Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:36:43.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

America and the Irish problem, 1899–1921

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Alan J. Ward
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States census of 1910 revealed that there were four and a half million people in the United States who had beenborn in Ireland, or who had at least one Irish-born parent. The figures did not reveal that many other Americans identified themselves with Ireland, the country of their grandparents, or even of their great-grandparents, and it was not unusual for Irish-American leaders at that time to claim the support of fifteen or twenty million fellow Irish-Americans. A great many of these had, indeed, managed to retain a sense of Irish identity and this was in part because they, or their forebears, had largely settled together in Irish ghettos in large cities. In addition they had been forced inwards to their Irish community for support when persecuted by the ‘ Know-nothings ’ and other nativist groups in the nineteenth century. This Irish subculture in which they lived was cultivated by three groups of fellow Irish-Americans who had an interest in promoting an Irish-American community, the better to control and command the Irish-Americans themselves; the Roman Catholic Church, which was very much an Irish Catholic Church in America, the Irish political bosses, interested in political power rather than Ireland, who had risen to power in the Democratic party by their ability to control the Irish vote, and a third group which utilized the audience they both nurtured, the Irish nationalists. The skill with which these nationalists mobilized Irish-Americans in support of Ireland’s claim to independence added an important dimension to the British government’s Irish problem for it became a problem for successive American governments too. As long as Ireland remained tied to England there were in America men and women prepared to emulate John Mitchel who had declared, when he first landed in New York in November 1853, that he intended to make use of the freedom guaranteed him in America to stimulate the movement for Irish independence. It is the object of this paper to review, albeit briefly and incompletely, the significance of the activities of these Irish-American nationalists in the struggle for Irish freedom and in the development of Anglo-American relations during the period from the Boer war, which began in October 1899, to the Anglo-Irish treaty of December 1921.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 61 , March 1968 , pp. 64 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 New York Tribune, 20 Dec. 1853, cited in Gibson, Florence, The attitudes of the New York Irish towards state and national affairs, 1848-1891 (New York, 1951), p. 65.Google Scholar

2 Hansard 4 (commons), 7 Feb. 1900, lxxviii, cols 831-2.

3 For an account of the financing of the Irish party see Lyons, Ir. pari, party, ch. 6.

4 Healy, Tim, Letters and leaders of my day (London, 1928), 1, 443.Google Scholar

5 New York Times, 16 Nov., 5 Dec. 1901.

6 For examples of these ambiguous declarations and the unionist attacks which resulted from them see Cambray, Philip G., Irish affairs and the home rule question (London, 1911)Google Scholar; Ian Malcolm, M.P., ‘Home rule all round’, in Nineteenth Century, Nov. 1910, 47, 791–9Google Scholar; Hansard 5 (commons), 15 Feb. 1911, xxi, cols 1076, 1105.

7 The exact amount of money supplied from America is difficult to estimate, but from press reports, such records of the U.I.L. as are still available in America, and private papers, it appears that Lyons’s estimate of £70,000 from foreign sources in the period 1900-10 is too low.

8 Circular to Clan members, 10 Oct. 1900, cited in Tansill, Charles C., America and the fight for Irish freedom, 1866–1922 (New York, 1957), p. 121.Google Scholar Tansill’s book is an essential source but has to be used with caution. It is frequently incorrect and it is the opinion of this author that it presents a distorted view of the period being reviewed in this paper.

9 Bagenal, Philip H., The American Irish and their influence on Irish politics (London, 1882), p. 223.Google Scholar

10 See Le Roux, Louis N., Tom Clarke and the Irish freedom movement (Dublin, 1936), pp 73 ff.Google Scholar

11 The opposition from within the revolutionary movement was led by Mathew Cummings, militant national president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, 1906-10. See Keating to Devoy 22 Jan. 1910, 11 Aug., 16 Nov. 1911 (N.L.I., MS 10,610, Devoy MSS); Carroll to Devoy, 7 Feb. 1913 (Devoy’s post-bag, ii, 403-4).

