Happy 100th Birthday to Prohibition.

While it was on the cards for a number of years, and was a decades long project championed by abolitionists (of booze, not slavery – though they were often one and the same), the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution came into existence one hundred years ago, and lasted an unlucky thirteen years, before being removed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment (also the name of an excellent bar in San Francisco). It’s still the only instance in which a constitutional amendment has been introduced purely to nullify one of its predecessors. 

It all started in January 1920, so that by the Fall of that year the authorities would have had a fair idea of how it was all going to pan out. The answer was, not that well really. The so-called ‘Noble Experiment’ was one of those idealistic and simplistic American solutions to complex political conundrums (‘Hey, let’s invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein’. ‘Hey let’s invade Libya and get rid of Gaddafi’ – you probably get the picture). In this case the problem was the undoubted affinity of many Americans to their fellow citizen ‘Mr. John Barleycorn’. (And I know that we Irish are in no position to be sanctimonious about that particular vice).

The widespread consumption of alcoholic liquor was responsible for the phenomenon described in the USA as ‘Blue Monday’ – not, in this instance, the biggest selling 12” single of all time by the Manchester band, New Order. The expression referred to the Monday after a weekend drinking binge. In addition to the many moralistic arguments advanced by abolitionists, the economic case was made that the introduction of Prohibition would bring ‘Blue Monday’ to an end and benefit the economy because of increased productivity. 

So, where did the move to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages start?

With a plethora of 19th century Temperance movements, like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party. These included the Knights of Father Mathew. The Tipperary-born, Cork-based Capuchin friar spent two and a half years in the USA from 1849-51. He visited 25 states, was entertained in the White House, and organised the Knights in St. Louis before he left the USA to return to Ireland. 

This early manifestation of the temperance movement managed to force prohibition in the State of Maine in 1851 – a move copied by a dozen other states – but those bans mostly didn’t survive the Civil War. There was an interesting footnote to the Maine ban – if you’re a Premier League soccer fan. There was a strong temperance movement in the city of Manchester in the mid 19th century and when the US state of Maine passed a law banning alcohol, the Manchester Temperance movement, which owned land in what was then known as Dog Kennel Lane, insisted on the name being changed to Maine Road, which, from 1923-2003 was the home of one of the city’s two professional football teams (the one in light blue).

Carrie Nation

After the American Civil War the Temperance movement made a major comeback in the 1880s. One of its most colourful champions was a woman named Carrie Nation (that’s actually her real name). She was a 19th century prohibitionist whose unique selling point was to arrive in a bar with a hatchet and destroy as much of it as she could before she was arrested. This occurred on at least 30 occasions. Ms. Nation obviously had a dark sense of humour as well, because one of the magazines she published was known as The Smasher’s Mail and another was entitled The Hatchet

But that was all prologue to the serious business of banning the sale of booze in the 20thcentury.

This was brought about by organisations like the Anti Saloon League (very capably led by the politically adept Wayne Wheeler). The ASL campaigned vigorously for the introduction of prohibition, making considerable progress in legislative circles by the end of the first decade of the new century. When the USA entered World War 1 in April 1917 a law was introduced prohibiting the brewing or distilling of alcoholic beverages more than 1.3% proof – the official aim being to save wheat supplies for bread production. But, it was also a dry run (pun intended) for the ’Noble Experiment’ of Prohibition. The legislation was not finally enacted until well after the Armistice after 11/11/1918! So, you would assume it was redundant by then, but it was still enforced even though the war was over. It came into force on 30 June 1919, with 1 July 1919 thereafter being known as the ‘Thirsty-First’.

The move to make alcohol production unconstitutional (it was already illegal in a number of ‘dry’ states and counties) also began in 1917. The required 36 states had ratified the 18thAmendment to the US Constitution by January 1919. Later that year Congress passed enabling legislation (written by the Anti-Saloon League) in the name of one of the champions of prohibition, Andrew Volstead, Minnesota Republican and Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. The Democratic Party President, Woodrow Wilson, vetoed the legislation after it passed both houses of Congress, but there were enough votes in the Senate and the House, from Democrats and Republicans (two thirds of both assemblies) to override the Presidential veto. The legislation provided that ‘No person shall … manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor …’ The bar was set very low too. The Volstead Act defined ‘intoxicating liquor’ as anything higher than 0.5% proof. The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was repealed by the 21st Amendment when Utah (irony of ironies) became the 36th State to ratify in December 1933.

The campaign to expedite the introduction of prohibition was very evangelical Protestant in its origins, with a lot of Methodist and Baptist input. So much so that even religions which disapproved of alcohol did not get too involved in the campaign, but it was something over which northern WASPs and Southern ‘Jim Crow’ racists could unite. It also involved far more women than was the norm in any political activity outside of the parallel campaign for female suffrage. 

