Wikipedia

User:Jnestorius/Physical force republicanism

< User:Jnestorius

Sources that comment on, elucidate, or contrast the term "Physical force republicanism":

Like the ' old' and 'new' ideologies of the 1830s; and the categories of 'moral' and 'physical' force, republicanism and popular constitutionalism should not be seen as mutually exclusive
In particular, O'Brien has been a crucial critic of the Irish political tradition generally and rather inaccurately labelled 'physical force republicanism'. The qualifier is more accurate than the noun; the republicanism of many Irish republicans is, to put it mildly
The appeal to this magical combination of numbers, therefore, could mean only one thing: allegiance to the tradition of physical force republicanism. To link in one sentence physical force republicanism with the name of Henry
These options reflect two political traditions: gradualist constitutional 'nationalism' and physical-force 'republicanism' (Ruane and Todd 1992: 189).
One expert identifies five strands which feed into the doctrine - traditionalism (Catholic and Gaelic), constitutionalism, physical-force Republicanism, radical Republicanism and cultural nationalism [Cronin, 1980, 31. This
grasp their relationship and their significance in the Northern Ireland conflict if I thought of them in different terms - that is, if I used for purposes of analysis a mental construct with different labels.9 Thus, Sinn Fein/IRA as an entity became Physical Force Republicanism, with Sinn
Sinn Féin's clear movement from endorsing physical force republicanism to constitutional politics
Advocates of physical-force republicanism were not always careful to distance themselves from parliamentary agitation by the so-called constitutionalists
Irish nationalism had divided into two factions: physical-force republicanism and constitutional nationalism
Hume's own form of Irish nationalism, and its eventual displacement of the southern state's formally irredentist but passive nationalism and SF's physical-force republicanism
The Bell ran a gauntlet between de Valéra's mainstream constitutional republicanism and physical-force republicanism, resisting both discourses by presenting a broader vision of Irish identity
Historically, a clear separation was made between it and 'physical force republicanism'epitomised by Sinn Fein and the PIRA. A clear distinction between these two political tendencies is now of course less easy to perceive.
The GAA has pursued in its rhetoric ideals which belong alongside the language of physical force Republicanism rather than the more realistic constitutional nationalism of the SDLP
The history of Irish nationalism and the part played in it by so-called “physical force” republicanism is long and complex. The most comprehensive overview is given by Robert Kee in The Green Flag, 3 vols. (London: Penguin, 1972)
Nationalist historiography attributed the rise of physical-force republicanism to the disillusionment that followed the Parnell split and the impact of the cul- tural revival.
its significance was lost on few because such a move was unprecedented in republican history and stands, as some republicans have admitted, in contradiction to the tradition of 'physical force' republicanism
chosen to give an example of a constitutionalist republican funeral (as opposed to physical-force republicanism, the ideology of the other three men);
constitutional nationalism, which is influenced by but not under the control of the Catholic Church, and uses 'Henry Grattan's [1746-1820] arguments on Ireland's right to nationhood as an independent kingdom, and opposes violence'; physical-force republicanism, which refers
Peacebuilding and Critical Forms of Agency From Resistance to Subsistence OP Richmond, A Mitchell - Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 2011 - alt.sagepub.com
  • the movement away from "physical force" republicanism into parliamentary politics is claimed by prominent members of the party to be a tactic for pursuing the goal of a united Ireland which has animated the republican project throughout its history
The Irish and their Nation: A survey of recent attitudes TC Davis - The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2003 - Taylor & Francis
the new look republicans and the 'new' leftists started to recognise and to criticize, some from the late 1950s others from the early 1960s, the failed strategy of the two old hard-line Nationalist tactics, constitutional anti-partitionism and the traditional physical force Republicanism.
Physical-force Republicanism has always been a questionable practice in the public mind (even in Ireland and, but for the .
The twentieth century publications of the Christian Brothers legitimised physical force republicanism by celebrating the acts of Emmet and Pearse.
What he stands between is two forms of intellectual nationalism, both hitherto ineffectual, between, if you like, his schoolfellows John Hume and Seamus Deane, the SDLP and Sinn Fein, liberal nationalism and physical-force republicanism
Furthermore, Joyce's fictions reveal the centrality of the Gaelic Athletic Association in promoting a racially embodied image of Gaelic manhood available to both “Irish Ireland” nationalism and physical force republicanism
. It is in secret societies that the tradition of physical-force republicanism was born.
Die konstitutionelle Linie des irischen Nationalismus, ... Die ältere, revolutionäre Linie des irischen Nationalismus, die in der Literatur häufig mit dem Begriff „physical-force republicanism" beschrieben wird, war hingegen bereit, ihre Ziele unter Mißachtung von Gesetzesnormen durchzusetzen. Die Organisationen des revolutionären Nationalismus befürworteten die Anwendung von Gewalt und die Zusammenarbeit mit fremden Mächten. [ The older, revolutionary line of Irish nationalism, which is often described in the literature by the term "physical-force republicanism", however, was prepared to enforce their goals in disregard of legal standards. The organizations of revolutionary nationalism advocated the use of violence and cooperation with foreign powers.]
In the former debate I reinsert the question of social radicalism into the traditional polarity between physical force republicanism and constitutional nationalism.
This study fills a major gap in the history of Irish immigrant political activity, as until now the only scholarly studies of physical-force Irish republicanism have been those by James Handley and Elaine McFarland on Fenianism in the 1860's, and by Ian Patterson on the events of
Others of their generation and their experiences, most notably John Hume, rejected the use of force. The Provisionals, however, took on the whole mantle of physical force Irish republicanism, dating back two hundred years.
  • Van der Bijl[7]
the Society of Wolfe Tone keeps his politics alive, in particular the term Physical Force Irish Republicanism. The term is used by Irish historians to describe the twinning of non-parliamentary armed insurrection with passive democracy to achieve an Irish republic by guaranteeing the Irish people the ownership of Ireland and breaking Irish links with the United Kingdom
When the so-called "physical force republicans" were persuaded to begin "decommissioning" or "putting weapons beyond use" - the Irish adore euphemisms - they were acutely conscious that the September 11 terrorist attack on America would seriously deplete the funding flooding across the Atlantic.
  • August 6, 1901 Oshkosh Daily Northwestern from Oshkosh, Wisconsin · Page 4
The Irish leaders are very reticent regarding this so-called physical force plan

