Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:04:03.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The American Committee for Relief in Ireland, 1920–22

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

F.M. Carroll
F.M. Carroll*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Irish question, in one form or another, became a feature of American public life from the period of the great Irish migration to the United States in the 1840s to the twentieth century. Seemingly each generation saw a version of the Irish struggle for self-government played out in both Ireland and America. By 1920 this struggle, in the shape of the War of Independence or the Anglo-Irish War, had assumed dramatic proportions.

Many Irish-Americans, anxious to assist and support the nationalist movement in Ireland, resumed their traditional role of raising money for Ireland and attempting to influence the American government to intercede in some way on Ireland’s behalf. In 1919 Eamon de Valera, president of Dáil Íireann, went to the United States to further these objectives. However, serious rifts developed within the leadership of the Irish nationalist movement in the United States which caused Irish-Americans to divide into several hostile groups. The result was that during the summer and autumn of 1920, when crown forces in Ireland were escalating their military campaign, the Irish-American nationalist movement was largely ineffectual.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 89 , 1982 , pp. 30 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The author would like to express his gratitude to the Columbia University School of Law for the facilities provided to him while a visiting scholar.

2 See Ward, Alan J., Ireland and Anglo-American relations, 1899-1921 (Toronto, 1969)Google Scholar, passim, and Carroll, F. M., American opinion and the Irish question, 1910-23 (Dublin and New York, 1978), passim.Google Scholar

3 Carroll. American opinion and the Irish question, pp 121–62; Ward, Ireland and Anglo-American relations, pp 166–236.

4 American relief in Belgium and elsewhere during and after the war was different from relief in Ireland in several important respects. First of all, Belgian relief started in Europe with direct participation of American diplomats and this involvement was enlarged. Secondly, the monies and supplies were to a great extent, although not entirely, from government sources of one kind or another. By the time the United States entered the war in 1917 relief operations were a large and official programme, and their director. Herbert Hoover, was an increasingly important figure in the war effort and the Wilson administration. The Irish relief operation described in this article was clearly intended to be on the model of the Belgian operation, and the public was encouraged to believe in the similarity between the two. For descriptions of American relief operations in Belgium and elsewhere, see Gibson, Hugh, A journal from our legation in Belgium (New York, 1917)Google Scholar, passim; Gay, George I., The Commission for Relief in Belgium: statistical survey of operations (Stanford, 1925)Google Scholar, passim; Surface, Frank M. and Bland, Raymond L., American food in the world war and reconstruction period (Stanford, 1931)Google Scholar, passim; Hoover, Herbert, An American epic (3 vols, Chicago, 1959-61)Google Scholar, passim; and Weissman, Benjamin M., Herbert Hoover and famine relief to Soviet Russia, 1921-23 (Stanford, 1974)Google Scholar, passim.

5 Carroll, American opinion and the Irish question, pp 78–80 and 165.

6 Lord Mayor D. O’Callaghan to American Red Cross, 16 Dec. 1920 (National Archives, Washington, State Department records, R.G. 59, 841d. 48/5).

7 Norman H. Davis to president, 15 Dec. 1920 (ibid., 841d. 48/-a); ‘Memorandum by Sir Arthur Stanley’ (director of the joint committee of the British Red Cross and the Knights of St John of Jerusalem) to Foreign Office, 29 Dec. 1920 (P.R.O., F.O. 371/4613).

8 American Red Cross to Mrs Golden, 30 Dec. 1920, and Mrs Golden to American Red Cross, 1 Jan. 1921 (N.L.I., Peter Golden papers, MS 13,141/2) and Congressman James A. Gallivan to Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby, 14 Dec. 1920, and Alvey A. Adee (acting secretary) to Gallivan, 20 Dec. 1920 (State Department records, 84Id. 48/- ).

9 McCartan, Patrick, With de Valera in America (New York, 1936), pp 223-4.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., pp 225–7; Reports of American Committee for Relief in Ireland and Irish White Cross (New York, 1922), p. 48. Though the key figure in organising this and several other enterprises, Maloney remained in the background.

11 Ibid., pp 7 and 51; McCartan, With de Valera in America, pp 225–7.

12 ‘American Committee for Relief in Ireland broadsheet’, 30 Jan. 1921, (New York Public Library, Frank P. Walsh papers); McCartan, With de Valera in America, p. 225.

13 Reports of the American Committee for Relief in Ireland, pp 62–7; Minutes of meeting of advisory committee, 14 Feb. 1921 (Friends Historical Library, Dublin, Relief work papers).