One of the puzzles to a modern audience is the nature of the coalition that forced the Volstead Act through. If prohibition were to happen today it would probably be an entirely evangelical conservative Republican phenomenon. But, in the first decades of the 20thcentury it was a Democrat-Republican/progressive-conservative coalition that managed to garner enough support to force the measure through. It was also an urban-rural conflict at a time when the urban USA was not as demographically significant and dominant as it is now, and when corrupt urban machine politics was often associated with city saloons and bars where voters were bribed, murky deals were done, and city ‘bosses’ made their plans to siphon off millions of taxpayer dollars

The cause of the so-called ‘Noble Experiment’ united an unbelievably disparate group – from the Ku Klux Klan on the far right to leading members of the women’s suffrage movement on the left (the legendary Susan B. Anthony was a 19th century supporter, for example) and included ultra-conservative evangelical preachers like Billy Sunday, as well as African-American labour activists in liberal New York. This was how the supporters of prohibition managed to override the Presidential veto in Congress – it was the sort of ‘hands across the aisle’ movement that would be unthinkable today.

Did the Volstead Act introduce a total ban on alcohol?

Not quite. Wine was still legal for bona fide religious purposes (so, consumption of altar wine soared!). Some alcohol could still be manufactured and sold for medical reasons (doctors made a lot of money prescribing whiskey ‘purely for medicinal purposes, you understand officer’ ). The domestic consumption of alcohol was not illegal so you could make your own wine or cider at home, but not beer or spirits. Or you could stockpile your supplies in advance of prohibition being introduced, assuming you had the money. President Warren G. Harding (1921-23), for example, even brought his own stockpile to the White House!

The California wine industry could have been completely gutted but for the fiction that much of the raw material produced by the industry was being consumed in fruit salads as grapes. Also, the production and consumption of grape juice/concentrate was legal, despite the fact that if you let grape juice ‘sit’ for long enough it would ferment into 12% proof wine!

So, what happened to the booze business when the Volstead Act went into force?

Breweries either began to produce beer that was virtually non-alcoholic or they closed. After the supplies that people had been hoarding for months finally ran out it was happy days for brewers and distillers in Canada and Mexico. The practice of ‘rum-running’ began early and in earnest, and this was where criminal elements started to exploit prohibition. They sourced booze across the US border, north and south, and transported it to where there was a huge market, mostly in American cities. The ‘bootlegger’ became an American folk hero. As the dominant Chicago gangster and racketeer, Alphonse ‘Scarface’ Capone put it, ‘I am like any other man. All I do is supply a demand’. 

It was the era of the illegal drinking den, the ‘speakeasy’ (not an American Prohibition-originated expression BTW – it first appeared in Australia in the 1830s and in the USA in the 1880s). There were an estimated 50,000 of these illegal drinking establishments in greater New York alone, 5,000 of those on the island of Manhattan. Prohibition trebled the number of drinking establishments in Chicago. They ranged from sleazy dives to the sophisticated and well-protected establishments of F.Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (himself a bootlegger – Gatsby, not Fitzgerald) and of Hollywood 1930s movies. 

Speakeasies came in all shapes and sizes. You can even have a drink in one if you visit San Francisco. It’s the Cirque, a reopened bar in the Fairmont Hotel on Nob Hill that once operated as a speakeasy. That’s about as good as it got when it came to illegal drinking dens in San Francisco. The other side of the coin would have been the dives that dotted what was known as the Barbary Coast area of the city – the red-light district. Most of those were pretty vile and were closed down during prohibition, completely changing the nature of the neighbourhood. 

As the era went on, and as more and more speakeasy owners took out ‘insurance policies’ ensuring that the authorities ignored their activities, the speakeasy tended to become more open and sophisticated – virtually indistinguishable from the modern nightclub. The famous Delmonicos in New York served its time as a speakeasy, as did the Krazy Kat Club in Washington DC. The ‘Irish’ New York gangster Owney Madden (who was actually from Leeds!) was part-owner of the famous Cotton Club, and while the likes of Louis Armstrong, Count Basie and Fats Waller were performing there Madden’s bootleg hooch was being sold, at a sizeable mark-up no doubt, to the patrons. Madden must have fallen behind in his payments because the Cotton Club was closed briefly in 1925 for, shock/horror, selling liquor– that never happened again. The closure I mean. 

The speakeasy also changed the nature of the cocktail – this was because all sorts of liquids had to be added to bootleg cocktails to disguise the fact that patrons were basically drinking rough and ready moonshine. Speakeasies were frequented by the great and the good – mayors, senators, police chiefs, and film stars. When raids occurred, it was often at the behest of Federal law enforcement officers. Municipal police forces were ‘bought’ early and often by rum runners, bootleggers and speakeasy owners, and preferred to turn a blind eye. 

What steps did the Federal government take to enforce the Volstead Act?

A number of different agencies (including the Internal Revenue Service) were delegated to enforce the law. The most famous of these was the Bureau of Prohibition which waged war on the many gangsters exploiting the ban on alcohol sales. The most famous Bureau of Prohibition agent was Eliot Ness, based in Chicago, who led a unit that became known as the Untouchables. This was because, unlike most Chicago city police, its members were not susceptible to corruption. Ness used a wire-tapping operation to inhibit the notorious Al Capone’s operations. The work of Ness led to an indictment of Capone for more than 5,000 Volstead Act violations, but he ultimately went to Federal prison (Alcatraz) for tax evasion. 