Other "physical force" movements edit

1830:[8]

"Every one must admit, my dear fellow," said he, " that a forced oath is not binding: now the word force, may in some respects be considered as a figurative expression. There may be physical force, and moral force. Physical force is when a man is put in bodily fear, by robbers, murderers, or priests; when, as we say in French, a man may swear that a blown bladder is a lantern: here, defence would be death, and refusal to swear fatal. But moral force is equally tyrannic; because it is sometimes as difficult to resist our passions, as it is difficult to resist an armed assassin.

The Poor Man's Guardian in the 1830s, edited by Henry Hetherington, dealt with questions of class solidarity, manhood suffrage, property, and temperance; and condemned the Reform Act of 1832. The paper explored the rhetoric of violence versus non-violence, or what its writers referred to as moral versus physical force.[9]

Source:[10]

Following the failure of the National Chartist Convention in 1839, a more radical faction of the movement diverged from the "moral force" ideology of the People's Charter and advocated the use of physical force, "aggravating class animosities and defeating themselves in the service of the Ultra-Tories" Following the failure of the National Chartist Convention in 1839, a small group of rabid revolutionaries, the so-called 'physical force" faction succeeded in diverting the Chartist agitation away from the People's charter. According to Rice, "their hold on the popular imagination, despite being disproportionate to the real power at their command, was an important influence on mob scenes". However, the most serious of the revolutionary Chartist outbreaks occurred at Newport in November 1839, when special measures limiting the right of free assembly served to provoke further Luddite agitation. The riots were repressed harshly, twenty four Chartists were killed and fourteen were tried for high treason. Before that the ministry had reacted with the same severity to the Birmingham Riots in mid-August 1839

George Julian Harney and Feargus O'Connor led "physical force" wing of Chartists in 1840s.[11][12]

1847 edit

Source:[13]

But how is this right to be enforced—how is this repeal to be effected? Ay, there's the rub. Is repeal to be effected by force—by physical force—by force of arms? No. The attempt would be vain, and wicked because it would be vain. Ireland is not able to stand alone. Then repeal must be effected by MoRAL FoRoE—that mighty principle, which makes princes patriotic, statesmen sentimental, and imperial parliaments just and philanthropic—which softens the hearts of gaolers, opens the doors of prisons, and sets the captive free.