14 Herbert Hoover to secretary of state, 11 Mar. 1921 (State Department records, 841d. 48/7); Reports of American Committee for Relief in Ireland, p. 7; Judge Richard Campbell to Senator Thomas J. Walsh (Library of Congress, Washington, Thomas J. Walsh papers); McCartan, With de Valera in America, p. 228.

15 Reports of American Committee for Relief in Ireland, pp 8–15.

16 Ibid., pp 20–41.

17 Warren G. Harding to Morgan J. O’Brien. 26 Mar. 1921 (Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Warren G. Harding papers). For the request and subsequent thanks and assurances, see O’Brien et al. to Harding. 23 Mar. 1921. and O’Brien to Harding. 29 Mar. 1921 (ibid.). See also Reports of American Committee for Relief in Ireland, pp 6, 19, 50 and 59–60. Pamphlets and broadsheets were published for publicity purposes, e.g. The need for relief in Ireland (n.p., n.d.). McCoy, S. D., Distress in Ireland (New York, 1921).Google Scholar

18 Reports of American Committee for Relief in Ireland, pp 43–4 and 62–3.

19 Carroll, American opinion and the Irish question, pp 128–52.

20 Reports of American Committee for Relief in Ireland, pp 52–4. The report singles out numerous individuals and organisations for special thanks for their efforts. Judge Campbell observed early on that the money was coming in almost unsolicited ‘and in such volume as to augur well for signal success’ (Campbell to Senator Thomas J. Walsh, 8 Jan. 1921, Thomas J. Walsh papers; ‘Memorandum of conversation between Mr Parsons and Dr Bicknell of the Red Cross and the 3rd assistant secretary of state’, 28 Mar. 1921, State Department records, 841d. 48/19). For a vivid description of fund raising efforts in the United States, see White Cross News, n.d. (N.L.I., Col. Maurice Moore papers, MS 10,558).

21 Reports of the American Committee for Relief in Ireland, pp 51–2 and 56–8; Williams, W. J. (ed.), Report of the Irish White Cross to 31st August 1922 (Dublin, 1922), pp 39–40 Google Scholar; L. Hollingsworth Wood to James G. Douglas, 19 Dec. 1920 (Relief work papers).

22 Reports of the American Committee for Relief in Ireland, p. 45.

23 Williams (ed.). Report of the Irish White Cross, pp 31–46.

24 Ibid., pp 28–31.

25 Williams (ed.), Report of the Irish White Cross, pp 49–73.

26 Foreign Office to Geddes, 30 Mar. 1921 (cable), and Geddes to Foreign Office, 31 Mar. 1921 (cable), (P.R.O., F.O. 371/5663).

27 Geddes to Foreign Office, 5 Apr. 1921 (cable)(ibid.).

28 ‘Memorandum of conversation with Samuel Duff McCoy and G. Howland Shaw’, 21 Apr. 1921, and ‘Memorandum on Irish relief by G. Howland Shaw for Sec. of State,’ 29 Apr. 1921 (State Department Records, 841d. 48/35 and -/38).

30 Geddes to Foreign Office (no. 303), 5 May 1921 (cable) (P.R.O., F.O. 371/5663).

31 Ibid.

32 Geddes to Foreign Office (no. 304), 5 May 1921 (cable)(ibid.).

33 Curzon to Cabinet, ‘Ireland and America’, 9 May 1921 (P.R.O., Cab. 24/123).

34 Cabinet minutes, 10 May 1921 (P.R.O., Cab. 23/25, C. 36/21/4). The private remarks of Sir Henry Wilson, chief of imperial general staff, to the proposals are revealing. ‘There are some interesting wires today from Auckland Geddes. They have collected a large sum of money for Irish women and children who are starving in Ireland! And they now propose to set up machinery in Ireland for its distribution! Whew! And all this comes from the fact that Lloyd George and his Miseries are not governing, and so other people barge in! It is the old story, that either you govern other people or they govern you, and if you don’t take charge of events they take charge of you.’ (Major-General SirCallwell, C.E. (ed.), Field Marshall Sir Henry Wilson: his life and diaries (2 vols, London, 1927), i, 289.Google Scholar

35 Curzon to Geddes, c. 10 May 1921 (P.R.O., F.O. 371/5663).

36 ‘Memorandum of interview with the British ambassador’, 23 May 1921 (Library of Congress, Washington, Charles Evans Hughes papers).