 Also, in order to prevent the use of industrial alcohol in the production of illegal hooch, the Feds ordered that ethyl alcohol was to be ‘denatured’ by the addition of lethal poison. When the ingenious bootleggers got their chemists to ‘renature’ the alcohol the Feds insisted on even more deadly poisons being introduced. Up to 10,000 people are believed to have died as a result of being poisoned by ‘denatured’ alcohol.

As with a lot of moralistic legislation the inequalities showed up early – wealthy and middle-class Americans could afford to frequent speakeasies or pay inflated prices for booze – working class people could not – this quickly led to the use of portable stills and the manufacture of domestic ‘bath-tub’ alcohol by the less well off.  In the first year of operation alone there were over 30,000 cases taken against people for violations of the Volstead Act. That number increased from year to year until 1933.

Prohibition, rather than introducing a more sober United States to itself, and to the wider world, only helped to supercharge the ‘Roaring Twenties’. After the misery of the Great War people were not going to be stopped from partying by the inconvenience of Prohibition. They found many ways around the law and rationalised their implicit/effective support of gangsters in the process. 

Culturally did Prohibition give rise to places like The Cotton Club in Harlem, to the music of the Jazz Age, to the Charleston, to songs like ‘Basin Street Blues’, ‘Honeysuckle Rose’, ‘Everybody Loves My Baby’ or ‘Sweet Georgia Brown’?  Or would they all have happened anyway? Who knows?  It is certainly responsible for movies like Little Caesar (based on the career of Capone) and Public Enemy (starring James Cagney) – both released in 1931. It also enhanced the enticing ‘risk factor’ of having a good time (you could, in theory at least, end up in jail) and there was a ‘nose thumbing’ element to the social life of the 1920s. This was encapsulated in the song ‘Chicago’, in the lines …

‘Bet your bottom dollar you lose the blues in Chicago,

The town that Billy Sunday could not shut down’ 

But part of the mythology of the ‘Roaring Twenties’ is definitely and legitimately associated with organised crime and homicidal gangsterism – with the rise of ‘Scarface’ Al Capone in Chicago —partly achieved by his brutal slaying of the senior members of the rival ‘Irish’ Bugs Moran gang in the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre on 14 February 1929—and the emergence of the Five Families of the Sicilian Mafia in New York (supplanting Irish and Jewish gangs there) in the 1930s. By 1931 the Sicilian Mafia was already well organised in New York (helped by the money being made from supplying liquor) and was drawing up its own ‘rules’ and establishing a governing ‘Commission’.

Prohibition is difficult for us to get our heads around in the 21st century – today we wonder ‘could you not have seen what was going to happen if you made alcohol illegal? – criminal elements would inevitably flood in and fill the vacuum.’  But there is a lot of ‘backwards history’ about that line of reasoning, We now know what actually happened (Al Capone, Bugs Moran, Dion O’Bannion, Dutch Schultz et al) and we can draw parallels today with the illegal manufacture and sale of narcotics.  But there are many historians who insist that there is insufficient evidence of massively increased crime statistics between 1920-33, and that there is plenty of evidence that the health (physical and mental) of Americans dramatically improved during that period. So, they argue, Prohibition wasn’t all bad. 

Undoubtedly the USA did have a huge problem with alcohol abuse in the 19th and early 20thcenturies. Interestingly between 1830-2010 American consumption of alcohol declined by 66%. The Temperance Movement, Prohibition, and advances in Public Health information have all contributed to that reduction. 

So, why did Prohibition eventually end?

1) Increasing disillusionment as to its achievements, even on the part of former supporters. It appeared to trail in its wake it even more ‘moral’ issues than it addressed.

2) The detrimental effect on state and federal government revenues of the non collection of taxes on the sale of alcohol. This became even more crucial after the Wall Street Crash, as the Federal and State administrations urgently needed additional sources of revenue, and FDR needed to pay for his Keynesian New Deal policies (most of which, however, were funded by Federal borrowing).

3) The perception of the growing lack of respect for the law among ordinary citizens who were flouting the Volstead Act in their millions in speakeasies and had rather too much sympathy for the ‘ordinary decent criminals’ manufacturing, distributing and flogging booze.

4) The grip of ‘Bootlegging’ and the ills that accompanied the rapid growth of organised crime (though the extent of this has been questioned by some revisionist historians – but perception is just as important as reality)

5) The need to end the corruption of politics and policing brought about by the rampant bribery of officials, politicians at all levels and police forces. (So, how did that one go?)

Although he eventually fell victim to his own success, let’s leave the last word with one of the brutal success stories of the Prohibition era, Al Capone. 

‘You can get much further with a kind word and a gun then you can with a kind word alone.’

Why Senator Kamala Harris is unlikely to be checking out her Irish roots, even in an election year.

We wouldn’t really be Irish if we didn’t try and latch on to prominent US politicians and claim them as ‘Irish-American’—it’s a bit like the Brits claiming Paul Mescal and Andrew Scott as ‘British’ when they get BAFTA nominations, or some such. I don’t think we managed to snare Bush #41 or #43 but, otherwise, everyone since Reagan has been advised of their Irish ancestry – even Barack Obama Kearney from Moneygall. So far no one seems to have bothered to establish if Donald Trump has any Irish antecedents. Funny that. There seems to have been a unspoken decision taken among the nation’s genealogists that Scotland and Germany are more than welcome to him. 

