The reality of the Orange Order is that itis a counter-revolutionary institution setup and maintained to target not justCatholics but also ‘disloyal’ Protestants.It’s formation and spread was encouragedby the British state in the years leadingup to the 1798 rebellion precisely in or-der to drive a wedge between ordinaryCatholics and Protestants. The 12th ofJuly was picked as the key date to pro-vide an alternative attraction to themarking of Bastille day and in itself tomark the sectarian massacre that led tothe formation of the Orange Order.

The Orange Order was born in Armaghin 1795 as part of an armed terror cam-paign to deny full citizenship rights toCatholics. This was in the context ofstruggles between landlords and tenantsin the area of which the Anglican Arch-bishop of Armagh said “the worst of thisis that it stands to unite Protestant andPapist, and whenever that happens, good-bye to the English interest in Ireland”.Specifically the penal laws forbade Catho-lics from bearing arms, but radical (andmostly Protestant) volunteer companiesin the 1780's had been recruiting andarming Catholics with the “the full sup-port of a radical section of Protestant po-litical opinion”[1].

The sectarian attacks that accompanyOrange marches today also go right backto its origins. Again in 1795 up to 7,000Catholics were driven out of Armagh byOrange Order pogroms. But there wasone key difference with today, then manyexpelled Catholic families were shelteredby Presbyterian United Irishmen in Bel-fast and later Antrim and Down, and the(mostly) Protestant leadership of theUnited Irishmen sent lawyers to pros-

ecute on behalf of the victims of Orangeattacks. They also sent special missionsto the area to undermine the OrangeOrder’s influence.

Indeed the Orange Order probably playeda key part in ensuring the failure of the1798 rebellion. At the time General JohnKnox, the architect of this policy de-scribed the Orange Order as “the onlybarrier we have against the United Irish-men”[2] after the failed rebellion he wrote“the institution of the Orange Order wasof infinite use”[3] . The survival of the Or-ange Order since, and in particular thespecial place it was given in the sectar-ian make up of the northern state (everysingle head of the 6 counties has also beena senior member of the Orange Order),reflect its success in this role.

The strategy was simple. In order to pre-vent Protestant workers identifying withtheir Catholic neighbours the order of-fered an anti-Catholic society, led by thewealthy Protestants that offered all Prot-estants a place in its ranks, and the prom-ise of promotion and privilege. The an-nual parades were a key part of this strat-egy, they filled two roles. They allowedthe working class Protestant members aday in the sun to mix with their ‘betters’and at the same time lord it over theirCatholic neighbours.

At the same time they exposed radicalProtestant workers to accusations of be-ing ‘traitors’ for refusing to take part inthe events. Much of the imagery ofloyalism, the bonfires, the bunting andthe painted kerbstones provide an oppor-tunity to demand of every Protestantworker in a community ‘which side areyou on’.

The Orange Order - anenemy of ALL workers

A PDF booklet from the Struggle site www.struggle.ws

It is unfortunate, if perhaps somewhat inevitable, that the nowannual battles around the ‘marching season’ fall along religiouslines. The Orange parades are being used to test the supposedneutrality of the northern regime and the PSNI in particular.The losing side in this dangerous game however is likely to bethe working class, Protestant and Catholic, as the confronta-tions and the sectarian attacks that occur around the Orangemarches drive people further into ‘their own’ communities.

INSIDE:• Loyalism and theProtestant working class

• Time to stop beating theOrange Drum

• Marching to nowhere

• Stirring Up SectarianHatred

• King Billy Revisited

• The 1798 Rebellion andthe creation of theOrange Order

• When the Falls and theShankill fought together

• Peace deal offerssectarian war orsectarian peace• Neither Orange norGreen

The Orange Order &sectarianism in Ireland

Right from the start the parades havebeen accompanied by violence as theyattempt to force their way through areaswhere they are not wanted. The first pa-rades of 1796 saw one fatality, but in 179714 were killed during violence at an Or-ange parade in Stewartstown. In 1813 anOrange parade through one of the firstareas of Belfast identified as ‘Catholic’saw four more deaths.

The town of Portadown has long been ahot bed of ‘contentious’ parades, bannedmarches took place there in 1825 and1827. In 1835 the Portadown marchesclaimed their first victim, Hugh Donnelly,a Catholic from Drumcree. Armagh Mag-istrate, William Hancock, (a Protestant),said:

“For some time past the peaceable inhab-itants of the parish of Drumcree have beeninsulted and outraged by large bodies ofOrangemen parading the highways, play-ing party tunes, firing shots, and usingthe most opprobrious epithets they couldinvent .... a body of Orangemen marchedthrough the town and proceeded toDrumcree church, passing by the Catho-lic chapel though it was a considerabledistance out of their way.”[4]

In the relevant stability after the defeatof 1798 the British and local ruling classfelt they no longer needed the Order and,as we have seen, went so far as to ban itand its marches. Its survival during theseyears shows that the institution cannotsimply be viewed as dependent on Brit-ain or local Protestant rulers. It also fedoff the historical legacy of sectarianismand annually offered a chance for the ‘lit-tle man’ to feel big. In this sense the psy-chological attraction of Orangism for poorProtestants is similar to the attraction

described by William Reich of poor work-ers/unemployed for fascism.

The Orange Order’s complex nature isalso shown by the events of 1881 when itwas possible for the Land league to holda meeting in the local Orange hall atLoughgall. Micheal Davitt told the crowdthat the “landlords of Ireland are all ofone religion - their God is mammon andrack-rents, and evictions their only mo-rality, while the toilers of the fields,whether Orangemen, Catholics, Presby-terians or Methodists are the victims”.

This danger of class unity saw the rulingclass and British conservatives rapidlyreturning to the Order and the GrandOrange Lodge of Ireland responded witha manifesto claiming that the LandLeague was a conspiracy against prop-erty rights, Protestantism, civil and reli-gious liberty and the British constitution.When the question was put this way theOrange Order fulfilled its role and wenton to provide the scab labour which at-tempted to harvest Captain Boycott’scrops.

From this period on, with the growth ofthe socialist movement, the Orange Or-der’s warnings became extended to theidea of a conspiracy of “Popery”, “anar-chy” and “communism”. These sort ofwarnings were repeated whenever peri-ods of social radicalism saw Protestantworkers acting in their own interests asit was precisely at these moments thatthe danger of them linking up withCatholic workers threatened the unity ofthe Order. In 1932, when the Falls andShankill rioted together against unem-ployment, the Order warned “loyal sub-jects of the King, the vital necessity of

Loyalism is not primarily about loyaltyto the British government or to theQueen. It has its own interests. That iswhy Carson’s UVF could threaten rebel-lion against Britain when Home Rule wasdiscussed. That is why the UDA can talkabout breaking the link with Britain andhaving an independent Ulster.

Long before the partition of Ireland, land-lords and industrialists of the north easthad been using Orangism as a way to

divide the plain people and thereby con-trol them. When the Orange Order wasfounded in 1795 it was to protect the ar-istocracy from the revolutionary nation-alists of the United Irishmen and to di-vide working people on religious grounds.

‘PROTESTANT PRIVILEGE’Its function was to fool ordinary Protes-tants into thinking that they had a com-mon cause with their ‘betters’. Its basiswas making the ‘Croppies’ or ‘Fenians’

(i.e. Catholics) lie down. Initially Protes-tant privilege had to do with getting thebest land. More recently it has been aboutaccess to jobs, houses, and a sense of su-periority. That this ‘privilege’ is very mi-nor does not matter a lot. When you havelittle, the difference between you and theperson with even less can assume anunreal importance.

