The republican ideal

Birth of a Republic, by Eoin Neeson, Prestige Books, 427pp, £16.99

Book Service: To order this book and have it sent directly to your home or office, call The Irish Times Book Service at 1850 30 60 60

A fundamental but dubious assumption underlies this book: "Constitutional progress and reverses notwithstanding, it is all but incontrovertible that after 1798 and 1803, the only form of independence which would have been both acceptable to, and enduring for, a majority of the Irish people was a republic." The history of Irish nationalism from 1800 to 1922, when neither of the major movements, Repeal or Home Rule, was republican, contradicts this.

Eoin Neeson denigrates the constitutional and elevates the physical-force efforts of the 19th century. Separatism was a "reality" worth fighting for, constitutionalism a mere "image". He insists that by 1916 the "mechanisms of constitutionalism" were "discredited". Mr Neeson completely distorts what happened in Ireland in 1917 by portraying it as some sort of extraordinary and widespread adaptation of republicanism as the only possible political goal for Ireland from then on. He asserts that the 1918 general election showed that "the people as a nation were on the move towards independence and a republic". While they were certainly on the move towards independence, that the form it would or must take was a republic is by no means as clear. Concerning Sinn Fein's position following the truce of July 1921, he writes: "The Irish did not accept the reality - much less the validity - of partition and, supported by conviction and the mandate of the people of Ireland as a whole, sought a republic." Sinn Fein did not have "the mandate of the people of Ireland as a whole" to seek a republic. Patently, they did not have the mandate of a million or more unionists who had fiercely resisted Home Rule, let alone the larger measure of independence represented by a republic.

Neeson's attitude to unionism is somewhat chilling: "The argument that a modest local majority, a minority of the total, has rights of autonomy and of self determination based on sectarian grounds in an ancient and established nation is so fallacious as to need no further comment." In other words, the unionist minority must accept (be made to accept?) the will of the majority. What about the anti-Treaty minority accepting majority will? That majority is vitiated, according to Neeson, because of the pressure exerted by the British, the churches, the press, various vested interests, the war-weariness of the people, even "the rump of the defunct Irish Parliamentary Party"(!). The majority who voted for the Treaty in June 1922 probably did not know what they were voting for. Quite. The account of the Treaty negotiations, the split that followed and the Civil War is one-sided. Read Dorothy Macardle's The Irish Republic, published 60 years ago, on which Neeson relies heavily, if one wants the anti-Treaty version. It is better written, although it contains the same mistakes.

To take two examples: first, Griffith did not support de Valera's decision not to lead the delegation to London; he voted against it in Cabinet, along with Collins and Cosgrave; Brugha, Stack and Barton supported de Valera, who used his casting vote to settle the matter; second, during the London talks, the Sinn Fein offer of local autonomy to Northern Ireland, subordinate to an all-Ireland parliament, was not "unacceptable to the British"; they accepted it and tried to persuade the unionists to do the same, but to no avail; that Lloyd George put the proposal to Craig "clearly tongue-in-cheek" reveals Neeson's attitude.

Neeson does not mince his words. For example, the Conservatives used the "barbaric bigotry" of unionists to defeat the Liberals and Home Rule; unionists displayed a "reckless and despotic attitude" in the 1912-14 period; doubts about the Rising are "contemptible", "preposterous", "nonsensical" and "prejudiced". The book would have benefited from a good editor - there is too much repetition. The method of indicating sources is confusing. The abbreviation "op. cit." appears on most pages, but the work being cited is not clear. There is some confused expression and a liberal sprinkling of misprints, misspellings, omissions and grammatical errors. In his introduction, Neeson wonders if the young are still learning about Irish history from 1910 to 1923. Yes, they are, but not from this book, I hope.

Brian Maye is a teacher and historian; he is the author of Fine Gael 1923-1987 (1993) and Arthur Griffith (1997)