Should Joe Biden pull off the impossible in November, and defeat the most unpopular U.S. President since the continent of America split off from Africa and wandered west under the influence of continental drift, then he will be inundated with advice about his solid Irish connections, and will be strong-armed by Taoiseach Micheál Martin, when he receives his statutory bowl of shamrock next March (Covid-19 permitting), to come and visit his ancestral home in Louth, from where his great-grandfather emigrated in 1850. Though there may be stiff competition for the honour of Biden ancestral home – apparently all eight of Biden’s great-great-grandparents on his mother’s side were born in Ireland. Let the genealogical bunfight begin. It could get ugly.

However, it would be a brave genealogist (or Taoiseach) who would try to entice future Vice President Kamala Harris to the birthplace of her only Irish ancestor! Her great-great-great-grandfather was one Hamilton Brown, born in County Antrim in the year of the declaration of American Independence, 1776. Other than the coincidence of the year of his birth, any connection with freedom and liberty (other than his own) is purely accidental.

So, why would the putative Veep not try and establish her Irish credentials and milk a few Irish-American votes in the process? That would be because great-great-great-grandpappy Ham was a top notch, wildly enthusiastic, slave-owner.  Not one of your milksop plantation wallahs with a couple of house slaves. No, Ham was a ‘scream it from the mountain tops’ sort of feudal type.

In an article entitled ‘Reflections of a Jamaican father’ Kamala Harris’s own father, Donald J. Harris, an emeritus professor of economics at Stanford,  wrote that, ‘My roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown, descendant of Hamilton Brown who is on record as plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town) …’

In a previous post on Irish slave owners in the West Indies, ones who benefitted from British government compensation for the abolition of slavery in British colonies in the 1830s, I pointed out that Hamilton Brown owned twenty-five plantations in Jamaica. He received almost £20,000 in compensation for the loss of his human property (886 slaves) and unsuccessfully sought almost another £5000 for a further 233 slaves. He appears to have arrived in Jamaica to work as a humble bookkeeper in 1795 but managed to acquire a huge swathe of land (used for farming cattle and growing sugar). So, at least he was an enterprising slave driver.

Rather like his fellow Irishman, John Mitchel, born a bit further south, in Newry, Co. Down, Brown harboured some interesting ideas about the status of slaves vis a vis their soul mates, the Irish and English poor. Mitchel, an apologist for the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War, wrote of how Irish peasants were much worse off than the slaves of the American South. Brown went even further. He considered his pampered and privileged slaves to be better off than the English poor, who were, of course, so much better off than the impoverished Irish! Or, so he told a touring Methodist minister, Henry Whitely, a visitor to Jamaica in 1832—the year before the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act at Westminster. Whitely wrote an account of his six-week visit to the island in a pamphlet published by the Anti-Slavery Society. This is Whitely’s report of his meeting with Senator Harris’s beloved ancestor. 

 ‘The same day I dined in St. Ann’s Bay, on board the vessel I arrived in, in company with several colonists, among whom was Mr. Hamilton Brown, representative for the parish of St. Ann in the Colonial Assembly. Some reference having been made to the new Order in Council, I was rather startled to hear that gentleman swear by his maker that that Order should never be adopted in Jamaica; nor would the planters of Jamaica, he said, permit the interference of the Home Government with their slaves in any shape. A great deal was said by him and others present about the happiness and comfort enjoyed by the slaves, and of the many advantages possessed by them of which the poor in England were destitute.’ 

Brown cordially loathed the great British anti-slavery campaigner, William Wilberforce, accusing him of being a ‘hypocrite’ and claiming Wilberforce was in possession of a ‘cloven foot’. This was, presumably, a diabolical reference designed to get them out of their seats in the Jamaican House of Assembly, where he proudly represented the (all white) electorate of St. Ann’s parish for twenty-two years. 

Henry Whitely was a tad sceptical of Brown’s rose-tinted view of the fringe benefits of enslavement, and his scepticism was soon justified. Travelling through the plantations of the island he witnessed a group of slaves manuring sugar canes while an overseer laid into them with a cart whip. 

‘It appeared to me disgustingly dirty work; for the moisture from the manure was dripping through the baskets, and running down the bodies of the negroes. This sight annoyed me considerably, and raised some doubts as to the preferable condition of West India slaves to factory children … the thundering crack of the cart whip, sounding in my ears as I rode along, excited feelings of a very unpleasant description.’

Whitely also witnessed the flogging of young girls – lashed forty to fifty times with a horsewhip for such capital crimes as tardiness.

Brown was obviously a sentimentalist (as long as your skin wasn’t black) because he called one of his twenty-five estates after the county of his birth (ahhh!) He gave his own first name to the town of Hamilton in Jamaica but that was obviously considered disrespectful and something of a liberty, because it was later changed to the more deferential Brown’s Town.  