The history of Protestant privilege in theNorth is not seriously denied by manypeople anymore. Nor is it seriously de-nied that this was official policy since theformation of the northern state in 1921.It was never a secret. Unionist primeministers couldn’t stop boasting about it.

“I have always said that I am an Orange-man first, and a politician and a mem-ber of this parliament afterwards....all Iboast is that we have a Protestant parlia-ment for a Protestant people” (Craigavon);“I recommend those people who are loyal-ists not to employ Roman Catholics.... Iwant you to realise that you have got your

Loyalism and the Protestant working classTime to stop beating the Orange DrumTHERE IS NOTHING in Irish politics about which more rubbish is spokenthan the Protestant working class. Now that the loyalists have ceased theirmurder campaign more attention is being paid to them. Not only are a lot ofmainstream politicians unsure what to make of loyalism, when they are notdownright scared of it; but many on the ‘left’ are equally bamboozled. Tak-ing a serious look at reality shows up an upsetting fact: sectarian bigotry isstill strongly ingrained. That is why the Orange Order, Apprentice Boys,OUP, DUP, UVF, UDA and all the other loyalist organisations can, betweenthem, claim the allegiance of the vast majority of northern Protestants.

standing guard against communism”.

Although Catholic workers have been andcontinue to have a higher chance of be-ing unemployed than Protestant workersfor much of the North’s history, rates ofProtestant unemployment have still beenhigh. This gave the Orange order both a‘carrot and stick’ to encourage Protestantworkers to join. The Order was a placewhere workers could meet employers,and formally or informally receive job of-fers. On the other hand, particularly inrural areas, employers would be awareof who was a member and discriminatein job applications against those whowere not.

Understanding the reactionary origins ofthe Orange Order is central is under-standing why the claims that themarches represent ‘Protestant culture’ isabout on a par with claiming a Ku KluxKlan march represents ‘white culture’.Indeed the very promotion of a separate‘Protestant’ culture can only be seen asdeeply reactionary in the context of the 6counties. The term ‘Protestant’ culture isnever used to include the Protestant re-publicans of 1798 or 1934, for instance.As such it’s real meaning can only be‘anti-Catholic’.

Andrew Flood

1 The Defenders, p18, Deirdre Lindsay, in 1798; 200years of resonance, Ed. Mary Cullen.2 The Tree of Liberty, Radicalism, Catholicism andthe Construction of Irish Identity 1760 - 1830, KevinWhelan, p119.3 Ibid., p120.4 The figures for killing and quotes in this sectioncome from the PFC report ‘For God and Ulster: analternative guide to the Loyal Orders’ to be found onthe internet at http://www.serve.com/pfc/loyal.html

Prime Minister behind you”(Brookeborough). Even the much lauded‘liberal’ Terence O’Neill advertised for a“Protestant girl” to clean his house.

TERRORISMThis policy of anti-Catholic bigotry wasenforced by terror and murder. Some-times it was carried out by official bodies(the RUC and the B Specials), sometimesby ‘unofficial’ murder gangs such as thatled by RUC District Inspector Nixon inthe 1920s. The main players are theRoyal Irish Regiment (formerly theUDR), along with the UDA, UVF and RedHand Commando.

In 1924 Prime Minister Craig introducedlegislation to “indemnify all officers of theCrown against all actions or legal pro-ceedings.... (in relation to) any act, mat-ter or thing done during the course of thepresent Troubles, if done in good faith,and done, or purported to be done in theexecution of their duty or for the defenceof Northern Ireland”. In 1969 TerenceO’Neill granted an amnesty to the loyal-ist thugs (including off-duty RUC and BSpecials) who attacked civil rights march-ers at Burntollet Bridge. Very few RUCor RIR members, no matter how bloodytheir deeds, ever saw the inside of aprison cell.

This is now accepted as an establishedfact by practically everyone. What manydo not want to accept is that Protestantprivilege is still a reality in the North.Yet the official British government fig-ures show that Catholic males are twoand a half times more likely to be unem-ployed than Protestants. A study releasedOctober 1994 by Professor Bob Rowthornof Cambridge University found that 33%of Catholics aged 25 to 55 - the impor-tant wage earning years - are unem-ployed compared to 15% of Protestants.In December 1994 it was revealed that60% of the long term unemployed wereCatholics. While there is a very real in-crease in poverty among Protestants, itis still true that Catholics get an evenworse deal.

Thus when loyalist workers talk aboutholding on to what they have, there aretalking about something concrete. It isnot merely about ‘identity’ or ‘culture’.And where they feel they have lost some-thing over the last twenty five years (likedirect unionist control over the RUC/PSNI and unrestricted power in localcouncils to allocate jobs and houses to‘loyal Protestants’), they want it back.

LOYALIST VALUESSo let us face facts. Orange sectarianismis not without a material base, and it isnot some sort of frightened reaction tomilitant republicanism. Unless we under-stand the basis for sectarianism we willnot be able to uproot it.

When Protestant workers accept loyalist

values they are joining an alliance withtheir bosses. They are saying that thereligion they share with their employersis more important than the status ofworker they share with men and womenof another religion. The Orange Orderhas been the biggest body within whichthis alliance has been institutionalised.

This gives workers a sense of importance,a feeling that they are part of the ‘supe-rior’ group in society. It also gives them aplace near the front of the queue for what-ever jobs may be going. It gives the richa sense of security that the workers willbe marching alongside them rather thanagainst them.

Orange sectarianism has always playedthis role. It ties workers to the rich, andto the interests of the rich. At the sametime it cuts off the possibility of thosesame workers linking up their Catholiccounterparts. Again and again episodesof working class militancy were destroyedby appeals from Orange bosses to Orangeworkers to abandon the class conflict and‘defend Ulster’.

UNITY IN STRUGGLEThese episodes of working class unity didnot last long, but they did happen. Theyshowed it is possible. They did not hap-pen because of well meaning platitudesfrom clergy or liberals. They happenedin the course of working class struggle.

The only times when the sectarian barri-ers were pushed aside, when large num-bers of working class Protestants turnedaway from Orangism, was when theywere involved in struggle against ‘their’bosses and ‘their’ government. When theyfight to better things for themselves andtheir families they are forced to breakfrom their bosses and make commoncause with other workers.

However when they fight only to betterthemselves as Protestants, they mustturn their backs on other workers andmake common cause with their bosses.

There have always been many Protestantworkers who have not been fooled by sec-tarian hatemongering into turning

against Catholics. These are the ones whohave fought hard, and often at great risk,against the bigots on their jobs and intheir unions. However they are in theminority.

GREEN NONSENSEBecause of this most republicans writeoff Protestants as indefinitely stuck in aswamp of bigotry and hatred. This is notonly irrational, it also reinforces back-ward looking Green nationalism. Itshould be obvious, especially to socialistsand trade unionists, that working classpeople have more in common than theydo separating them.

Anyone seriously interested in rootingout sectarian hatred and building work-ing class unity must look at the timeswhen people came together and the rea-sons their unity was not sustained.

In 1907 Protestant and Catholic dockersand carters (transport workers) foughttogether in a great strike which closeddown much of Belfast. The mood thisstruggle generated even led to the policecoming out on strike. The leading organ-iser was Jim Larkin, a man who was notexactly a hero to loyalism!

In 1919 40,000 engineering workers fromjobs like the Harland & Wolff, Shorts andMackies struck for a 48-hour week. Whilemost of the strikers were Protestant, themajority on the strike committee wereCatholic. Not only was the strike solid butthe strikers fought together against Brit-ish soldiers brought in to scab.