12 The Times, 2 Sept. 1904.

13 Nevins, Allan, Henry White: thirty years of American diplomacy (New York, 1930), pp 151–2.Google Scholar

14 Ferguson, John H., American diplomacy and the Boer war (Philadelphia, 1939), pp 122–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Porter, Kirk H. and Johnson, Donald B., National party platforms, 1840–1960 (Urbana, Ill., 1961), pp 115, 124.Google Scholar

16 New York Times, 26 Nov. 1900; Ferguson, op. cit., pp 66–67.

17 Hay to Roosevelt, 28 Apr. 1903 (Library of Congress, John Hay MSS, box 26).

18 Hay to Edwin D. Mead, 16 Feb. 1905 (ibid.).

19 Bryce to foreign sec, 10 Mar. 1908 (P.R.O., F.O. 371/563).

20 Root to Ambassador Whitelaw Reid, 8 Apr. 1908 (Library of Congress, Elihu Root MSS, box 304).

21 Minute by Crowe, 15 Mar. 1911, on Consul-General Bennett, New York, to foreign sec, 28 Feb. 1911 (P.R.O., F.O. 371/1270).

22 Taft to Reid, 7 July 1912; Reid to Taft, 24 July 1912 (Library of Congress, Whitelaw Reid MSS, boxes 91, 178).

23 Keating to Devoy, 13 May 1914 (Devoy’s post-bag, ii, 443-4).

24 New York Times, 31 July 1903.

25 Michael Davitt wrote articles for the Irish World from St Petersburg in February 1905. He argued, amongst other things, that the Russian government had nothing to fear from the labouring classes and that stories of massacres in Russia had been exaggerated by the British press. Jewish-Americans, many of them refugees from Russian persecution, were at that time actively protesting against Russian pogroms. The Irish and the Jews were therefore pulling from opposite directions on the issue of Russo-American relations. See Ward, Alan J., ‘Immigrant minority “diplomacy” : American Jews and Russia, 1901–1912’, Bulletin of the British Association for American Studies, new series, no. 9, Dec. 1964, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

26 British fears are well documented in the diplomatic records. See, for example, the correspondence of Bryce and Consul-General Bennett in P.R.O., F.O. 371/563, 783.

27 O’Dea, John, The history of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and Ladies’ Auxiliary (Philadelphia, 1923), 3, 1387–8.Google Scholar

28 Chicago Citizen, 11 July 1908, cited in Cambray, Irish affairs and the home rule question, pp 133–4.

29 For the collapse of the U.I.L. in America see N.L.I., John Redmond MSS, P.C. 262 (1).

30 Only £1,000 were available to be sent to Clarke. See Devoy to Joseph McGarrity, 14, 18, 22 June 1914 (New York Public Library, Margaret McKim Maloney MiSS, box 16).

31 McGarrity to Casement, 10 July 1915 (Maloney MSS, boxes 1, 2); Devoy to McGarrity, 16 June 1915 (ibid., box 16).

32 Von Bernstorff to German foreign ministry, 25 Sept. 1914 Documents relative to the Sinn Fein movement, 1921), Cmd 1108, xxlx, 429, …p. 3.

33 MacColl, René, Roger Casement: a new judgement (London, 1956), ch. VIII.Google Scholar

34 Gerard to President Woodrow Wilson, 24 Jan., end. in Wilson to Edward House, 28 Jan. 1915 (Library of Congress, R. S. Baker MSS, series 1, box 7).

35 Wilson to Page, 26 Oct. 1914 (Library of Congress, Woodrow Wilson MSS, series vu, letter book 17a, pp 479–82).

36 Sir Edward Grey to Ambassador Cecil Spring Rice, 13 Aug. 1915 (Yale University Library, Edward House MSS, drawer 9, file 8).

37 Spring Rice to Grey, 19 Aug. 1915 (Letters and friendships of Sir Cecil Spring Rice, ed. Stephen Gwynn, London, 1929), ii, 278–9.

