Source 1 encapsulated this idea of the popular blend of conservative
catholicism and political radicalism through Catholic
Emancipation, led by Daniel O'Connell in 1829. A politically radical idea fought on the
basis of advancing the interestsof the whole catholic community, for the Irish
nationalist cause. John Mitchel, a member of Young Ireland reluctantly acknowledges
that the blend was strong with O'Connell and at that time,
extremism was not in the popular blend. Mitchel recognises that O'Connel was leading
the Irish nationalist cause at that time, "he led them" and that he was successful "his
success as a Catholic Agitator". However a comparison can be drawn between the
views of Mitchel in source one and the historian E.Norman in source three about the
policy of agitation as Mitchel regards it as "mere agitation."
The popularity of the blend, held by Parnell is clearly displayed in source 5, which
depicts number of seats won by the party which he led up and till 1890 in the elections
1874 to 1910. The I.P.P had a massive majority and this meant that it was they who
represented the will of the Irish masses and not the revoultionaries.
Though Parnell was less concerned about the emergence of the catholics than
O'Connell, he still realised that to be effective he must have the support of the Roman
Catholic Church.
In the speech in source four he is careful not promote violence, because he would then
be condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, however he does hint at violence
through his emotive speeches and call for 'boycotts'. This hint of violence
the blend can crossover at times and is an example of the "contradictions" and
"ambiguities" of Irish nationalism which Hoppen discusses in source two. It also
illustrates the point in source 6, of the violent tradition of the changing faces of
nationalism, "every school is a recruiting station, every church is a barrack." which
infers the ever present use of religion and policies of education are coupled with the
traditions of nationalism.
Around 1880 Parnell had strong Fenian links, particularly as the president of the Land
league. Parnell created and condoned a Land War (1879-82), but he tried to maintain
the blend in talking about a "christian way" a "charitable way" and the use of
"boycott." and here again is where the blend crosses over. But Parnell realised that he
could not hold onto the popular mandate without the support of the catholic church.
So when the land concessions had been given Parnell cut his ties with the Fenians
around 1882, showing his pragmatism, and then played Gladstone to the advantage of
the Irish cause, and further enhanced his relationship with the Catholic church through
education in 1884.
As source 5 shows there is an almost forty year long domination of the
elections because they had the popular blend. To further confirm this, the other twenty
or so seats were not being won by the extremists but instead by the Unionists, so here
is a clear indication of the total lack of support the extremists had.
However, this blend is not the popular blend throughout the entire period. One of the
most important reasons why the revolutionaries lacked the popular
support that the constitutionalists enjoyed was
because the Roman Catholic Church, which was the religion for most of the Irish
people, condemned the use of violence as a political tool and instead gave their
backing to the constitutionalists, and when we look at the different stages in this time
we can see how the strength of the blend varies.In the early part of the period the blend
was particularly strong with Daniel O'Connell who founded the Catholic Association
and gained Catholic Emancipation, and showed how the blend could work.
The strength of the blend varies throughout the period and their is a change in
the blend during World War 1, when political revolution becomes the popular blend.
Whereas before politicians such as Parnell could only hint at violence to ensure he did
not lose the support of theCatholic church and thus remain popular, in c1916 the
blend was one of violence and extremism.
The previous condemnations by the Roman Catolic Church about organistaions such
as Sinn Fein disappeared and they remained ambiguous in their silence. This almost
justified Sinn Fein and meant that it helpeg to gain the popular support of the catholic
masses which no previous revolutionary group had recieved. The popular blend had
changed from political radicalism to political revolution, shown in the 1918 election
results.
Source 7 shows that by 1921 the blend is still not fixed, its fluid and
illustrates that the blend had changed. No longer was it a curious blend of conservative
catholicism and poltical radicalism' but it was now the Fenian tradition, through Sinn
Fein which was popular. Source 7 also shows the split in Sinn Feinn itself between the
republican doctrinaires represented by Eamon DeValera, and that of praticality and
idealism, led by Arthur Griffith.
In evaluating the sources it is clear that they do not give a clear answer to the question.
For example source 5 is a very powerful source in the sense that it clearly shows where
the popular support was. However we are limited to the results of the elections
between 1874 and 1910, whereas the question is referring to c.1821 to 1921. We
know that the change in the blend occured around 1916 but there is not a source which
relates to this time and therefore one cannot effectively contradict the statement as one
might be able to.
Whether this blend was curious or not depends on the "angle of perception".
Garvin and Hoppens view that it was exactly that. However, John Mitchel, who had
the viewpoint of a staunch revolutionary nationalist, not a constitutionalist, percieved
the blend as "fatal nonsense" rather than curious and degraded the supporters of it by
labelling them as "West Britons". A view which could be compared to
that of George Bernard Shaw, an internationalist who saw
the idea of nationalism as "insufferable twaddle".It was the of a similar perception that
E.Norman in source 3 dismissed O'Connell,Parnell etc. "Those Irish agitators who
sought merely to redefine the direction of sovereignty."
There were also times throughout the period in question where the blend was by no
means fixed and alternated between the varying traditions as source 2 says Irish
nationalism was to "oscillate between the shifting attractions of two traditions." A man
which exemplified this was the pragmatic Parnell who was popular when the blend was
a very unsettled thing, and Parnell had to alternate between policies to try and keep the
various factions happy, and keep in power. This shows another aspect which should be
taken into consideration - that of context. Over time the emphasis between the two
different parts of the question change and the value of the sources differ over the time
period.
Source 7 only serves to quantify that the blend of conservative catholicism and political
radicalism is no longer present by 1921 and shows that Sinn Fein now represents the
will of the nation, but what the sources don't show is that Sinn Fein has done so since
1918.