FALLS & SHANKILL FIGHTTOGETHER

In 1932 thousands of unemployed foughttogether for better conditions on the ‘out-door relief ’ projects. The unemployed ofthe Falls and the Shankill rioted togetheragainst the police.

In 1944 25,000 shipyard workers became‘disloyal’ when they defied the wartimeanti-strike laws and struck for higher pay.

In 1982 thousands of Catholic and Prot-estant nurses, ambulance drivers, clean-ers, porters and other health workers

More free anarchist publications onlineThis pamphlet is a print out of a PDF file from the Struggle site.There are dozens more PDF files at this site that anyone can printout and distribute for free. To get instructions and download themgo to http://struggle.ws/pdf.html.

Although Orange marches have been op-posed since they began, the recent waveof nationalist opposition in Belfast datesfrom events in February 1992. On theLower Ormeau Road in Belfast fiveCatholics were murdered in a bookiesshop by the UDA. That July, some Or-angemen while marching past the site ofthe gave five-fingered salutes. ThePortadown march through the GarvaghyRoad had provoked serious confronta-tions in 1972, 1975 and 1981.

Much noise has come from loyalist quar-ters about the central involvement of cur-rent and ex-Sinn Féin members in theresidents’ committees that oppose themarch. While it is undoubtably true thatthe confrontations help Sinn Féin push

its agenda of ‘parity of esteem’ and pro-vide a mechanism for highlighting theproblems with the RUC/PSNI, there isalso little doubt that the campaignsagainst the parades are genuinely popu-lar. It is up to the residents to choose whowill act as their spokespersons in talkswith the Orange Order.

However for anarchists, while we shouldoppose the Orange Orders parades whereever local people reject them (and ourideal would be for ‘Protestant areas’ toalso oppose them), there are real prob-lems with the way these campaigns areproceeding.

They have been caught up with SinnFein’s need to put the RUC to the test

Marching to nowhereStirring Up Sectarian Hatred

stood beside each other on picket linesagainst cutbacks and for a pay rise.

In almost every year since the early 1980sCatholic and Protestant struck togetherin the Health Boards, the DSS, the Hous-ing Executive and other jobs against sec-tarian murder threats.

As well as these well-known incidentsthere have been hundreds of othersmaller examples, all of which show thesame thing - that Protestant workershave broken, at least temporarily, fromOrange bigotry and linked up with Catho-lic workers to achieve better conditionsfor both.

SNUFFING OUT SECTARIANISMThere is no denying that these episodeshave been brief. But they demonstratethat unity is possible. Struggles againstthe bosses are the starting point fromwhich anarchists work to snuff out thefires of sectarian hatred. Only class poli-tics have ever successfully provided analternative to loyalism.

These episodes have been brief becauseunity on ‘bread & butter’ issues has neverextended into unity on broader politicalissues. Whenever the ‘national question’was raised workers began to divide onreligious lines. And that is why the bossesalways raised it.

First it was ‘Home Rule’ and then ‘theborder’. Each time Protestant workerstook fright and retreated back intoloyalism. Republicanism contributed tothis by insisting that there must be aunited Ireland before class politics couldtake the stage. Workers unity on day-to-day issues holds no special importancefor them. They either can’t see, or won’tsee, that joining the Ireland of DeValera,Cosgrave or Bertie is not going to fire theaverage Protestant with enthusiasm!

The trade unions are the only mass or-ganisation of workers that spans the sec-tarian divide, that has not been brokendown on religious lines. However theleadership of the unions has argued hardthat to introduce the political issues ofimperialism, partition and repression cannot be allowed as it will divide the move-ment. This has meant that when divi-sions came to the fore these same lead-ers have had no answers, no way to com-bat the divisiveness that has been partand parcel of the six county state sinceits inception.

NOTHING TO SAYThroughout the troubles the ICTU North-ern Ireland Committee has been opposedto anyone who has called for a struggleagainst the sectarian state. They say thatis ‘divisive’. The result has been that theofficial trade union movement has noth-ing to say when the likes of Paisley andcompany demand support for the statusquo.

It is no surprise that workers who stoodshoulder to shoulder a while ago are nowviewing each other as enemies. They arenot hearing anything that would suggesta different way of seeing things. Almosteveryone tells them that their trade un-ion unity has no political implications.

The only way to win Protestant workersaway from the bigoted all-class allianceof loyalism is to build a movement whichhas its base in day-to-day struggles andwhich also explains why it is in the in-terest of all working class people to de-stroy the six county state. Alongside afight against the 26 county state, a newIreland- a Workers Republic - becomes arealistic possibility. Anything less addsto the painful division into Orange andGreen.

A movement which fights only on eco-nomic issues can gather support from sig-nificant numbers of Protestants but whenit comes into conflict with the Northernstate will rip itself asunder and disap-pear. We need only look at how the North-ern Ireland Labour Party, which was amajor force in the 1960s, completely van-ished in the 1970s when it could not copewith the realities of the civil rights cam-paign and the later troubles.

AN ANARCHIST ANSWEROn the other hand a movement whichopposes the sectarian state but does notbase itself on the day-to-day needs ofworking class people will find it impossi-ble to break out of the confines of theCatholic community. It will fail to make

IT IS A great tragedy that once again this July the working class populationof Belfast’s Lower Ormeau will be mobilising to try and stop the OrangeOrder from marching down their road. A tragedy because the Order shouldnever get that far, it should be stopped by the working class population ofthe Upper Ormeau!

any contact with Protestants, even whenthey are fighting their own bosses. Thishas always been the case with republi-canism.

Loyalism bases itself on handing out afew marginal privileges to Protestantworkers. It is about who suffers slightlyless poverty. All talk of a more ‘just’ re-distribution of poverty must be rejected.Anarchists have no desire to take fromsomeone who has little in order to give tosomeone else who has even less. We won’tbe satisfied with anything less than theelimination of poverty.

Our goal is a socialist Ireland, where thefreedom of the individual is respected andwhere the working class hold direct andcomplete control through their own coun-cils. In the struggle for this loyalist work-ers can be won away from their bosses,and only then will the cycle of sectarian-ism be finally broken.

Joe King

Based on the article originally publishedin Workers Solidarity 44, 1995

Download and print outanarchist publications from

http://struggle.ws/pdf.html

DIY publishing

and have tended to move towards a posi-tion of lobbying the British state to banOrange marches (via the Parades Com-mission) and use its military to enforcethese bans. Thus the Drumcree confron-tation of 1998 and the massive show ofmilitary force deployed by the Britishbecame a shop front for the role of theBritish state as an ‘honest broker’ be-tween two troublesome children.

Far from exposing the role of the Britishstate in Ireland and thus why it shouldwithdraw, this appears to demonstratethe importance that it stays to ‘keep thepeace’. This is the problem with puttingBritain’s commitment to ‘parity of esteem’to the test, it is all too easy a test for theBritish state to pass!

Anarchists cannot call for state bans onmarches in any guise. Bitter experiencehas shown that when the state is given aweapon to ban reactionary marches it willquite happily use this weapon againstprogressives ones too. Nowhere shouldthis be clearer than in the six counties,the current round of conflicts saw its ori-gins in the banning and re-routing of CivilRights marches in 1968.

The central problem however is that theresidents’ groups are fighting on the sec-tarian terrain chosen by the Orange Or-der. With its membership declining andits influence on the state under threat,the Order needs an ‘anti-Protestant’ op-position to justify its continued existence.