 Then, showing himself to be a true Irish patriot, after the emancipation of West Indian slaves, he sought to entice Irish people to come and settle in Jamaica. In 1835 he sent his ship, the James Ray, to Ballymoney, Co. Antrim to collect 121 Irish migrants and planted them around him in St. Anns. Those were followed, in 1836, by 185 more of his fellow countrymen. The avowed intention of this assisted migration project was to ensure that freed slaves did not acquire land in Jamaica. However, the scheme came to an end after the arrival of the second batch of Irish emigrants when it was alleged back in cynical old Ireland that they were simply being brought to the West Indies to replace the freed slaves. 

This Irish charmer continued to live in the West Indies long after the emancipation of his slaves. He died there in 1845 at the age of 68. He appears to have expired after being thrown from his carriage. The Ku Klux Klan sent flowers. Actually, that’s not true, as they didn’t exist at the time. But it sounds about right. 

Of course, culture wars being what they are, the madder breed of Republican has frequently attempted to weaponise Hamilton Brown against Senator Harris. The headline in the right-wing website ‘Red State’ is fairly typical – “When Will Race-Baiting Kamala Harris Acknowledge She is a Descendant of a Slave Owner?”

Allow me to offered a considered and carefully thought out rebuttal to that particular line of argument. 

What a load of abject nutjob bollocks! 

I hope the above is a sufficiently reflective and intellectual riposte. If not, it is probably worth noting that most black people who are descended from slave owners are also descended from slaves. There were few idyllic marriages between plantation owners and their chattels. Most of the non-white children of slave owners came into being as a result of rape or extra-marital ‘relationships’. Right wing culture warriors might give some thought to the power dynamic of those ‘relationships’.

No, I don’t think they will either. 

The fact-checking website www.snopes.com has been unable to establish whether Donald Harris is correct in his assertion that he and his daughter Kamala are descended from Hamilton Brown. But, based on Brown’s ownership of over 1000 of his fellow human beings, and his recorded opinions on the issue of slavery, it is unlikely that Senator Harris, as U.S. Vice President, would be tempted over to Antrim to check out her Irish roots, not even with the prospect of a side trip to the Giant’s Causeway.

Maybe just give her some shamrock in March 2021, along with an apology.

Josephine Brown – British-born spy in the British Army, 1919-21

JOSEPHINE O’DONOGHUE – CORK,  IRA INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

Military Service Pensions Collection – MSP34REF55794

John Borgonovo’s definitive account of the collaboration of Josephine and Florence O’Donoghue

Josephine O’Donoghue, as Josephine Brown, went to work i n early 1917 as a clerk and typist at Cork Military Barracks and in late 1919 managed to contact  officers of the Cork Brigade of the IRA and offer her services. From then, until the Truce, she collected and transmitted original documents, copies of documents, and information relating to British personnel, equipment and troop movements. She had access to extremely valuable information, which included the correspondence of Major General Sir Peter Strickland, OC of the 6thDivision, and military governor of the Munster martial law district.

‘Under the direction of the Brigade officers I paid special attention to scouring information with regard to the personnel and movements of the British Intelligence staff attached to the 6th Division, and transmitted a list of the officers of this staff. As a result of information given by me concerning the movements of members of this staff three British Intelligence officers were captured by the IRA at Waterfall near Cork. These officers were wearing civilian clothes, and were subsequently executed.

            Information as to the movement of troops which resulted in the Upton ambush was given by me also. 

            In the winter of 1920 a letter was sent to Capt. Kelly who was in charge of the British intelligence  operation in the 6th division area, informing him that IRA men passed along a certain road on the outskirts of the city each night a short time before curfew. I saw the letter and as it was not possible to make a copy of it, and realising that the matter may be very urgent, I brought out the original letter, showed it to the Brigade IO and returned it to the file the next morning. I learned afterwards that the information was accurate, that it referred to the Brigade O/C and other members of the Brigade staff who were sleeping outside the city at the time, and that the road referred to was watched on the following nights. The writer of the letter was subsequently executed by the IRA.

            I brought out and passed on to the Brigade IO much other original matter in cases where several copies of a document were made in the offices, including on one occasion a general order issued by General Strickland (which was afterwards quoted in an tÓglach) relating to general policy and tactics to be pursued by his forces in seeking out and attacking IRA columns.’ 

In order to enhance her intelligence gathering Josephine Brown actually contrived to have three other women working in the barracks, sacked for unreliability. This gave her access to a far greater amount of confidential information. This she shared with the Cork Brigade IO,  Intelligence Officer, Florence O’Donoghue – whom she secretly married in 1921. Florence O’Donoghue went so far as to organise the kidnapping, from the UK, or her child, who was in the custody of his grandparents.  So valuable an asset was Josephine O’Donoghue that her pension application was endorsed by Sean O’Hegarty, the Cork Brigade OC, national Deputy Director of Intelligence, Liam Tobin and East Cork Flying Column OC, Tom Barry. 

‘On another occasion, early in 1921, I think, I secured a copy of a letter from General Strickland to his GHQ outlining his proposals for a large scale round up in the mountainous districts of west Cork and East Kerry, intimating his requirements of troops, transport and aeroplanes and giving details of the proposed operation. This round up took place on the 5th and 6th of June 1921. Between two and three thousand men in fourteen columns took part, and were assisted by several aeroplanes. Due, however, to the advance information which the IRA had, not a single officer or man was captured in the round up.