37 Geddes to Foreign Office, 25 May 1921 (P.R.O., F.O. 371/5663).

38 Dumont to Secretary of State, 22 Mar. 1921 (State Department records, 841d. 00/339).

39 Dumont to secretary of state, 17 May 1921 (ibid., 841d. 48/27).

40 Dumont to secretary of state, 9 June (ibid., 841d. 00/381). By late June, Scotland Yard reported to the Foreign Office, much as Dumont had to the State Department, that they had reason to believe that monies intended for relief were being diverted elsewhere. Sir Basil H. Thomson asserted ‘our information is that about 50 per cent of the money subscribed to the White Cross is purloined by the collectors, but that after the remaining 50 per cent is paid over to the White Cross Fund it is genuinely spent upon food, etc., which, though not required in Ireland, is the legitimate object of the fund. It is quite possible that among the money which is stolen by the collectors a certain quantity is spent for the purchase of munitions.’ (Thomson to H. J. Seymour, 27 June 1921, P.R.O., F.O. 371/5663). It is impossible to ascertain the veracity of these remarks; indeed it is not altogether clear whether Thomson was referring to monies collected in Ireland or elsewhere including the United States.

41 Dumont to secretary of state, 22 Mar. 1921 (State Department records 841d. 99/339).

42 Harding to secretary of state, 20 Apr. 1921 (ibid., 841d. 00/392).

43 Wilbur J. Carr to Dumont (Dublin), Mason Mitchell (Belfast), and William P. Kent (Cork), 11 Apr. 1921 (ibid., 841d. 48/22a, -/22b, and -22c); Hughes to Dumont, 11 July 1921 (ibid, 841d. 00/381).

44 Hoover to secretary of state, 11 Mar. 1921 (ibid., 841d. 48/7); G. Howland Shaw to secretary of state, 15 Apr. 1921 (ibid., 841d. 00/339); British embassy to Hughes, 17 June 1921 (ibid., 841d. 00/379). See also Christian A. Herter (assistant to Hoover) to G. Howland Shaw, 20 Apr. 1921 (Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa, Herbert Hoover papers).

45 See $$Ethan Ellis, L., Republican foreign policy, 1921-1933 (New Brunswick, 1968), pp 93–103 Google Scholar; Vinson, John Chalmers, The parchment peace (Athens, 1955), pp 21–31 and 97–114Google Scholar; Buckley, Thomas H., The United States and the Washington conference, 1921-1922 (Knoxville, 1970), pp 20–34.Google Scholar

46 Northedge, F. S., The troubled giant (New York, 1966), pp 275-84Google Scholar; Roskill, Stephen, Naval policy between the wars, 1919-1929 (2 vols, London, 1968), i, 196-9Google Scholar; Fry, Michael, Illusions of security: North Atlantic diplomacy, 1918-22 (Toronto, 1972), pp 121-58.Google Scholar

47 ‘Memorandum of a conversation between the secretary of state and the British ambassador’, 23 June 1921 (Foreign relations of the United States. 1921 (Washington, 1936), ii, 315–16).

48 Geddes to Foreign Office, 5 May 1921 (P.R.O., F.O. 371/5663).

49 Walsh to George Gavan Duffy, 1 Feb. 1921 (N.L.I., Gavan Duffy Papers, MS 5582).

50 Roskill, , Naval policy between the wars, i, 293 Google Scholar; Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, From Wilson to Roosevelt: foreign policy of the United States, 1913-1945 (New York. 1968), p. 158.Google Scholar

51 Pusey, Merlo J., Charles Evans Hughes (2 vols, New York, 1952), ii, 492.Google Scholar

52 Ellis, Republican foreign policy, p. 94. Alan J. Ward does not link the relief effort or the Congressional resolution with the Anglo-Japanese treaty, but he does argue that ‘Hughes forced the British to retreat’ over the relief question by permitting funds to be distributed (Ward, Ireland and Anglo-American relations, p. 245).

53 Carroll, American opinion and the Irish question, p. 92.

54 Monteith, Robert, Casement’s last adventure (Dublin, 1953), pp 246-7.Google Scholar

55 France to W. J. M. A. Maloney, 20 Dec. 1921 (New York Public Library, Frank P. Walsh papers).

56 France and Douglas to Morgan J. O’Brien and Richard Campbell, 19 Jan. 1921 (ibid.). The implications of these assertions, while by no means conclusive, tend to reinforce the earlier conclusions of the United States consul in Dublin, F.T.F. Dumont, that the relief money was at least indirectly subsidising the war effort.

57 Monteith, Casement’s last adventure, pp 248-9.

58 Kathleen O’Connell to Ryan, 19 Dec. 1932 (Frank P. Walsh papers).