The residents’ groups are allowing them-selves to be painted into this corner be-cause their opposition is almost com-pletely based around the anti- Catholicnature of the Orange Order. This makesit all too easy for the Orange Order totell Protestant workers that the opposi-tion is really ‘anti-Protestant’ in nature.It also leaves unchallenged sectarianswithin the nationalist areas who are ac-tive in or around these groups.

As anarchists we could just wish this is-sue would go away and so refuse to dealwith its complexity. However to do thiswould also be to make ourselves irrel-evant for the two to three months thatthe ‘marching season’ dominates thenorthern political agenda.

In general we should support the at-tempts to physically prevent the OrangeOrder marching through residential ar-eas where they are not welcome. Weshould not involve ourselves in lobbyingthe British or Irish states, either directlyor indirectly (through the Parades Com-mission), to ban marches. We should notdemand that the RUC or British armyact to enforce whatever bans may exist.

Politically our role around such cam-paigns should be to challenge the exclu-sive focus on the Orange Order as an anti-Catholic body. We should highlight its

role as a body that is anti-left, againstworkers’ unity and responsible for test-ing/ disciplining radical Protestant work-ers. This would serve two purposes,firstly it would undermine the tendencytowards mirror image sectarianismwithin nationalist areas. More impor-tantly, it would open the door towards‘cross-community’ opposition to the Or-ange parades.

This final point will seem hopelessly uto-pian to many. However until significantnumbers of Protestant workers begin toopenly reject the Orange Order it willcontinue to succeed in its primary objec-tive, as a counter revolutionary body. Itis probably the case already that an over-whelming majority of southern Protes-

Don’t hate the media become the media

International anarchist newshttp://www.ainfos.ca

DIY Publishing - put up your own story,photos, audio or video and see others at

http://www.indymedia.org

tants oppose the Orange Order, and evenin the six counties many radical and evenliberal Protestants are probably quietlyopposed to the Order.

Right now however there is no openingfor them to express this opposition. In theideal situation we could hope for a broadorganisation ‘of all religions and none’committed to physically defending areasagainst Orange parades. Creating thatideal situation starts now with the strug-gle to win hearts and minds to anti- sec-tarian working class politics.

Joe Black

Based on the article originally published inWorkers Soldiarity 57, Summer 1999

Over three hundred years ago two con-tenders for the English throne foughttheir way around Ireland. Nationalisthistorians extol the virtues of the “Patri-otic” Irish forces and their French allieswhich fought with King James II in de-fence of Catholicism and Ireland. Union-ist politicians and historians on the otherhand praise the memory of King Williamof Orange and his great victory at theBattle of the Boyne in defence of “Civiland Religious Liberty”. The truth how-ever is vastly different.

The Orange Parades on and around thetwelfth of July have long been a bone ofserious contention and indeed a sourceof sectarian conflict in the Six Counties.Members of the Orange Order demandtheir unalienable right to march theQueen’s highway, as their forefathersbefore them have done, in commemora-tion of the victory of King William of Or-ange at the battle of the Boyne - a vic-tory (as the Orangemen see it) for reli-gious and civil liberty. Nationalists, onthe other hand, see the Orange Paradesas nothing more than a coat-trailing ex-ercise designed to keep the Catholic popu-lation in their place and to pound forwardthe message that Northern Ireland is anOrange state and that nationalists areand will always remain second class citi-zens in that state.

It is interesting in this context to lookback at the events of just over 300 yearsago and to analyse exactly what was in-volved in the war between William ofOrange (King Billy as he is popularlyknown) and James II of England. Thiswar - popular mythology would have usbelieve - was a struggle to defend theProtestant religion against the RomanCatholic Church. In reality, however, theWilliamite War - in Ireland - was effec-tively a war between two factions formastery over the Irish people. And farfrom being a war to defend Protestant-ism against the Catholic Church, Williamof Orange counted among his allies noneother than the Pope of Rome - the headof the Roman Catholic Church!! The Popeand King Billy were in fact political bud-dies engaged in a bitter European powerstruggle in which Ireland’s people - bothCatholic and Protestant - were mere sac-rificial pawns.

England - and even more so Ireland -were for William of Orange (the ruler ofHolland) simply useful tools in his cam-

paign to free Holland from French domi-nation. James II of England had fled toFrance and to the protection of Louis XIVfollowing an unsuccessful attempt to giveall chief state offices in England to Catho-lic aristocrats. An alliance composed ofwealthy landowners and merchants andthe Church of England - alarmed byJames’ actions - invited his son-in-law,the ruler of Holland - William of Orange- to take over!

On November 5th 1688, William landedin England and James found himself de-serted by his army, navy, court function-aries, the Law, the Church, the City andeven his own family. Fearing for his life,he fled to France and the safety of theCourt of Louis XIV. William and his wifeMary were installed as joint monarchs ofEngland after they had agreed a Bill ofRights and an Act of Settlement (whichlimited the royal succession exclusivelyto Protestants, even marriage to a Catho-lic being a disqualification).

In order to understand the effects of allthis on Ireland, we must first of all un-derstand what was going on in Europeat the time. We must ask why didWilliam, a Dutchman, come to England,and why did James seek political asylumin France? Louis XIV, autocrat of Franceand supreme representative of feudalismin Europe, was busily engaged at the timein spreading French dominance in thewestern world. In the struggle to achievecontrol Louis required allies, and to up-set the balance of power he needed Eng-land on his side. James’ flight to Francewas thus mutually beneficial for both theFrench monarch and the deposed Eng-lish monarch. James saw his alliancewith Louis as a means whereby he couldre-establish his dominance at homewhereas Louis saw the potential of a re-installed James in terms of his own ef-forts to dominate Europe.

William of Orange, on the other hand,was fighting for the independence of Hol-land against Louis and as such was veryinterested in having England on his side.Thus William’s view of the throne of Eng-land was its usefulness in defending thenational independence of Holland.

It is because William - a Protestant - cameto England at the invitation of the Whigsto help them defeat James - a Catholic -that the Williamite war has since beendescribed as a struggle to defend the Prot-

estant religion against the Roman Catho-lic Church. However the historical reali-ties of the alliances formed in Europe atthe time explode this Orange-Unionist-Protestant myth. In fact Catholic Spainwas one of William’s main allies in thefight against the spread of French domi-nance. And - wait for it - the Pope - astemporal monarch of Italy - was a ferventsupporter of William’s claim to the Eng-lish throne and a military ally in the fightagainst Louis and France. When Williamand his army arrived on English soil, hebrought with him a Papal blessing and abanner proclaiming the support of Italyand the Pope!!

The maintenance of Protestant England’sindependence thus coincided withWilliam’s interests which in turn coin-cided with the interest of Catholic Spainand the Pope himself. For Ireland thestory was somewhat different. Whoeverwon the power struggle between Williamand James the mass of Irish people stoodto lose. The events in Ireland duringJames’ attempts to win back the Englishmonarchy proved that neither Williamand his allies, including the Pope, orJames and his ally Louis XIV were in theslightest bit interested in the welfare ofthe Irish people.

