Vincent Geoghegan (Political Theory, QUB) on Robert Owen, Co-operation and Ulster in the 1830s p6ff:

While much of the producer co-op experience was dominated by philanthropic capital, from Owen himself, and from people like Vandaleur, the gambling landlord who funded the Ralahine co-op as described by Connolly, the urban consumer co-op movement, as it emerged from the work of the Rochdale Pioneers, was definitely a working-class radical fringe (p8).

A Belfast Co-op was founded in 1832 and had a decidedly Protestant artisan flavour. A leading light was Henry MacCormac, who was an active promoter of worker-education via the Mechanics Institutes. Co-ops were set up in Armagh, Monaghan, Dungannon, Derry and Larne. There was serious political support for the Reform Bill, with marches etc, all within the unionist political framework, which however were attacked by 'an anti-Repeal or Orange faction', though without success. The co-operative movement thrived, though with Owenite leadership, up to 1834, after which it declined, due to the failure to resolve the problem of the William Thompson legacy, which was contested by the family; this would have been a link with the Ralahine project, of which Thompson had been supportive. Thompson's adoption of the 'labour theory of value' pre-dated Marx. RJ.

There were tentative links with the emergent trade union movement, but the radical-fringe working-class consumer co-op aspect seems to have been marginalised by the Owenite leadership. All this took place in a different world from the emergent Catholic Emancipation movement headed by O'Connell; these movements, both progressive, never converged. RJ.

Emmet O'Connor (Modern History, UU Derry) on Colonisation and Mental Colonisation p27ff:

In Parnell times the Dublin Trades Council tended to look to the British TUC. Dublin workers were solidly Parnellite, and supported an Irish Labour League; Parnell addressed their conference in 1891. Davitt deplored the penetration of British unions, but declined to take on any leading role with the Irish unions. The Dublin Trades Council launched the Irish TUC in 1894, using the British model. Links with Redmond's party tentatively developed, but were rejected because of the perceived opposition from the unionist workers in the North. The 'Land and Labour Associations' in Munster, which were dismissed by the Irish TUC as soapboxes for nationalist MPs, in fact achieved gains for rural workers, and this was the basis for subsequent suppot for Labour in Munster. (I remember hearing about this from Tom Johnson, in the Plough office, in or about 1959; he referred to them as the 'Land and Labour Leagues', in the Land League tradition. RJ.)

The evolution of Labour politics in the Free State under Tom Johnson's leadership comes in for criticism; they aspired to 'normal' politics on the British model, with 'nationalism' now out of the way in the Free State; the left-republican pull of energent Fianna Fail was totally underestimated. The splitting activities of Larkin, on his return from the US, under Comintern influence, was another negative factor. Political divisions dominated again during the war, with the emergence of 'National labour'. (The underlying problem in all this was the complexity of the relationship between the labour movement and the national question, and the failure of the embryonic CPI to develop any independent analysis, outside of the largely negative influence of the Comintern and Stalin. RJ.

Maria Luddy (U Warwick) on Working Women, Trade Unionism and Politics in Ireland, 1830-1945 p44ff:

This is a useful source, but on the whole unrelated to the Century of Endeavour background; I had encountered Helen Chenevix and Louis Bennett during our attempts to develop progressive networking in the 1950s, and was aware of the background described on p52ff. RJ.

Catherine Hirst (Melbourne, Australia; QUB PhD 1997) on Politics, Sectarianism and the Working Class in 19thC Belfast p62ff:

Sectarian conflict was deep-rooted in the 1830s and 40s, in terms of Orangemen and Ribbonmen. The legal system was run by landlords, who favoured the Orange factions. The Catholic Emancipation movement was actively opposed by armed Protestants. Evangelical Protestant ministers (Drew. Cooke) actively resurrected the memory of the 1641mevents. Opposition to Repeal was organised in the Protestant Operatives Association which rioted during O'Connell's visit to Belfast in 1841. The Belfast Repeal Assocation drew support from workers, tradesmen and middle class in the Catholic community; it had a paper called the Vindicator, and ran weekly meetings attended by 2000 or more people. They looked to O'Connell rather than to the Young Irelanders. The Vindicator actively promoted the connection between Catholicism and Nationalism.

The Fenian movement in Belfast looked to the Young Irelanders and to the United Irishmen; while drawing its support primarily from catholic artisans it rejected the implied Catholic-hegemonism of the O'Connellite tradition. Its successors were supportive of parnellite Home Rule, but in anti-landlord mode, calling for the nationalisation of the land; the following quote (p71) is interesting: '...far from nationalism having tobe imported into Belfast, a nationalist ideology with independent socio-economic policies... had developed in the town..'.