Hansard edit

Seditious Meetings Bill HC Deb 24 February 1817 vol 35 cc590-639:

He now came to a branch of the question which, when formerly agitated, had caused much discussion, and on which great difference of opinion had prevailed. What he alluded to was the debates in 1795 and 1799. But he was sure that all the considerations which weighed on the minds of the legislature at those periods, and induced them to pass the vote which de-dared the illegality of all secret associations for political purposes, and of all affiliations which admitted to a fraternity with such associations other classes of persons, whose sole object was the application of what they called "physical force," for the purpose of bloodshed and rebellion, would be acknowledged to occur more forcibly on the present occasion. The House had not hesitated, in 1799, to declare such associations illegal, by a law not of a temporary nature, but permanent and unrestricted as to the time during which it was to continue in force.

Riot at Limerick HC Deb 03 May 1848 vol 98 cc590-1:

to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he had received any official intelligence from Ireland, in confirmation of a statement which he had read in the Times of that morning, and which he could not help adding was most ably and amusingly commented upon in that newspaper, namely, that there had been a moral force demonstration in the city of Limerick? An émeute, in fact, in that city, on the part of the moral force party against the leaders of the physical force party—that the leaders of the physical force party, including Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Meagher of the sword, and Mr. Mitchell, had been seriously maltreated and injured by those moral force men; and that these bellicose gentlemen of the physical force party had actually been obliged to seek protection from Her Majesty's troops, and the constabulary of the city of Limerick?

James Connolly edit

Source:[14]

Ireland occupies a position among the nations of the earth unique in a great variety of its aspects, but in no one particular is this singularity more marked than in the possession of what is known as a ‘physical force party’—a party, that is to say, whose members are united upon no one point, and agree upon no single principle, except upon the use of physical force as the sole means of settling the dispute between the people of this country and the governing power of Great Britain.

Other countries and other peoples have, from time to time, appealed to what the first French Revolutionists picturesquely described as the ‘sacred right of insurrection’, but in so appealing they acted under the inspiration of, and combated for, some great governing principle of political or social life upon which they, to a man, were in absolute agreement. The latter-day high falutin' ‘hillside’ man, on the other hand, exalts into a principle that which the revolutionists of other countries have looked upon as a weapon, and in his gatherings prohibits all discussion of those principles which formed the main strength of his prototypes elsewhere and made the successful use of that weapon possible. Our people have glided at different periods of the past century from moral force agitation, so-called, into physical force rebellion, from constitutionalism into insurrectionism, meeting in each the same failure and the same disaster and yet seem as far as ever from learning the great truth that neither method is ever likely to be successful until they first insist that a perfect agreement upon the end to be attained should be arrived at as a starting-point of all our efforts.

To the reader unfamiliar with Irish political history such a remark seems to savour almost of foolishness, its truth is so apparent; but to the reader acquainted with the inner workings of the political movements of this country the remark is pregnant with the deepest meaning. Every revolutionary effort in Ireland has drawn the bulk of its adherents from the ranks of the disappointed followers of defeated constitutional movements. After having exhausted their constitutional efforts in striving to secure such a modicum of political power as would justify them to their own consciences in taking a place as loyal subjects of the British Empire, they, in despair, turned to thoughts of physical force as a means of attaining their ends. Their conception of what constitutes freedom was, in no sense changed or revolutionised; they still believed in the political form of freedom which had been their ideal in their constitutional days; but no longer hoping for it from the acts of the British Parliament, they swung over into the ranks of the ‘physical force’ men as the only means of attaining it. The so-called physical force movement of to-day in like manner bases its hopes upon the disgust of the people over the failure of the Home Rule movement; it seeks to enlist the people under its banners, not so much by pointing out the base ideals of the constitutionalists or the total inadequacy of their pet measures to remedy the evils under which the people suffer, as by emphasising the greater efficacy of physical force as a national weapon. Thus, the one test of an advanced Nationalist is, in their opinion, one who believes in physical force. It may be the persons so professing to believe are Republicans; it may be they are believers in monarchy; it may be that Home Rule would satisfy them; it may be that they despise Home Rule. No matter what their political faith may be, if only they are prepared to express belief in the saving grace of physical force, they are acclaimed as advanced Nationalists—worthy descendants of ‘the men of '98’. The '98 Executive, organised in the commencement by professed believers in the physical force doctrine, started by proclaiming its adherence to the principle of national independence ‘as understood by Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen’, and in less than twelve months from doing so, deliberately rejected a similar resolution and elected on its governing body men notorious for their Royalist proclivities. As the '98 Executive represents the advanced Nationalists of Ireland, this repudiation of the Republican faith of the United Irishmen is an interesting corroboration of the truth of our statement that the advanced Nationalists of our day are utterly regardless of principle and only attach importance to methods—an instance of putting the cart before the horse, absolutely unique in its imbecility and unparalleled in the history of the world.