In Ireland the accession of the CatholicJames II to the throne of England hadexcited great interest among the Catho-lic landlord class. This loyalty to Jameswas purely economic in base with manyof them hoping that the Cromwellian set-tlements would be revoked enabling themto return to ownership of lands whichthey, or their ancestors had owned in pre-Cromwell times (having, of course, robbedthem from Irish people in a previous set-tlement). Over two-thirds of Ireland’sgood arable land was at the time ownedby less than one-sixth of the total popu-lation, the land-owning minority beingalmost completely members of the Prot-estant landlord class. Thus the Catholiclandlord class welcomed James, the Prot-

King Billy RevisitedIt is often said that history is written by the victors. It is probably more true to sayhowever that history is written by the rulers or by those with ambition to rule. I wantto look at the events of a period of Irish history which has had a profound effect onthe events of the three centuries since and which is the source of many of the sectar-ian myths which people - especially those in the Six Counties - are still suffering theconsequences of.

estant landowners feared him and for themass of Irish people whoever won noth-ing was likely to change.

In Ireland the struggle known as theWilliamite Wars was effectively a fightbetween two factions of landlordism todecide which of them should have theright to exploit the Irish people. As JamesConnolly was to write in Labour in IrishHistory in 1910

“all the political struggles of the periodwere built upon the material interests ofone set of usurpers who wished to retain,and another who wished to obtain, themastery of those lands”

In March 1689, James II landed atKinsale in Co. Cork with a small armycomprised of French and Irish troops tolaunch his bid to win back the Englishcrown. James had in fact little or no in-terest in Ireland but hoped to use it as alanding post to get to Scotland. On 7thMay James called together a parliamentto meet in Dublin - a parliament which,because it declared that the English par-liament was incompetent to pass laws forIreland, was to become known as the “Pa-triot Parliament”.

The extent of the parliament’s “patriot-ism” soon became clear however. Theproblems of the Irish people as a wholewere ignored completely as this parlia-ment quickly set about the task of at-tempting to secure ownership of the landsof Ireland for the landlords assembled inparliament and to prevent further dis-placement by other adventurers fromEngland. The landlord class who control-led the parliament used the occasion tocarve up Ireland for themselves, ignor-ing the mass of people and leaving themlandless. To quote Connolly again:

“The so-called Patriot Parliament was inreality, like every other that sat in Dub-lin, merely a collection of land thieves andtheir lackeys; their patriotism consistedin an effort to retain for themselves thespoils of the native peasantry; the Eng-lish influence against which they pro-tested was the influence of their fellowthieves in England hungry for a share ofthe spoil”

William of Orange sent his first battal-ion of troops to Ireland on August 13th1689 and William himself arrived over on14th June 1690. With an army of 36,000men he left Belfast on the march to Dub-lin. Despite the myth, the actual Battleof the Boyne was of little significance asit did not end the war. Indeed we shouldalso remember that, despite the fact thathe was supposedly fighting for Englandand Protestantism, the English parlia-ment was extremely reluctant to giveWilliam the army he needed to conquerIreland saying that he had plenty ofDutchmen anyway. So when William didcross the Boyne on July 1st 1690, he had

an army consisting of the riffraff of Eu-rope’s mercenaries. His army was madeup of Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Prussiansand French Huguenots plus a few Eng-lish, Scottish and Ulster regiments.

William’s army was slightly superior innumbers to James’ and indeed the mostcapable soldier on James’ side - PatrickSarsfield advised against entering bat-tle on the Boyne. James, however, over-ruled the advice, was overrun and beat ahasty retreat to Dublin where he imme-diately set sail for France, leaving theIrish people to suffer the consequencesof his actions.

William’s victory at the Boyne wasgreeted with enthusiasm in Rome. ThePope welcomed the victory of the “Euro-pean Alliance” forces and Pontifical HighMass was celebrated in thanksgiving forthe deliverance from the power of theCatholic Louis XIV and the CatholicJames II. Meanwhile King Billy marchedon and on July 7th entered Dublin. Inrapid succession Drogheda, Kilkenny andWaterford surrendered but William’stroops were repulsed at Athlone.

James’ army, under the command ofPatrick Sarsfield had fallen back to de-fend the line of the River Shannon.William laid siege to the city of Limer-ick, and leaving his army under the com-mand of baron de Ginkel, King Billy leftfor England. The war between the twoarmies - both of whose “leaders” had fledthe country was to continue until Octo-ber 1691 with significant battles takingplace at Athlone, Aughrim Galway and,of course, Limerick.

On October 13th 1691 the Articles of Ca-pitulation - to become known as theTreaty of Limerick - were signed and KingBilly’s victory was assured. Over 20,000Irish men fled to France (becomingknown in history as the “Wild Geese”) andentered the service of the King of Francewhere they formed the “Irish Brigade”and indeed it is reckoned that over thenext fifty years 450,000 Irishmen died inthe service of the King of France.

Thus an inglorious period of Irish historycame to an end - a period around whichthere have been more myths propagatedthan Hans Christian Andersen or anyother great storyteller could have dreamtof. It is a period of Irish history whichthe history books portray variously as awar between Protestantism and Catholi-cism or as one between the English KingBilly and Irish patriots supported by KingJames II and the French. For a true per-spective on these events, however, JamesConnolly’s Labour in Irish History ex-plodes the myths and I would in conclu-sion like to quote extensively from it.

“It is unfortunately beyond all questionthat the Irish Catholics shed their bloodlike water and wasted their wealth like

dirt in an effort to retain King James uponthe throne. But it is equally beyond allquestion that the whole struggle was noearthly concern of theirs; that King Jameswas one of the most worthless representa-tives of a race that ever sat upon thethrone; that the “pious, glorious and im-mortal” William was a mere adventurerfighting for his own hand, and his armyrecruited from the impecunious swords-men of Europe who cared as little for Prot-estantism as they did for human life; andthat neither army had the slightest claimto be considered as a patriot army com-bating for the freedom of the Irish race.”

“The war between William and James(Connolly continues) offered a splendidopportunity to the subject people of Ire-land to make a bid for freedom while theforces of their oppressors were rent in civilwar. The opportunity was cast aside, andthe subject people took sides on behalf ofthe opposing factions of their enemies. TheCatholic gentlemen and nobles who hadthe leadership of the people of Ireland atthe time were, one and all, men who pos-sessed considerable property in the coun-try, property to which they had, notwith-standing their Catholicity, no more rightto title than the merest Cromwellian orWilliamite adventurer. The lands theyheld were lands which in former timesbelonged to the Irish people - in otherwords, they were tribe-lands.”

Finally from Connolly:

“The forces which battled beneath thewalls of Derry or Limerick were not theforces of England and Ireland but werethe forces of two English political partiesfighting for the possession of the powersof government; and the leaders of the IrishWild Geese on the battlefields of Europewere not shedding their blood because oftheir fidelity to Ireland, as our historianspretend to believe, but because they hadattached themselves to the defeated sidein English politics. This fact was fully il-lustrated by the action of the old Franco-Irish at the time of the French Revolution.They in a body volunteered into the Eng-lish army to help put down the newFrench Republic, and as a result Europewitnessed the spectacle of the new repub-lican Irish exiles fighting for the FrenchRevolution, and the sons of the old aris-tocratic Irish exiles fighting under thebanner of England to put down that Revo-lution. It is time we learned to appreciateand value the truth upon such matters,and to brush from our eyes the cobwebswoven across them by our ignorant orunscrupulous history-writing politicians.”

Based on a talk by Gregor Kerr given toa WSM Open Meeting 7/7/97. Such talksrepresent the authors opinion alone andare frequently deliberately provocative inorder to start discussion.

In December of 1796 the United Irishmencame the nearest they would to victorywhen 15,000 French troops arrived offBantry Bay. Only the bad weather andpoor seamanship of the Jacobean sailorsprevented the landing. After Bantry BayIrish society was bitterly polarised as loy-alists flocked to join the British army andthe United Irishmen’s numbers swelledmassively.