            Where it was not possible to get copies I made shorthand notes of important documents, or on such points as appeared to be of special value. In other cases I took the actual letters after they had been made up for post, and passed them over to the Brigade IO. These were opened and copied, then re-sealed and put back into the next day’s post by me. 

            On one occasion there was a  letter from Captain Kelly to the effect that he had got a man in as a ‘stool pigeon’ among the internees in the barracks. After this letter had been transmitted to Michael Collins by the Brigade IO a general instruction was issued by the IRA for the appointment of Intelligence Officers in all jails and internment camps, for the purpose of counteracting activities of this type, preventing undesirable talk amongst prisoners and keeping the IRA informed of any suspicious characters amongst the prisoners.

             I secured information in several cases where civilians had sent in information relating to the IRA. Six civilians were executed by the IRA as a result. 

            Over the whole period I was recording and passing on to the Brigade IO lists of names and home addresses of enemy officers; some of these were subsequently used in cases of reprisals in England. I secured also particulars of Stokes mortars with which the enemy were supplied towards the end of 1920. These particulars were used in training notes by the IRA.

            Many details were given by me of the views, characters and peculiarities of the officers directing the enemy activities in Cork. Descriptions of almost all of them were passed on to the IRA, notes of transfers and new arrivals were notified  and the minutes of the 6th Division weekly conferences frequently secured and transmitted. Everything I could do was done to give the IRA as complete a picture as possible of the personnel, methods and resources of the British forces opposed to them.

            From about the end of 1920 there was very considerable concern in the 6th division offices because of the continued leakage of information, most of which could not have come from any other source. All the staff were subjected to very rigid supervision, and it became more and more difficult to bring out actual documents. I continued to make shorthand notes and bring these, but concealed. On days when even this was not possible I memorised important points as well as I could and passed on the information to the Brigade IO. But even in this period opportunities of securing actual documents occurred, and the Strickland order referred to above was brought out by me in this period. 

            I was the only member of the 6th Division working for the IRA and was entirely without assistance in the office where I worked. A man in the 17th Brigade offices was also working for the IRA but as the offices were entirely separate I had no contact with him and we were unable to give each other any assistance. Several members of my staff were dismissed and one male member  interned but suspicions of me, which I think existed, were never confirmed before I left the employment. 

            After the Truce I went to Cobh with two members of the Brigade Intelligence Staff for the purpose of getting my sister, who was travelling to the USA, to identify and ascertain the destination of a family named Connors or O’Connor. This family were [sic] going to the USA to join a member of it who had been in the IRA but had given information to the enemy, and had been got out of the country secretly by the British authorities. As a result of this action of my sister and myself this man was traced by the IRA and subsequently shot in New York.’ 

The trial and execution of Roger Casement

Sir John Lavery’s painting of the treason trial of Sir Roger Casement

After the execution of the two surviving signatories of the 1916 Proclamation (James Connolly and Sean McDermott) on 12 May the Crown had one final score to settle with the leadership of the rising. Sir Roger Casement, career diplomat, humanitarian and British civil servant, had been the first of the leaders of the rising to be arrested. He was the last to be tried and executed. 

The Asquith government had initially decided that he would be quickly court-martialled and shot. But, informed by the strong negative reaction to the executions in Dublin the Government began to be attracted to the idea of civil trial for treason. A form of ‘show trial’ in which ‘justice would be seen to be done’. The attraction was one of rehabilitation. Some of the international criticism drawn down on the heads of the Asquith government for the methods used to deal with the leaders of the rising (a system amounting to virtual drumhead courts martial) could be deflected by a robust and open prosecution of Casement. 

There was, however, an unfortunate corollary embedded in the governmental logic. Their forum for the ex post facto validation of General Sir John Maxwell and the Dublin executions, would also become Casement’s platform for the justification of the rising and the lionization of its leaders. If they had looked back to the trial of Robert Emmet in Dublin in 1803 they could have been forewarned. Just because the result of both was a foregone conclusion did not mean they would not have to share the propaganda value of a public trial process.    

GEORGE GAVAN DUFFY

Casement’s defence was organized by George Gavan Duffy. Duffy was a successful London solicitor, the son of the Young Ireland leader, Charles Gavan Duffy. The Casement trial would prompt him to abandon his London legal practice and become a Sinn Fein MP in 1918. Gavan Duffy, with some difficulty, managed to engage the services of Serjeant A.M.Sullivan (the son of the former owner of the Nation newspaper, A.M.Sullivan) to defend Casement. No senior British-based barrister would take the brief.

Sullivan was a Crown law officer in Ireland but had been called to the English Bar and was, therefore, entitled to plead at the Old Bailey. Casement’s desire was to conduct a defence based on an acceptance of the facts of the case. However, he would emphatically deny that he was guilty of treason on foot of those facts. His contention would be that his loyalty was to an Irish republic not to the English Crown.  