38 Link, Arthur S., Wilson: the struggle for neutrality, 1914–1916 (Princeton, 1960), p. 185.Google Scholar

39 Squires, James D., British propaganda at home and in the United States, 1917–1917 (Cambridge, Mass., 1935),Google Scholar appendix. See also Redmond, John, The Irish nation and the war (Dublin, 1915),Google Scholar and Kerr, S. Parnell, What the Irish regiments have done (London, 1916).Google Scholar

40 Devoy, John, Recollections of an Irish rebel (New York, 1929), ch. LIV.Google Scholar

41 Link, , Wilson: neutrality, pp 554–56, 561–4, 645–50Google Scholar; Link, , Wilson: confusion and crisis, 1915–1916 (Princeton, 1964), pp 56–9.Google Scholar

42 See ibid., pp 34–7, for Wilson’s address to congress, 7 Dec. 1915.

43 Lansing diary, 9 Jan. 1916 (Library of Congress, Robert Lansing MSS, box 2, i, 37).

44 See Devoy, , Recollections, pp 458–63Google Scholar; Documents relating to the Sinn Fein movement, pp 9–12, and Spindler, Karl, The mystery of the Casement ship (Berlin, 1931), passim.Google Scholar

45 Secret memo, on Ireland, 2 May 1916 (Bodl., Asquith MSS, box 42). See also Spring Rice to Sir Horace Plunkett, 4 May 1916, in which he confesses how little he knew of the plans for the rising (London, Plunkett Foundation for Cooperative Studies, Plunkett MSS). The Von Igel papers are in Washington D.C., National Archives, State Dept. records 701.6211.

46 See R. H. Brede, for army council, to C. in C. home forces, 28 Apr. and copy of reply May 1916, also secret memo on Ireland, 2 May 1916 (Asquith MSS, box 42).

47 See House to Wilson, 14 May 1916 (Wilson MSS, series 11, box 97), and Lansing to Attorney General Thomas W. Gregory, 21 Sept. 1916 (Lansing MSS, v, 21).

48 Released by the Committee on Public Information for publication in newspapers dated Sunday, 23 Sept., 1917.

49 MacDonagh, Michael, The life of William O’Brien (London, 1928), p. 225 Google Scholar; cabinet memo, by Asquith for the king, 27 June 1916 (P.R.O., CAB. 41/37 (24)).

50 Gwynn, Denis, The history of partition, 1912–1925 (Dublin, 1950), pp. 147–56.Google Scholar

51 General Maxwell to Lord French, 13 May 1916 (Asquith MSS, box 44); Maxwell to Asquith, 28 May, 1916 (ibid., box 37). The cabinet had seen the report on Casement’s interrogation from which it would have been very difficult sensibly to conclude that he was the leader. See printed cabinet document May 1916 sent to Spring Rice by Eric Drummond, 3 May 1916 (F.O. 115/2073) and Hyde, H. Montgomery (ed.), The trial of Roger Casement (London, 1960), pp xxxiii–xxxvi.Google Scholar

52 F.O. 115/2073.

53 U.S., Congressional Record, 64 congress, 1 session, 1916, v. 53, pt. Ii, pp 11429 ff, and pt. 12, pp 11773 ff.

54 CAB. 41/37 (25, 26, 27, 28, 29).

55 MacColl, , Roger Casement, pp 289–90Google Scholar; Hyde, op. cit., p. lxv. The British naval attaché, Capt. Guy Gaunt, was responsible for disseminating copies of the diary in New York. See James J. Walsh to W. J. M. A. Maloney, 3 Aug. 1938 (Maloney MSS, box 20); John Quinn to Patrick McCartan, 31 Jan. 1919 (ibid., box 21); Spring Rice to Quinn, 26 Aug. 1916 (ibid., boxes 19-20). Spring Rice made his request to Grey on 19 and 20 July 1916 (F.O. 115/2073).