By the Spring of 1798 a campaign of Brit-ish terror was destroying the UnitedIrishmen organisation and many of theleaders had been arrested. The remain-ing leaders felt forced to call an immedi-ate rising. A series of factors underminedthe rising in Dublin. However it sparkedmajor risings in Wexford in the south andAntrim and Down in the North. Thesesaw large scale battles in which tens ofthousands participated. By the Autumnthe rebellion had been defeated, tens ofthousands were dead and a reign of ter-ror had spread over the country.

Ascendancy & penal lawsThe previous 150 years in Ireland hadbeen marked by two vicious wars wherethe combatants were mobilised along re-ligious divides, with Catholics and Prot-estants (including the Presbyterians) onopposite sides. Each side in these warsclaimed religious motives and the reli-gious divide led to various sectarian mas-sacres. This period of massacre and coun-ter massacre created the sectarian poli-tics that have dominated Ireland since.

Ireland of the 1790's was ruledby Anglican (Church of Ire-land) landowners and aristo-crats. The mass of the popula-tion were not Anglican and soeven if they could accumulatewealth they were excludedfrom political power. Outside ofUlster and Dublin they wereoverwhelmingly Catholic. Ul-ster was dominated by Presby-terians (Dissenters) who hadmoved there in the previouscenturies, displacing the ear-lier Catholic settlers of thatregion. The complex religiousdivide along class and geo-graphic lines had been createdby the British ruling class as amechanism to ‘divide and rule’.It included a codified system of

religious discrimination known as thePenal Laws.

The penal laws were designed to draw areligious barrier between the landlordclass (which would be restricted to An-glicans) and the Catholic / Presbyterianpeasantry. Catholic landlords could re-tain their land but only at the price ofconverting.

The Penal laws also banned Mass andeducation, Presbyterians were subject tosimilar laws. A Test act excluded themfrom local government. In 1713 a West-minster act made Presbyterian school-teachers liable to three months impris-onment and Presbyterian - Anglican mar-riage was also made illegal.[19] As lateas 1771 four Presbyterians were arrestedfor holding a prayer meeting inBelturbet.[20]

Origins of the Orange OrderIt is inevitable that both the history ofreligious war in the 16th and 17th cen-tury and inequalities still present in the1790's led to sectarianism in the generalpopulation. If anything the period fromthe 1780's on was remarkable for the factthat these sectarian tensions temporar-ily retreated into the background.

Armagh was the major exception to this,here the population was evenly dividedthree ways between Anglicans, Presby-terians and Catholics. Under the Penallaws Catholics were not allowed to havearms but some of the more radical Vol-

unteer companies had been recruitingand arming Catholics. In the 1780's aProtestant and loyalist force starteddawn raids on Catholic homes, search-ing for arms. These were know as the‘Peep-O-Day boys’. In 1795 one such raidat ‘The Diamond’ near Dunmurry sawmany Catholics killed. It was in the af-termath of this clash that the OrangeOrder was formed.

It was in the interests of both the Irishlandlord class and the British govern-ment to promote sectarianism. As theAnglican Archbishop of Armagh pointedout of the land struggle in the 1780's “Theworst of this is that it stands to unite Prot-estant and Papist, and whenever thathappens, good-bye to the English interestin Ireland”.[22] It would be an oversim-plification to claim Britain invented thissectarianism, the tensions were alreadythere but it provided the careful nurtur-ing in which it grew. Key to this processwas encouraging the growth of the Or-ange Order and sectarian warfare in Ar-magh. Kevin Whelan summarises thebenefits of this project as “It inserted animplacable barrier to the linking of theUnited Irishmen and Defender territories;it stopped the spread of radical Freema-sonry; it pulled Protestants in generalfirmly to a conservative pro-governmentstance; it split the nascent Presbyterian -Catholic alliance in mid-Ulster; it checkedUnited Irishmen infiltration of the yeo-manry and militia”.[87]

General John Knox was the architect ofthis policy and described the Orange Or-der as “the only barrier we have againstthe United Irishmen”.[88] In 1797 hewrote “I proposed some time ago that theOrangemen might be armed and addedto some of the loyal corps as supplemen-tary yeomen .... They are bigots and willresist Catholic emancipation”.[89] Laterhe wrote to the administration in the cas-tle that “the institution of the OrangeOrder was of infinite use”.[90]

Many mechanisms were used topromote the Orange Order butmost importantly its memberswere effectively given impunity (asmany death squads still are todayin Latin America) for pogromsagainst Catholics. One victim re-called “every magistrate in Ulster,but one or two, was an Orange-man, and no justice could be ob-tained either in courts or law....”.[91] In fact in 1795 this policywas so obvious that Camden com-plained “some of the magistrateshave been incautious enough notto carry on this measure so secretlyas to have escaped the notice of thepublic”. [92]

Agendas in writing thehistory

It is rightly said that history is

The 1798 Rebellion and thecreation of the Orange Order

The foundation of the Belfast and Dublin societies of United Irishmen tookplace in the Autumn of 1791. This initially reformist organisation demandeddemocratic reforms including Catholic emancipation. The United Irishmen’sjourney to revolutionary separatism was only completed in June 1795. Fromthis time on their program was for a revolution that would break the con-nection with Britain and usher in democratic reform.

Execution of one of the Protestant leaders of the rising, HenryJoy McCracken (inset) in Belfast

written by the victors. The British andloyalist historians who wrote the initialhistories of the rising described it as lit-tle more then the actions of a sectarianmob intent on massacring all Protestants.Even reformers sought to hide from theprogram of 1798 to unite Irishmen re-gardless of creed. After 1798 they turnedto the confessional politics of mobilisingCatholics alone. Daniel O’Connell, themain architect of this policy went so farin 1841 as to denounce the United Irish-men as “.... wicked and villainously de-signing wretches who fomented the rebel-lion”.[107]

On the loyalist side there was a desper-ate need for the Orange Order to mini-mise Presbyterian involvement in the ris-ing so it could be portrayed as a sectar-ian and Catholic affair. So loyalist ac-counts have tended to focus on the Wex-ford massacres, often making quite falseclaims about their scale, who was mas-sacred and why they were massacred.Musgraves (the main loyalist historian)in his coverage of the rebellion gives only2% of his writing to the Antrim and Downrebellion while 62% of his coverage con-centrates on Wexford.[115] What ac-counts they give of the Northern risingportray it as idealistic Presbyteriansbeing betrayed by their Catholicneighbours and so learning to become‘good loyal Orange men’. The scale ofBritish and loyalist massacres ofthese Presbyterians is seldom men-tioned.

1798 and Irish nationalismThe debate around nation is in it-self something that divides the Irishleft. In particular after the parti-tion of Ireland in 1922 there hasbeen a real and somewhat success-ful effort to divide people into twonations. One consists of all thepeople in the south and thenorthern nationalists. Ca-tholicism was a central partof this definition with theCatholic Church being givenan informal veto for many dec-ades over state policy. To alarge extent this definition istacitly accepted by many partsof the Republican movement to-day. Francie Malloys 1996 elec-tion campaign posters based ontheir being 20,000 more nation-alists (i.e. Catholics) then Protes-tants in Mid-Ulster being a casein point.

