Fenianism

Fenianism, a revolutionary movement originating in the greatly expanding Irish immigrant community of the USA following the collapse of the repeal and Young Ireland movements of the 1840s and the discrediting of parliamentary agitation by the collapse of independent opposition.

Difficulties of integration and prejudice experienced by Irish immigrants kept attention focused on Ireland and her problems while in New York revolutionary groups, which continued to exist after those in Ireland had collapsed, produced men ready to continue the independence struggle. John O'Mahony (1816–77), Michael Doheny (1805–63), and Joseph Deniffe, together with James Stephens, a veteran of the ineffectual rising of 1848 who had fled to Paris, were chiefly responsible for initiating the Fenian movement.

Stephens, having established a leadership role and with limited financial backing from America, launched a revolutionary society in Dublin on St Patrick's Day 1858, dedicated to secrecy and the establishment of a democratic Irish republic. Initially the organization had no specific title, being known variously as ‘The Society’, ‘The Organization,’, or ‘The Brotherhood’. The name ‘Fenian’, a reference to the warriors of ancient Ireland, originated with a parallel branch of the organization in America headed by John O'Mahony and, by extension, came to describe the movement in Ireland. Stephens's continental experience was reflected in a clearly defined hierarchical structure with each member's knowledge of the society supposedly limited to the personnel of his own section. In practice neither organization nor secrecy corresponded with intention.

Both Stephens and T. C. Luby (1821–1901), another 1848 veteran, quickly got down to putting the society on a national footing and made significant progress. In the process the movement inevitably attracted police attention, Catholic church opposition, and competition from constitutonal nationalists, especially A. M. Sullivan and the former Young Irelanders associated with the Nation newspaper. Stephens proved adept at wrong‐footing Sullivan's attempts to revive constitutionalism; however, his own position was undermined in a split with his American associates when he sought to improve his financial position by starting a newspaper, the Irish People. This breach of secrecy resulted in his position within the overall movement being reduced to European representative and organizer of the Irish people. But more seriously, the newspaper offices provided a convenient target for the government, which had successfully infiltrated the movement, and when the end of the American Civil War released thousands of Irish‐American officers for possible Fenian activities in Ireland, it launched a pre‐emptive swoop which netted Luby and other prominent members such as John O'Leary and Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa. Stephens was also arrested soon after.

The government strike was effective: 1865 was the optimum year for a rising. The movement had a relatively strong urban base and had recruited successfully in Britain's Irish community and the British army. But by 1866 it was on the defensive and was further weakened by leadership splits in the American body. Stephens, recently sprung from jail, took control of the American organization but lacked the money and arms to put the long heralded rising into effect, and was replaced at the end of the year by military men determined on armed action regardless of the circumstances. A weak attempt in February 1867 was followed by a more significant, but hardly impressive, rising on the night of 4–5 March. All Fenian actions were short‐lived, defeated by informers, bad weather, a well‐prepared government, and a disciplined army. The rising, however, was not without consequences. Agitation for an amnesty for Fenian prisoners, and outrage at the execution of the Manchester martyrs, mobilized nationalist opinion on a scale the Fenians themselves had never achieved, and provided the basis for the launching of the home rule movement. In addition the rising moved Gladstone to initiate reforms that would culminate in his conversion to home rule.

Traditionally regarded as an uncomplicatedly revolutionary movement, Fenianism has recently been subjected to a revisionist treatment, most notably by Comerford, which dilutes the importance of nationalist commitment and emphasizes the social and recreational role the movement provided for its recruits. This treatment has, in the inevitable reaction to ‘anti‐nationalist’ revisionism, in turn been criticized for distorting reality.

Bibliography

See also irish republican brotherhood.
Comerford, R. V. , The Fenians in Context (1985)
Moody, T. W. (ed.), The Fenian movement (1968)
Newsinger, John , Fenianism in Mid‐Victorian Britain (1994)

James Loughlin