It may be interesting, then, to place before our readers the Socialist Republican conception of the functions and uses of physical force in a popular movement. We neither exalt it into a principle nor repudiate it as something not to be thought of.10 Our position towards it is that the use or non-use of force for the realisation of the ideas of progress always has been and always will be determined by the attitude, not of the party of progress, but of the governing class opposed to that party. If the time should arrive when the party of progress finds its way to freedom barred by the stubborn greed of a possessing class entrenched behind the barriers of law and order; if the party of progress has indoctrinated the people at large with the new revolutionary conception of society and is therefore representative of the will of a majority of the nation; if it has exhausted all the peaceful means at its disposal for the purpose of demonstrating to the people and their enemies that the new revolutionary ideas do possess the suffrage of the majority; then, but not till then, the party which represents the revolutionary idea is justified in taking steps to assume the powers of government, and in using the weapons of force to dislodge the usurping class or government in possession, and treating its members and supporters as usurpers and rebels against the constituted authorities always have been treated. In other words, Socialists believe that the question of force is of very minor importance; the really important question is of the principles upon which is based the movement that may or may not need the use of force to realise its object.

Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation—the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government.

Thus the policy of the Socialist Republicans is seen to be the only wise one. Educate that you may be free; principles first, methods afterwards. If the advocacy of physical force failed to achieve success or even to effect an uprising when the majority were unenfranchised and the secret ballot unknown, how can it be expected to succeed now that the majority are in possession of voting power and the secret ballot safeguards the voter?

The ballot-box was given us by our masters for their purpose; let us use it for our own. Let us demonstrate at that ballot-box the strength and intelligence of the revolutionary idea; let us make the hustings a rostrum from which to promulgate our principles; let us grasp the public powers in the interest of the disinherited class; let us emulate our fathers and, like the ‘true men of '98’, place ourselves in line with the most advanced thought of our age and drawing inspiration and hope from the spectacle presented by the world-wide revolt of the workers, prepare for the coming of the day when the Socialist working-class of Ireland will, through its elected representatives, present its demand for freedom from the yoke of a governing master class or nation—the day on which the question of moral or physical force shall be finally decided.

James Joyce edit

Joyce himself described the multi-faceted Irish nationalist movement as a dual struggle "of the Irish nation against the English government, and the struggle . . . between the moderate nationalists and the so-called physical force party," which took such names as "the 'Invincibles' and the 'Fenians'". [15]

Kathleen Lynch edit

Dáil 1996 (Reynolds and others use "physical force tradition" etc in this debate).[16] In the long-term, however, we must confront the historical nature of violence on this island and those who resort to it. Deputies have referred to the schizophrenia with which we view the so-called physical force tradition. This was evident in some of the contributions last night as there appeared to be some [1565] confusion as to whether the British Government or the IRA was responsible for last Friday's bomb. The term “physical force tradition” is a euphemism we use to conceal our discomfort. Physical force sounds far more innocent than plain common language such as violence, murder or slaughter. All Members must face up to that because the majority of us are politically descendent from that ambivalent tradition.

When we look at the IRA and the bewildered faces of English families who have lost a loved one we are looking into the mirror of our history. It is not a pleasant sight but we can learn from it. In this regard I speak from experience. Some Members of my party and the parties from which we originated had their roots in the physical force tradition. I understand the difficulties associated with abandoning the certainties of physical force for the uncertainties of the democratic process. After all, the will of the people is never predictable.