56 For example, Wilson to Tumulty, 2 May 1916, and Wilson’s note to Tumulty, 20 July 1916, on M. F. Doyle to Tumulty, 6 July 1916 (Wilson MSS, series vi, box 520, file 3085).

57 Link, Arthur S., Wilson: campaigns for progressivism and peace, 1916–1917 (Princeton, 1965), pp 20–21.Google Scholar

58 Von Bernstorff to German foreign ministry, 8 Aug. 1916, intercepted by the British and enclosed in Page to Wilson, 3 Dec. 1917 (Wilson MSS, series 11, box 131).

59 Joseph Tumulty to John D. Crimmins with :a note attached by Wilson, 5 May, 1917 (Library of Congress, Joseph Tumulty MSS, box 2).

60 Wilson to Lansing, 10 Apr. 1917 (R. S. Baker MSS, series 1, box 11).

61 Page to Wilson, 4 May 1917 (Wilson MSS, series 11, box 118). See also Page to Lansing (‘Confidential for the president’), 18 Apr. 1917 (State Dept., 841d.oo/106).

62 Balfour to Lord Robert Cecil, 5 May 1917 (F.O. 115/2244).

63 War cabinet meeting 101 (1, 2), 22 Mar. 1917, and other meetings in CAB. 23/2.

64 Bonar Law in debate 29 July 1918, Hansard 5 (commons), cix, cols 85 ff; Chief Sec. Shortt in debate, 5 Nov 1918, ibid., ex, cols 1962 ff; Lloyd George in debate 21 July 1919, ibid., cxviii, vols 995 ff.

65 The O’Rahilly to Devoy, 10 Nov. 1914 (Devoy, Recollections, pp 414-15); McGarrity to Casement, 9 Nov. 1915 (Maloney MSS, box 1).

66 War cabinet meeting 24 (11), 1 Jan. 1917 (CAB. 23/1).

67 Riddell, George Allardice, Riddell, Baron, Lord Riddell’s war diary, 1914–1918 (London, 1933), p. 239.Google Scholar

68 War cabinet meetings 374 (12) and 375 (2), 27 Mar. 1918 (GAB. 23/5).

69 Ibid., 379A (2), 1 Apr. 1918 (GAB. 23/14).

70 Tumulty and Reading used Shane Leslie as intermediary. See Leslie to Tumulty, 23 Apr. 1918 (Wilson MSS, series vi, box 520, file 3926).

71 Balfour to House, 2 Apr. 1918 (Yale University Library, Sir William Wiseman MSS, drawer 90, file 69) and House to Balfour, 3 Apr. 1918 (ibid., file 64).

72 Eric Drummond to Wiseman and reply, 5 Apr. 1918 (ibid., file 69).

73 Hansard 5 (commons), 16 Apr. 1918, cv, cols 343 ff.

74 Ibid., 25 June, 1918, v, 107, cols 957 ff.

75 Macardle, , Ir. republic (London, 1937), pp 283–9.Google Scholar

76 Tansill, , America and the fight for Irish freedom, pp 296–302.Google Scholar The three delegates were Frank P. Walsh, former chairman of the Commission on Industrial Relations and joint president of the National War Labor Board, Edward F. Dunne, a former mayor of Chicago and former governor of Illinois, both of whom were well known to the president, plus Michael J. Ryan, a Philadelphia lawyer and formerly national president of the United Irish League in America. Frank Walsh described the activities of the delegates to the senate committee on foreign relations. See U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Treaty of peace with Germany: hearings before the committee on foreign relations, 66 congress, 1 session, 1919, Senate doc. 106, pt. 17, pp 799 ff. House recorded his impressions of their dealings with him in his diary, vols 15 and 16 (House MSS).

