0.09

Georgia 0.36 0.28 0.16

Idaho Territory 0.04 1.92

Illinois 2.24 21.57 3.33 3.23 0.16 0.34 0.82 12.89 5.50 6.53 6.16

Indiana 2.05 2.11 2.22 0.85 3.27 0.49 0.50 1.56 1.49

Iowa 1.03 2.22 0.85 0.54 0.04 1.50 2.18 4.20

Kansas 1.26 2.22 1.14 0.40 0.32 0.50 0.59 2.00

Kentucky 0.03 0.62 2.22 0.95 0.04 0.07 0.82 2.00 1.18 1.46

Louisiana 1.11 1.80 0.73 0.93 1.11

Maine 0.68 1.77 3.33 3.98 1.26 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.58

Maryland 0.57 0.55 1.95 1.50 1.28 0.86

Massachusets 8.38 17.30 36.67 46.02 14.49 20.05 6.56 0.39 2.00 11.74 11.66

Michigan 0.41 3.38 3.33 0.95 2.36 0.21 2.50 2.28 0.78

Minnesota 1.18 2.20

Mississippi 0.18 0.50

Missouri 0.82 1.11 2.56 2.02 0.40 0.82 1.00 2.99 3.97

Montana Territory 0.12 1.00 1.63

Nebraska 1.50 0.27 1.65

Nevada 0.27 4.29

New Hampshire 1.25 1.66 4.44 1.52 0.66 1.27

New Jersey 1.33 0.48 3.33 2.85 2.23 5.62 9.84 0.78 4.50 4.72 2.80

New Mexico 0.28

New York 52.51 14.58 15.56 16.98 27.79 59.24 71.31 49.22 28.00 28.73 8.69

28


REFERENCE No.

North Carolina 0.04 0.07

Ohio 3.32 2.05 5.56 2.28 2.43 1.15 0.82 13.67 7.50 4.49 2.78

Oregon 1.33 7.27 0.11 0.42

Pennsylvania 3.78 5.56 4.65 4.91 7.50 4.92 21.09 18.00 12.81 12.14

Rhode Island 2.70 1.11 1.61 1.88 1.69 1.64 0.50 1.71 3.98

South Carolina 1.11 0.66 0.50 0.18 0.14

Tennessee 1.00 0.50 0.44 1.07

Texas 0.22 2.69

Utah 0.50 0.29

Vermont 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.77 0.18

Virginia 0.12 0.57 0.41 0.82 0.28 0.15

West Virginia 0.52 1 0.37 0.14

Wisconsin 0.03 1.09 0.71 10.50 2.63 2.36

Wyoming 1.00 0.24

Washington DC 0.05 2.60 3.63 0.88 0.50 0.42

US total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 5: The ratio between share of total contribution and share of U.S. Irish-born population

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Alabama 0.86 4.73 1.00 1.36

Arizona Territory

Arkansas 1.00 6.33

California 9.16 5.18 1.13 1.44 7.37 1.00 2.17

Colorado 16.38 1.00 20.73

Connecticut 0.02 0.78 0.58 0.74 0.04 0.02 0.21 1.17 1.00 0.59

Dakota Territory

Delaware 1.00 0.08

Florida 1.00 2.31

Georgia 1.31 1.00 0.57

Idaho Territory

Illinois 0.34 3.30 0.51 0.49 0.02 0.05 0.13 1.97 0.84 1.00 0.94

Indiana 1.31 1.35 1.43 0.55 2.10 0.32 0.32 1.00 0.96

Iowa 0.47 1.02 0.39 0.25 0.02 0.69 1.00 1.92

Kansas 2.12 3.74 1.92 0.67 0.54 0.84 1.00 3.37

Kentucky 0.02 0.53 1.89 0.81 0.03 0.06 0.70 1.70 1.00 1.24

Louisiana 1.20 1.94 0.78 1.00 1.20

Maine 0.79 2.07 3.90 4.66 1.48 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.68

Maryland 0.44 0.43 1.52 1.17 1.00 0.67

Massachusets 0.71 1.47 3.12 3.92 1.23 1.71 0.56 0.03 0.17 1.00 0.99

Michigan 0.18 1.48 1.46 0.42 1.03 0.09 1.10 1.00 0.34

Minnesota 1.00 1.86

Mississippi 1.00 2.73

Missouri 0.27 0.37 0.86 0.67 0.13 0.27 0.33 1.00 1.33

Montana Territory

Nebraska 5.55 1.00 6.08

29


REFERENCE No.

Nevada 1.00 15.69

New Hampshire 1.88 2.51 6.71 2.29 1.00 1.91

New Jersey 0.28 0.10 0.71 0.60 0.47 1.19 2.09 0.17 0.95 1.00 0.59

New Mexico

New York 1.83 0.51 0.54 0.59 0.97 2.06 2.48 1.71 0.97 1.00 0.30

North Carolina 1.00 2.01

Ohio 0.74 0.46 1.24 0.51 0.54 0.26 0.18 3.04 1.67 1.00 0.62

Oregon 12.49 67.98 1.00 3.95

Pennsylvania 0.30 0.43 0.36 0.38 0.59 0.38 1.65 1.40 1.00 0.95

Rhode Island 1.58 0.65 0.94 1.10 0.99 0.96 0.29 1.00 2.33

South Carolina 6.27 3.75 2.82 1.00 0.80

Tennessee 2.28 1.14 1.00 2.46

Texas 1.00 12.25

Utah

Vermont 0.40 0.52 0.65 1.00 0.24

Virginia 0.43 2.02 1.44 2.91 1.00 0.52

West Virginia 1.41 2.69 1.00 0.38

Wisconsin 0.01 0.41 0.27 3.99 1.00 0.90

Wyoming

Washington DC

US total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Table 6: The prisoners under the Suspension of Habeas Corpus, 1865-8

Origin Outcome Escaped 5 Discharged 77 Charged 31 Died 4

Ireland 919 Bailed in Ireland 586 America 205 Sent to America 202 England 126 -- England 133 Scotland 9 -- Scotland 13

Other 1 -- Other 2 No details 207

Total 1260 Total 1260

30


REFERENCE No.

Table 7. Contributions to the Skirmishing (Dynamite) Fund, April 1876 to February 1877

Amount contributed ($) Number of contributions % of contributions 0.01-0.25 724 4.8 0.26-0.50 2204 14.6 0.51-1.00 9860 65.1 1.01-2.00 1328 8.8 2.01-5.00 912 6.0

5.01-10.00 81 0.5 10.01-250.00 26 0.2

Total 15135

31