In the north the key to this project,the ‘Protestant state for a Protes-tant people’ is still strong. Particu-larly in recent years this has seenthe political decision of northern loy-alists to start referring to themselves asBritish or ‘Ulster-Scots’. This is a quiteremarkable robbing of even the historyof loyalism, and would have been an in-

sult to even the Orangemen of 1798, oneof whom James Claudius Beresford de-clared he was “Proud of the name of anIrishman, I hope never to exchange it forthat of a colonist”.[134]

A couple of years after the rising Britainsucceeded in forcing the Irish Parliamentto pass an ‘Act of Union’ which effectivelydissolved that parliament and replacedit with direct rule from Westminster. Itis ironic that 36 Orange Lodges in Co.Armagh and 13 in Co. Fermanagh de-clared against this Act of Union. LodgeNo. 500 declared it would “support theindependence of Ireland and the consti-tution of 1782” and “declare as Orange-men, as Freeholders, as Irishmen that weconsider the extinction of our separate leg-islature as the extinction of the Irish Na-tion”.[135]

The central message of 1798 was not Irishunity for its own sake, indeed the strong-est opponents of the British parliamenthad been the Irish ascendancy, terrifiedthat direct rule might result in Catholicemancipation. Unity offered to removethe sectarian barriers that enabled a tinyascendancy class to rule over millionswithout granting even a thimble full ofdemocratic rights. The struggle has

changed a little since asmany of these rights havebeen won, but in terms ofcreating an anarchist soci-ety the words of JamesHope, the most proletarianof the 1798 leaders still ap-ply

“Och, Paddies, my hearties,have done wid your parties.Let min of all creeds andprofissions agree. If Or-ange and Green min, nolonger were seen, min. Och,naboclis, how aisy ould Ire-land we’d free.”

This article is based on a much longerarticle on the 1798 rebellion to be foundat http://struggle.ws/andrew/1798.html

19 A history of the Irish Working Class,Peter Berresford Ellis, 1972, p5120 ibid, p5122 A history of the Irish Working Class,…, p6887 The Tree of Liberty, Radicalism, Ca-tholicism and the Construction of IrishIdentity 1760 - 1830, Kevin Whelan,p12489 ibid, p12490 ibid, p12091 ibid, p12392 ibid, p120107 Freeman’s Journal, 22 May,1841109 Labour and Irish History,James Connolly, Chap VII

115 The Tree of Liberty, Radicalism…p138134 Revolt in North, Charles Dickson, 1960, p243135 ibid, p243

The situation in the North had changedsince 1796. A savage campaign of Britishtorture had terrified, disorganised and dis-armed many of the United Irishmen. Gen-eral Knox said that his methods were alsointended to “increase the animosity betweenthe Orangemen and the United Irishmen”.

Nevertheless the rank and file were deter-mined there should be a rising and thelower officers with Henry Joy MaCrakengot an order for a rising at a delegate meet-ing on June 2nd. This delay meant it wasnot till the 5th that the rising started inAntrim and the 7th in Down. In the courseof this delay three of the United Irishmencolonels gave the plans to the British tak-ing away any element of surprise.

More seriously rumours started reachingthe north from the Wexford rebellion withthe newspapers “rivalling rumour in por-traying in Wexford an image of Catholicmassacre and plunder equalled only by leg-ends ....”. Many of these stories were falsealthough Protestant men had been killedin Enniscorthy. The distorted version thatreached the north by 4 June (before the ris-ing) was that “at Enniscorthy in the countyof Wexford every Protestant man, womanand child, even infants, have been mur-dered”. Alongside this were manufacturedstories like a supposed Wexford Oath “I,A.B. do solemnly swear .... that I will burn,destroy and murder all heretics up to myknees in blood”. In addition there was “am-ple time” before the battle of Ballynahinchon the 13th for news of the Scullaboguemassacre to have reached the North.

Later commentaries have tried to deny thesignificance of the Northern rising or haveclaimed the many Presbyterians failed toturn out. However given all of the abovewhat is truly remarkable is how little ef-fect all this had, in particular as by the 5ththe Wexford rising had clearly failed tospread. At this stage there were 31,000United Irishmen in the area of the risingin the north of which 22,000 actually tookpart in the major battles.

Like the Wexford rising the Northern rebelssucceeded in winning minor skirmishesagainst the British but were defeated in themajor battles. The British burned towns,villages and houses they considered sym-pathetic to the rebels and massacred bothprisoners and wounded during and afterthe battles. After the battle of Antrim somewere buried alive. 32 United Irishmen lead-ers were executed in the North after therising, including two Presbyterian minis-ters.

Henry Joy McCracken managed to go intohiding after the rising where he wrote aletter to his sister which neatly sums upthe causes of the failure of the rising; “therich always betray the poor”. He was cap-tured and executed in Belfast on July 16th.The key informer who betrayed the Dublinrising, Reynolds, had turned informer in1798 because of fears of his ancestral es-tates being confiscated.

The rising in Antrim/Down

Doing the sectarainheadcount for electoralgain in the ‘96 elections

“I remember the march up theNewtownards Road. It was organised bythe Revolutionary Workers Group. Theagitation was against the 10% cut inwelfare benefits the government im-posed. The bru was 17/- but they broughtit down to 15/-. It was the same year asthe Invergordon mutiny in Scotlandwhen the sailors struck against a reduc-tion in their wage.

“There were about 1,500 of us on themarch, with a red flag, and we were tohave a meeting at Templemore Avenue.Bob Stewart from Scotland was to speakbut there was a mob of about 40 to greetus. They went under the name of theUlster Protestant League and were outto get him as he was well known. Theyhad lambeg drums, deacon poles (with aspear at the end), and a union jack.

“John Crumlin, a notorious bigot fromthe shipyards (during the early ‘20s hestirred up sectarian hatred against theCatholics, which drove many of them out)carried the Union jack. He was one ofthe ‘three Cs’ - Carson, Crumlin andConnor, who ten years earlier had beenresponsible for stirring up sectarian ha-tred in the shipyards and chasing Catho-lics out. Crumlin, in particular, made themost maledictory speeches then.

“There were about fifty police there. Butthey weren’t there to protect us. It was asham defence. They let the mob throughand then joined in. There was a lot offighting and it ended with nine arrests.Jack White (box) had his neck cut by oneof the deacon poles, not too seriously. Hewas fined £10 and bound over to keepthe peace. So was Harold Davidson, astudent from Malone. But the rest, whohad no connections, got about threemonths each.

“We had an improvised band to lead us.We borrowed three drums from StMalachy’s pipe band in the Markets. Butthey were destroyed that night. I remem-ber Tommy Hill being there. He was atram driver, and was known as RedTommy because he always wore a red tie.He wasn’t in the RWG, but was an inde-pendent from the Shankill Road. Hespoke at all the meetings.

“October, fifty years ago, was a wonder-

ful event in the workers’ struggle for bet-ter conditions. On that occasion there wasa fight against the Poor Law Guardiansof Belfast, who were controlled by theUnionist Party. The Guardians had im-posed extremely harsh conditions on un-employed workers.

“Whenever the benefit of an unemployedperson ran out due to not having enoughstamps, they had to do task work threedays a week. They got paid 16/- a week,not in cash but in the form of a chit. Thiswas given to the grocer who gave you gro-ceries for that amount.

“The workers, of course, took exceptionto this form of payment and thousandsof Outdoor Relief workers took to thestreet to protest against it. Some of theseprotests ended up in clashes with thepolice and in a series of riots, with a largenumber of people being arrested. Theworst riot occurred on the Falls Roadwhere two protesters were shot dead.They were Samuel Baxter and JohnKeenan.

“The Outdoor Relief workers replied witha massive protest to Queens Square, or-ganised by the Revolutionary WorkersGroups. There were about 40,000 work-ers in Queens Square that night on 11thOctober 1932. They came from all partsof Belfast, and from Derry and Coleraine.Four hundred workers set out to walk

from Dublin to Belfast, but as theyreached the border the RUC stoppedthem and turned most of them back. Butsome did manage to reach Belfast andtook part in the march.