The 1867 Reform Act triggered the establishment of the Belfast Protestant Working Men's Association, despite opposition from the Church of Ireland ministers; this would appear to have been opposed to the aristocratic leadership of the Orange Order, and to have aspired to act politically for the Protestant working-class within the Union.

This background of century-long sectarian organisation was a serious obstacle to the early attempts by Larkin and Connolly to develop a united working-class trade union organisation in the first decades of the 20th century. Its tradition imposed itself on such trade union organisation as did emerge, and has bedevilled left-wing politics to this day. RJ.

Christine Kinealy (U Central Lancashire) on 'Brethern in Bondage': Chartists, O'Connellites, Young Irelanders and the 1848 Uprising p87ff:

I had been aware of the lack of positive lore in the Irish movement relating to the Chartists, though the latter had benefited from Irish leadership, and the experience of the United Irishmen; I often wondered why. This paper gives many reasons, which are totally credible. RJ. On p90 we have Fergus O'Connor the Chartist leader regarding Daniel O'Connell as a 'traitor to the Irish people', due to his social conservatism and failure to win Repeal of the Act of Union, which O'Connor as MP for Nottingham had supported. O'Connell's position in Ireland was unassailable owning to the success of the Catholic Emancipation campaign. Further, O'Connell opposed the Chartists in Ireland, his supporters using violence to prevent them speaking (p91). Despite this Chartism gained support in Dublin, and the Irish Universal Suffrage Association was founded in 1841. The Catholic Church however denounced the Chartists from the altars. Despite O'Connell's hostility, Chartists in Ireland campaigned for Repeal. Support was taken up by the Young Ireland group. O'Connell's opposition to the trade union movement and alliance with the Whigs on government prompted the 1846 'Remonstrance' supported by Young Ireland, Dublin Chartists and the trade union movement; O'Connell urged it be 'thrown in the gutter'. Thus the negative right-wing catholic-nationalist role of O'Connell, which we on the Left always knew from the lore, is confirmed. RJ.)

The Confederation movement developed links with the Irish in Britain, and there was positive support from the Chartists, but the leadership, including O'Brien, Meagher and Mitchell, were against the Chartists, regarded as being too radical. Mitchell subsequenty came aound to a positive view of the Chartists, along with Lalor. The French revolution in 1848 srengthened this process, and a Protestant Repeal Association was set up in April 1848, rejecting the ascendancy principle. Chartists and Confederates visited France and were welcomed. The idea of mutual support between French republicans, British Chartists and Irish nationalists scared the British, and they put pressure on the French (p99). Chartists and Repealers collaborated in organising meetings in Britain. The campaign culminated with the presentation of the Charter to the Commons, with Confederate support from Smith O'Brien, to which the government response was repressive legislation, leading to the arrest of Mitchell. Thus the abortive Confederate uprising was the sad tail-end of a defeated massive campaign, uniting the movements for Irish independence and British democracy, which had developed despite the weakening effects of the Famine. The movement however, despite the Protestant Repeal component and Chartist connections, never caught on in Belfast, and the Orange Order was able to characterise the Confederate movement as 'Catholic'. RJ.

Fintan Lane (historian, Saothar) on Rural Labourers, Social Change and Politics in Late 19thC Ireland p113ff:

On p119ff there is some analysis of the active opposition on labourers to the introduction of farm machinery, and the welcoming given to machinery by the bourgeoisifying landlords who were developing commercial farming. On p125ff we have analysis of how the labourers related to the Land League; they were generally supportive, seeking security of tenure, though there were divisions, with 'Labour Leagues' emerging. On p128 there is a reference to a Land and Labour rally on May 15, 1881, at Sixmilebridge Co Clare, where a speaker, James Halpin, disparaged the low level of farmer support, whereupon labourers in the audience accused the farmers of 'working the shirt off our backs' and suggesting that 'we would be better off under the landlords than the farmers'.

(This is an interesting foreshadowing of JJ's comparative analysis of farm productivity by size and level or organisation, as reported in his SSISI paper An Economic Basis for an Irish Rural Civilisation (JSSISI Vol xvii, p1, 1947-8). The problem of how to reconcile land ownership with large-scale synergetic organisation is still with us; the co-operative movement alas did not evolve in this direction. JJ concluded that a labourer working on a well-managed estate would be substantially better off and more productive than the owner of the type of small 'family farm' resulting from the division of the estates. RJ.)

Parnell was supportive of the setting up the Irish Labour and Industrial Union, in 1882, which sought improved housing for labourers, with plots of land etc; it did not however evolve on a trade union basis, due to the perceived conflict with the farmers. It tended to be led by nationalist politicians. It merged with the National League which was set up in December 1882, on Davitt's motion. Subsequently in 1894 there was set up an Irish Land and Labour Association, which survived into the 20thC and evolved into support for the local Labour Party in Munster. I recollect Tom Johnson in the late 1950s mentioning the historic background to Labour outside Dublin as being rooted in what he called the 'Land and Labour Leagues'. RJ.