Sullivan, however, persuaded, or browbeat, his client into a more reductive line of defence. Casement was to be tried under the same treason statute—of the medieval King Edward III—as Robert Emmet had been. 

This held that the crime of treason had been committed ‘if a man be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm’. Sullivan would contend that Casement, in his dealings with the Germans, had not threatened the King in his own realm. There was a hopeful precedent in the case of Colonel Arthur Lynch. Lynch had been a leader of the Irish Brigade during the Boer War. A similar defence had been entered in his case but he had been convicted and sentenced to death. Lynch, however, had been reprieved. Sullivan was hoping for similar treatment for Casement.  

But there was another reason for acceding to Sullivan’s insistence that his line of defence be adopted. Casement, famously, had recorded many of his homosexual exploits in a series of notebooks. These were in the possession of the prosecution. Adopting Sullivan’s defence strategy, a plea based on a technicality and on legal argument, would not allow the prosecution to introduce the diaries in evidence. Prodigious use was made of the ‘Black Diaries’ covertly, both before and after the trial, but they were not produced in the Old Bailey. However, much like Robert Emmet’s letters to Sarah Curran in 1803 they were allowed to hang in the air above the proceedings. In the case of Emmet the threat was that Sarah Curran would be prosecuted if he challenged the Crown’s evidence against him.   

Casement’s trial opened on 26 June. Leading for the Prosecution was Sir Frederick Smith (formerly F.E. Smith) successor to Sir Edward Carson as Attorney General. 

Witnesses were called who had been prisoners of war in the German camps from which Casement had hoped to recruit his Irish Brigade. All identified him but also acknowledged that they had been told that they would not be fighting for Germany but for Ireland. A number of witnesses identified Casement as having landed on Banna Strand. 

After the prosecution case concluded Sullivan rose to enter a motion to have the indictment quashed. He argued that the allegation of treason was bad in law and that in order to secure a conviction it was essential that Casement should have been in the King’s realm when he attempted to persuade the Irish POWs to change allegiance.

The judges ruled otherwise. They held that a treasonable offence committed by one of His Majesty’s subjects was liable to trial under Common Law wherever that offence was committed. Sullivan’s strategy, unpromising from the outset, was now in tatters. 

Sullivan’s address to the jury, in the light of the failure of his own defence strategy, now pivoted towards the defence originally advocated by his client, i.e. that he owed his loyalty to an Irish Republic and not the British Crown, so that he could not be guilty of treason. 

In his own concluding remarks F.E.Smith reiterated the Crown’s allegation that ‘German gold’ was behind the rebellion [already denied by both Pearse and Casement] and concluded: 

If those facts taken together, his journey to Germany, his speeches when in Germany, the inducements he held out to these soldiers, the freedom which he there enjoyed, the cause which he pursued in Ireland . . . satisfy you of his guilt, you must give expression to that view in your verdict.

The direction by the Lord Chief Justice [Rufus Isaacs, Lord Reading] to the jury left them with little alternative but to convict Casement. The jury took less than an hour to find Casement guilty of treason.

Casement now took advantage of the opportunity that had been denied Pearse, MacDonagh and Connolly and the other leaders of the rebellion, to offer an explanation of the objectives of the leadership of the Easter rising. His peroration was, arguably, the finest republican valedictory since that of Emmet more than a century before. He concluded …

Ireland is treated today among the nations of the world as if she were a convicted criminal. If it be treason to fight against such an unnatural fate as this, then I am proud to be a rebel, and shall cling to my “rebellion” with the last drop of my blood. 

A failed appeal delayed Casement’s execution and allowed a head of steam to build up behind a campaign to have him reprieved. It was during this period that tactical use was made of the Black Diaries in order to influence newspaper coverage against Casement and dampen the enthusiasm of actual and potential supporters (such as John Redmond and George Bernard Shaw)

Casement was hanged in Pentonville Prison on 3 August, 1916. As with the other leaders of the Easter rising, his body was buried in quicklime in the prison cemetery. In 1965, a year before the country commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of the rising, Casment’s body was repatriated and interred in Glasnevin cemetery in Dublin. He was afforded a state funeral that was attended by President Eamon de Valera, the last surviving commandant of Easter Week. 

Trump can’t hack a postal ballot – but, then again, neither can Russia.

To post or not to post?

There’s a moment in the Orson Welles classic film Citizen Kane when the main character, Charles Foster Kane— based on the newspaper and business tycoon William Randolph Hearst—is running for election as governor of New York. The editor of his New York daily has prepared two early editions, one of which will appear the morning after the result of the election is announced. One reads ‘KANE ELECTED’ the other reads ‘FRAUD AT THE POLLS’. With a long face he is forced to go with the latter when Kane loses (so did Hearst, in 1906). 

It appears from his tweet today—the one about the possibility of postponing the November Presidential election, not the 87 other ones—(this was written before midnight so that figure might no longer be accurate!)—that President Donald J. Trump is of a similar mindset. Either he will defeat Joe Biden in November, or he will have been the victim of massive electoral fraud, most of it coming via mail ballots.

So, what does history tell us about a) the postponement of a US Presidential election and b) US electoral fraud.