77 War cabinet meeting 567A, 14 May 1919 (CAB. 23/15).

78 U.S., Congressional record, 65 congress, 3 session, 1919, v. 57, PP 3174 5027–57.

79 Wilson to Tumulty, 7, 30 Jan. 1919 (Tumulty MSS, box 2).

80 U.S., Congressional record, 66 congress, 1 session, 1919, v. 58, pt. 1, pp 728 ff.

81 See, for example, Tumulty to Wilson, 29, 31 Dec. 1918, 28 Jan. 1919 (Tumulty MSS, box 2); 5, 28 Feb., 1 Mar., 9 June 1919; Tumulty to Admiral Grayson, 7 June 1919 (ibid, box 3).

82 See, for example, Library of Congress, William Borah MSS, boxes 550-51? and Hearings re. peace treaty, pp 757 ff.

83 Fleming, Denna F., The United States and the League of Nations (New York, 1932), ch. xvii.Google Scholar

84 Memo, of conversation between Under-Secretary of State Norman Davis and Ambassador Geddes, 19 Dec. 1920 (Library of Congress, Norman Davis MSS, box 9).

85 The dispute between De Valera and Cohalan is discussed in a number of books with differing interpretations. For example, Macardle, Ir. republic, Tansill, America and the fight for Irish freedom, McCartan, Patrick, With de Valera in America (Dublin, 1932),Google Scholar Gwynn, Denis R., De Valera (London, 1933),Google Scholar Bromage, Mary G., De Valera and the march of a nation (New York, 1956),Google Scholar O’Doherty, Katherin, Assignment America: de Volera’s mission to the United States (New York, 1957).Google Scholar Gohalan’s belief in an Anglo-American war was described by him in, amongst others, Freedom of the seas, published by the Friends of Irish Freedom in 1919, and ‘America’s advice to Ireland’, in Fitz-Gerald, William G. (ed.), The voice of Ireland (London, 1924).Google Scholar

86 Tansill, op. cit., p. 347.

87 Ibid., pp 347–53.

88 The amount of money remaining in the U.S.A. was later the subject of extended litigation between the Irish Free State and republicans in Irish and American courts. Over two and a half million dollars were finally distributed to certificate holders in 1930. See Macardle, , Ir. republic, pp 1024–5Google Scholar; O’Doherty, op. cit., pp 66–9; State Dept. 841 d. 51/--; Maloney MSS, boxes 19, 22.

89 Estimates of the size of the A.A.R.I.R. are unreliable. The figure of 800,000 members in Macardle, , Ir. republic, p. 426,Google Scholar is probably too high but Tansill, op. cit., p. 395n illustrates the decline in membership of the F.O.I.F. to only 20,000 from almost 101,000 regular members.

90 See Report of the American Committee for Relief in Ireland, published by the committee in 1922; Evidence on the conditions in Ireland, and Interim report published by the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland, 1921. W. J. M. A. Maloney was the guiding spirit of both movements.

91 For example, his letter attacking Cohalan and the Gaelic American, in Gwynn, , De Valera, pp 96–101 Google Scholar; his appearance at the Republican Party national convention, ibid.5 pp 106–7, Tansill, op. cit., pp 373–83, MacCartan, op. cit., pp 198–9; his interview published by the Westminster Gazette on 6 Feb. 1920.

92 The money was handled in Ireland by the Sinn Fein controlled Irish White Gross. See cabinet paper no. 2921, 9 May 1921 (GAB. 24/123); cabinet meeting 36/21 (4), 10 May 1921 (GAB. 23/25); memo, of meeting between Hughes and Ambassador Geddes, 23 May 1921 (Library of Congress, C. E. Hughes MSS, box 175), Macardle, Ir. republic, p. 435n.

93 Dumont to secretary of state, 28 Sept. 1920 (State Dept., 84id. 00/243).

94 Ibid., 2 Jan. 1920 (State Dept., 841d.00/119).

95 Ibid., 9 June 1921 (State Dept., 841.00/381).

96 First report of the cabinet committee on the Irish question, 4 Nov. 1919 cabinet paper 56 (CAB. 24/92).

97 Balfour memo, on Ireland, 25 Nov. 1919, cabinet paper 193 (CAB. 24/193).