Maura Cronin (Mary Immaculate, Limerick) on Parnellism and Workers: the Experience of Cork and Limerick p140ff:

This analysis of the tensions within the Parnelite support system (artisan unions vs 'unskilled' workers, religious elements etc) while being an interesting preview of many factors in evicence in current Irish politics, does not specifically relate to my book.

Henry Patterson (QUB) on William Walker, Labour, Sectarianism and the Union, 1894-1912 p154ff:

This paper gives a much-needed elaboration of the background to the Connolly-Walker debate, which figures strongly in the Connolly lore with which the Irish Left is usually familiar. There are some insights into the political background with which JJ in his early years interacted, with the emergence of populist 'left' unionism via the Independent Orange Order, the voluntary dispossession of the landlords under the Wyndham Act, the attempt to set up a Labour Party in Belfast under unionist working-class leadership, and then Walker's role in ensuring the defeat of Connolly's motion at the Irish TUC to form an Irish Labour Party. There are however few if any points of contact with the Liberal Protestant Home Rule tradition in which context JJ's 'Civil War in Ulster' constitued a rearguard action. RJ.

Helga Waggon (historian, Germany) on Interpreting James Connolly 1916-23 p172ff:

Some elements of the national movement (for example Aodh de Blacam p180) latched on to Connolly's support for the old Gaelic system of land tenure, with its co-operative aspects, as outlined in The Reconquest of Ireland, and others picked upon his empathy with Plunkett and Russell. JJ in the 1920s was promoting Connolly's writings with his French contacts. The common ground was Connolly's Ralahine chapter in the Reconquest.

Conor Kostick (historian; Irish Writers Union) on Labour Militancy during the Irish War of Independence p187ff:

This interesting account of the various 'soviets' all over Ireland, in a context dominated by labour militancy, has tended to be air-brushed out of the historical record. Of particular interest is the Belfast strike of 1919, which consitituted a missed opportunity for the national movement to win Protestant working-class support; the Sinn Fein leadership ignored it. This episode, as well as ones in Limerick and Waterford, were known colloquially at the time as 'soviets', on the Russian model. JJ at this time has left little on record; he seems to have been active in TCD with the Thomas Davis Society, the consumer co-operative movement, and a doomed attempt to rescue some of the momentum of the 1917 Convention, with all-Ireland Home Rule in mind, but I am alas unable to identify contact-points with the episodes described by Conor Kostick. RJ.

Feargal McGarry (QUB) on Radical Politics in Interwar Ireland p207ff:

This analysis of the Saor Eire and Republican Congress epoch deserves study in the context of the need to understand the failure of a broad-based Left rooted in the working class to develop, ill-informed interference by the Comintern being a factor; see also Emmett O'Connor's recent paper at the 2007 Greaves School. RJ.

Graham Walker (QUB) on The Northern Ireland Labour Party, 1924-45 p229ff:

This throws some light on the nature of the obstacles generated by Partition to the development of an all-Ireland Left. These remained to thwart the attempt we made in the 1960s to develop united demands for civil rights reforms. The memory of the 1934 Outdoor Relief movement gave us some hope that united working-class action on common issues might turn out again to be feasible, but we seriously underestimated the size of the problem. RJ.

Richard Dunphy (U Dundee) on Fianna Fail and the Working Class, 1926-38 p246ff:

The failure of the Labour Party to pick up serious support from the urban working class, leaving the latter to Fianna Fail in populist mode, is analysed, using some insights from European experience. Labour's servile anti-leftism was no match for Fianna Fail's manipulation of the romantic image of the dead Connolly. One gets some feel for the nature and size of the problem faced by the Left during and after the war. RJ.

Donal O Drisceoil (UCC; editor Saothar) on 'Whose Emergency is it?' Wartime Politics and the Irish Working Class, 1939-45 p262ff:

In our 1940s student Left epoch it would have been useful to have had a usable analysis of how the Labour movement had been split during the war, and the role of Fianna Fail; we knew about it, but by hearsay, from oral sources; Owen Sheehy-Skeffington, John Swift and John de Courcy Ireland were influences; we had heard about the Council of Action, in particular its Pearse Street embodiment. We tried to pick up the threads, under the influence of Desmond Greaves, and what we did led to setting up the Irish Workers' League (re-inventing an ill-fated Larkin concept from his Comintern epoch) in 1948. RJ.

Some navigational notes:

Copyright Dr Roy Johnston 2007