The first thing to be reiterated is that the President cannot release his inner spider yet again and sign another Executive Order to postpone/cancel/exclude/deport/pardon a Presidential election. He may be able to rename Mars as Planet Trump (I’m not sure if that actually happened but I saw it on Twitter) but according to Article 2 Clause 4 of something called the United States Constitution (apparently we have one too, but the UK hasn’t gotten around to it yet) … 

‘The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.’

Americans seem to have adopted the standardised spelling of ‘choosing’ since the 18th century, so it’s probably only a matter of time before they overcome their loathing of the letter ‘U’ and begin to spell ‘labour’ ‘flavour’ and ‘savour’ properly as well. 

As to the date, the American election has not always taken place on the first Tuesday after the 1 November. That practice began on 7 November 1848  when the USA staged the first national election that was held on the same day in every state. Zachary Taylor became President. (Me neither!) The 1848 election date was based on a snappily titled 1845 law – ‘An act to establish a uniform time for holding elections of electors of President and Vice President in all the states of the Union’ which did exactly what it said on the tin and settled on ‘the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November’. That is the way it was been ever since.  

Any change would require an amendment to that act, approved by both Houses of Congress. To the Democrats, who have a majority in the House of  Representatives, it is an non-runner, dead duck, non-starter, ‘just ain’t gonna happen’ –  and even Republicans in the Senate have no stomach for such a move. Trump Enabler in Chief, Mitch McConnell has described the date as ‘set in stone’[1]

And even if it was postponed when would the USA go for a reset? No election (bar the first in 1788) has failed to take place in the final full year of a presidential term. This is not the Olympic games. Any postponement beyond the end of December would require a constitutional amendment. This would have to be ratified by 38 of 50 states!  If you’ve been watching Mrs. America on the BBC you’ll have some idea how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. (Spoiler Alert – I’ve probably just given away the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment was never enshrined in the US Constitution. Oops! Sorry).  

And it’s not as if American Presidential elections haven’t gone ahead in spite of a few minor difficulties!

In 1812 James Madison and DeWitt Clinton had to face the electorate despite the USA being in the middle of a war with their former colonisers, the British. In 1864 Abraham Lincoln had to fight an election against one of his former Generals, George McClellan even though the Civil War was still raging.

Lincoln and McClellan in more convivial times

According to Michael Burlingame, Professor emeritus of History, Connecticut College:

‘No other democratic nation had ever conducted a national election during times of war. And while there was some talk of postponing the election, it was never given serious consideration, even when Lincoln thought that he would lose.’[2]  Lincoln’s chances weren’t helped by a rebellion in his own party that threw up a charismatic third candidate in John C. Fremont. But the Lincoln Project was ultimately successful (fnarr, fnarr!)

Not to mention the fact that FDR was re-elected, for the seventeenth time, in 1944 during a global conflict. 

Then there is the mail / absentee voting issue.

Is voting by mail more liable to produce a fraudulent result? Well, nearly 1 in 4 voters cast 2016 presidential ballots that way, and Trump won (albeit losing the popular vote by a narrow 3,000,000 margin). Being permitted to post off your ballot in October or November, rather than appearing in person to pull the lever, would make it less likely that electors would be required to die for their country, of Covid-19. It would also be more difficult for Cozy Bears, APT29 or whatever those talented Russian hackers are calling themselves now, to game the system. Not even Vladimir Putin is patient enough to stand over every postal voter and steal their ballot. 

They’ve been voting by mail in Oregon since 1998 and out of over 15 million ballots cast the conservative Heritage Foundation detected fourteen cases of fraud.[3] That’s a rate of .0000009%. A study that was funded by by those celebrated bastions of Marxist/Leninism, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Knight Foundation, found an “infinitesimal” number of fraud cases in elections between 2000 and 2012. They detected a total of 2,068 illicit ballots cast, amounting to one in every 15 million eligible voters.[4] And those were not all mail-in voters, some of the fraud took place at election booths. 

If about 150,000,000 Americans vote on 3 November that’s a potential incidence of around 10 fraudulent ballots nationwide. I’m sure the Democrats would be happy to ease President Trump’s mind by giving him a ten vote start? He can even take them all in Wisconsin or Minnesota if that helps.

BTW – President Trump himself voted by mail during New York City’s mayoral election in 2017. He cast an absentee ballot the following year, and again used a mail ballot in Florida’s primary election in 2020.[5] What’s that old saw about sauce, goose and ganders again? So, unless Democratic members of the House of Representatives are accidentally locked in a broom cupboard before a vote on electoral postponement, the poll will proceed as planned on 3 November. 

Incidentally, the last time a Presidential election was held on 3 November was 1988, when a Republican incumbent (George H.W. Bush) was defeated after serving a single term in the White House. Just sayin’ 

Caveat – all sources cited here are, of course, fake news outlets, like Snopes.com, Reuters and NPR. So, you can safely take it all with a pinch of salt. 


[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/897111969/trump-floats-delaying-the-election-it-would-require-a-change-in-law

[2] https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln/campaigns-and-elections

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-vote-by-mail-explainer-idUSKBN2482SA

[4] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/

[5] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/