On the first read of the sources, certain things stand out more distinctly than others, and links between sources instantly develop. Taking the sources at face value, it becomes clear which sources support and which oppose the view.
Source three; E. Norman’s A History of Modern Ireland¸ is the only source that cannot be seen to support or oppose the view that Irish nationalism remained a “curious blend of conservative Catholicism and political radicalism”. Instead, he has divided Irish nationalism into his own two categories: radicals and true nationalists.
In order to choose these sectors he had to define different groups. “Men like O’Connell, Parnell and Griffith” were “Irish agitators who sought merely to redefine the direction of sovereignty…are most usefully described as radicals”, whereas “Those who aspired to replace the existing order with something derived from a quite different concept of sovereignty – as the Fenians, Pearse and De Valera did – are more properly designated as nationalists”. He believed that because “they actually tried to create new models of social and governmental institutions.
George Bernard Shaw’s preface, in source 6, does not, as such, appear to give clear support for either side of the argument, except to say that he clearly believes that Irish nationalism had been very successful, to the extent that “Every election is fought on nationalist grounds; every appointment is made on nationalist grounds…. Every speech is a dreary recapitulation of nationalist twaddle; every school is a recruiting station; every church is a barrack”. Which implies not only that there is a blend, but also that the blend has been applied well, and is working.
Taken at face value, every other source can be clearly defined as being either for or against the view. Only two sources, 1 and 7, can be seen to be opposed to this view at face value.
In source seven, no consensus between Eamonn De Valera and Arthur Griffith can be seen, and this suggests that there was no blend between their two different forms of nationalism.
In source one, John Mitchel is clearly opposed to O’Connell, saying that he had led the Irish “all wrong for forty years”, and that he led his followers with a “harmless exhibition of numerical force, by imposing demonstrations (which are fatal nonsense) and by eternally half-unsheathing a visionary sword”.
If the sources are examined more clearly, and deeply more and more links become apparent.
There is a link between sources four and five, as both show that different groups have been united. In source four, a speech made by Charles Stewart Parnell, albeit edited by a newspaper, shows Parnell trying to bring the people of Ireland together into a cohesive party, one that will obtain Home Rule. His vision of Irish nationalism is that the tenant farmers should respond to eviction not through violence but through boycotts, as shown in paragraph one of his speech. By getting the violent radicals to tone their actions down, he can unite the party into a successfully blended, passive political party. However, despite the passivity of paragraph one, radicalism is shown in the second paragraph in the form of a semi-veiled threat: “if the five hundred thousand tenant farmers of Ireland struck against the ten thousand landlords, I would like to see where they would get police and soldiers enough to make them pay”.
In source five, it is clear that in order to gain such success, the Irish National Party have had to unite the efforts of all the different elements of nationalism, and at face value, they have had great success. However, the question asks to examine between 1820 and 1921, but source five starts only in 1874, and ends in 1910, so we have no way of knowing, from the source, how well they had done prior, and after.
Between source 6 and source 3, links are shown. In source six, G. B Shaw shows that he regards nationalists and unionists as being as bad as each other, and accuses both of not focusing on the real issues of socialism, education and poverty, because they are obsessed with the British governments administration over Ireland, and in source three, E. Norman believes that a main problem faced by Irish politicians was that the Irish always felt grievances against the British, and both sources suggest obsession with the British administration and its faults that have been brought upon Ireland.
Despite first impressions, sources 1, 2 and 7 show links with one another.
In source one, despite the fact that at first it looks as though Mitchel is very anti-O’Connell, it is known for a fact that originally, he supported O’Connell, and that they had worked together up until 1847 when the combination broke down when O’Connell died. This source links with source two, as source two suggests that rather than the smooth “blend” between conservative Catholicism and political radicalism mentioned, the fusion was far more of a volatile mixture of different beliefs and methods. Hoppen also suggests that the blend was always going to break down, and when it did, all that was left was a polarisation of O’Connellites and anti-O’Connellites. Source seven links to these as, again, this looks on the surface to be a clearly unpredictable set of speakers talking about subjects that they both have opposing views upon. However, Griffith and De Valera were happy working side by side, and when this broke down, it resulted in civil war in Ireland. This source suggests that rather than Irish nationalism being a blend of conservative Catholicism and political radicalism, it was been a blend of Catholic radicalism.