1935 edit

That in the opinion of the Dáil the Government ought either to abandon the profession of Republicanism or to seek authority from the electorate for the immediate establishment of a Republic.—(Deputies Frank MacDermot, Seán Mac Eoin.) Tá, 18; Níl, 74.[17]

  • My own reading of Irish history is that the main stream of Irish nationalism has been non-Republican. [2260] Prior to 1916 there are few indeed of the leaders of Irish national opinion whose careers have shown consistent Republicanism. The man most often quoted as the separatist par excellence, Wolfe Tone, is one of those whose life will not stand examination in this respect. The inspiration which I draw from the labours and sacrifices of those who have worked for Irish independence and unity on the basis of allegiance to the King is quite as strong as that which Deputies opposite draw from men holding other views. The memory of the Irish Nationalists who fought and died in Gallipoli or in the dismal ditches of Flanders, who endured hardships of which those accustomed only to warfare in this country can have no conception, who were so patient and so valiant and carried out such forlorn and obscure tasks in frightful danger without popularity and publicity to console them, is fully as present, I can assure the House, to my heart and conscience as is to the majority of Deputies the memory of their comrades who fell between 1916 and 1923.

References edit

  1. ^ Republicanism, popular constitutionalism and the radical platform in early nineteenth‐century England J Belchem - Social History, 1981 - Taylor & Francis
  2. ^ Imaginary Cassandra?: Conor Cruise O'Brien as Public Intellectual in Ireland T Garvin - Irish University Review, 2007 - JSTOR
  3. ^ The Political use of History in the work of Arthur Griffith D McCartney - Journal of Contemporary History, 1973 - JSTOR
  4. ^ Nations and nationalisms: towards more open models R Jenkins - Nations and nationalism, 1995 - Wiley Online Library
  5. ^ Bourke, Richard; McBride, Ian (2016-01-26). "Independent Ireland". The Princeton History of Modern Ireland. Princeton University Press. p. 109. ISBN 9781400874064. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  6. ^ O'Brien, Brendan (1999). The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin. Syracuse University Press. p. 21. ISBN 9780815605973. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  7. ^ Van der Bijl, Nick (2009-10-19). Operation Banner: The British Army in Northern Ireland 1969 _ 2007. Pen and Sword. p. 5. ISBN 9781844159567. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  8. ^ Millingen, John Gideon (1830). Adventures of an Irish Gentleman ... Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley. p. 195. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  9. ^ Bob Breton, "Violence and the Radical Imagination", Victorian Periodicals Review, Spring 2011, 44#1 pp 24–41
  10. ^ Moreira Maia, Rousiley Celi (May 1992). "Crowd Theory in Some Modern Fiction: Dickens, Zola and Canetti, 1841-1960" (PDF). PhD Dissertations. Nottingham University. pp. 111, and fn.75. Retrieved 25 November 2015., citing pp.62-3 of Rice, Thomas J. "The Politics of Barnaby Rudge" In Robert Giddins, ed. The Changing World of Charles Dickens. London, Vision, 1983
  11. ^ Mander, W. J. (2014-02-06). The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century. OUP Oxford. p. 405. ISBN 9780191669026. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  12. ^ Mathias, Peter; Pollard, Sidney (1989). The Industrial Economies: The Development of Economic and Social Policies. Cambridge University Press. p. 504. ISBN 9780521225045. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  13. ^ Holmes, Robert (1847). The Case of Ireland Stated ... Third Edition, Corrected. James McGlashan. pp. 94–95. Retrieved 26 November 2015.
  14. ^ James Connolly: Originally Workers' Republic, 22 July 1899; reprinted in Socialism and Nationalism as Chapter 7 "Physical force in Irish politics"
  15. ^ "James Joyce's "Ulysses" and Bloom's Utopian Vision of Ireland - Student Pulse". Retrieved 25 November 2015., citing Joyce, James. "Fenianism: The Last Fenian." 1907. Trans. Conor Deane. Occasional, Critical, and Political Writing. Ed.Kevin Barry. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP, 2000. p.138
  16. ^ "Dáil Éireann - 15/Feb/1996 Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements (Resumed)". Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  17. ^ Dáil debates 3 April 1935 10 April 1935 30 October 1935
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jnestorius/Physical_force_republicanism&oldid=692478090"