“The main speakers that night wereTommy Greehan, Davey Scarborough,Jimmy Koter, Betty Sinclair, SeanMurray and Arthur Griffin. ThomasMann came over from England to speakat the funerals of the two Falls men. Hewas arrested and deported to ClogherValley, before returning to his home.Other well known speakers I rememberof that time were Bob Stewart from Dun-dee, Willie Gallacher and CharlotteDespard.

“Two weeks after that march I lost myjob. I was a farm labourer employed byDavid McAnse. He was the father of AnneDickinson, who until recently was a Un-ionist politician in East Belfast.

“There were RWGs in different parts ofthe city. In East Belfast were Bob Ellison,Bob Stewart, Eddie and Sadie Menzies,Jimmy Woods, James Connolly (no rela-tion!), Davey Greenlaw, JimmyMcKenzie, Joe Lather, Jimmy Spence,Jimmy Kernoghan, John Lavery, BillyBishop, Billy Tomlinson and his brotherJoe, Billy Somerset Snr., and LoftyJohnson.

“The Falls Road group members wereJohnny McWilliams, Jimmy Quinn, TomPicken, Johnny Campell and JimmyHughes. Jimmy McKurk was a very mili-tant worker in the ODR strike from theFalls but wasn’t in the group.

“Group members from the Shankill wereNorman Taggart and his brother Bob,Bob McVicker and his brother Sam, BillyJohnson, John Sinclair, Aggie Young andMartha Burch. From the Donegal Roadwere John, Mary and Nora Griffin. BillyBoyd came from York Street. Other mem-bers of the groups included MauriceWatters, Jack White and Ben Murray”.

When the Falls and theShankill fought together

The Outdoor Relief strike in Belfast saw unemployed Catholics and Protes-tants fighting alongside each other. In 1982 one of the few survivors fromthe strike, William Burrows, talked to Outta Control, a local anarchist pa-per in Belfast. Twelve years later we are pleased to help uncover a small bitof anti-sectarian working class history be reprinting William’s recollections.He talked firstly of a march up the Newtownards Road, and secondly de-scribed the rally of 40,000 at Queens Square.

Jack White was a Protestant born in 1879 in Broughshane inCounty Antrim, the only son of the British war hero Sir GeorgeStuart White. He proposed the idea of workers' militia, the IrishCitizens Army (ICA) in the 1913 Dublin lockout and played akey role in its early development and organisation. In April 1916he was arrested in south Wales for attempting to organise a strikeof miners in support of James Connolly.

In 1931, White was involved in a bitter street battle betweenunemployed workers and the RUC on the Newtownards Roadin Belfast. In 1936 at the age of 57 he travelled to Spain (aspart of a Red Cross ambulance crew) to help fight fascism.Here he gravitated towards the anarchist CNT.

Impressed by the revolution that had unfolded inSpain, White was further attracted to the anarchistcause due to his own latent anti-Stalinism.

More information including White’s writings athttp://struggle.ws/anarchists/jackwhite.html

Jack White

The agreement offers nothing except asectarian division of the spoils. From hereon politics in the six counties is officiallydivided into Unionist, Nationalist andOther. In regard to the assembly theagreement states

“At their first meeting, members of theAssembly will register a designation ofidentity - nationalist, unionist or other”

The ‘Other’ are very much second classcitizens as

“arrangements to ensure key decisionsare taken on a cross-community basis;

(i) either parallel consent, i.e. a majorityof those members present and voting, in-cluding a majority of the unionist andnationalist designations present and vot-ing;

(ii) or a weighted majority (60%) of mem-bers present and voting, including at least40% of each of the nationalist and union-ist designations present and voting”.

In other words instead of a unionist vetowe now have both a unionist and a na-tionalist veto. This makes it almost im-possible to develop any sort of non-sec-tarian parliamentary party as its votesimply wouldn’t count in vital decisions.Anarchists have little time for parliamen-tary politics, we are against any divisioninto leaders and led but what the peaceagreement has created is a system whereeven a Labour party is almost impossi-ble.

Is it better than an ongoing and increas-ingly sectarian war? Yes! But it is a stepsidewards. It is for this reason that werefused to vote for or against it, choosingto abstain.

The failure is ours!It is a damning indictment of all whoidentify themselves as left-wing (or evenliberal) how little opposition there hasbeen to this aspect of the deal. Within ‘re-publicanism’ the only opposition wasbased on the crudest of ‘four green fields’nationalism and the resurrection ofcorpses as holy relics to ward off a ‘sellout’. Some socialist organisations actu-ally ended up supporting this nonsense,

in calling for a no vote without present-ing any realistic alternative to the ‘backto war’ brigade.

The parliamentary ‘left’ however not onlyaccepted the deal, they tried to presentit as the best thing since sliced bread.This dishonesty can only be described asincredible. The agreement as outlined inthe first paragraph not only accepts butpromotes the most reactionary view of theworking class on this island possible. In1798 the United Irishmen asked “Are weforever to stalk like beasts of prey throughfields stained with our ancestors’ blood?”Today’s ‘republicans’, whether pro or anti-deal both seem to be answering ‘Yes’.

The agreement is a consequence of thefailure of republicanism and the left towin over any significant section of north-ern Protestant workers to an anti-parti-tionist stance. Right now this failure isso complete that this may seem like animpossibly utopian project. But histori-cally, both spontaneously and catalysedby left activists, sections of the Protes-tant working class in the north haveproved open to such a strategy. Most fa-mously when 500 Protestant workersfrom Belfast joined the Bodenstown WolfeTone Commemoration in 1934.

Such a strategy however required onesacrifice the republicans would not make,that was to ‘break the connection withcapitalism’ and fight for a ‘32 countyworkers republic’. In truth though afterindependence far too many republicanactivists saw the fight as one to extendthe clerical state in the south into thenorth, albeit with them in the driving

seat. In any case making a link withworking class northern Protestantswould have meant breaking the link withthe southern ruling class and the Catho-lic church.

Since partition, despite executions andexcommunications by their ‘friends’, mostRepublicans have viewed that link assacred above all others. So in 1934Bodenstown those Protestant workerswere physically driven off the march.

First time as tragedy, second timeas farce?

It is deeply ironic that the agreementcomes 200 years after the great rebellionof 1798. It is claimed that during the re-bellion the English Viceroy boasted itwould be crushed so brutally that thecause of the United Irishmen would beset back for 200 years. This it now ap-pears was an underestimate. ‘Republi-cans’ seem to have given up on the greatpromise of that rebellion “to substitute thecommon name of Irishman for Catholic,Protestant and Dissenter”.

So why have we arrived at such a deadend? There are two reasons, the first inthe absolute failure by the left to promoteany alternative vision capable of winningpeople to the fight for a better society.This is not just an Irish problem but aninternational one as the left promoted onelame duck dictatorship after another.

Secondly the rules of the game are chang-ing. Any conflict between the ruling classof Southern Ireland and the ruling classof Britain is being buried by their jointneed to efficiently manage the Europeanworkforce. They both pushed the agree-ment because the question of which ofthem manages capital in the six counties,is far less important than the removal ofan ongoing instability in the Europeanpolitical system.

In many ways the deal is to their advan-tage. The costs of having to occasionallypolice the annual confrontation atDrumcree and elsewhere may well beoutweighed by the knowledge that north-ern workers face major difficulties inuniting against the demands of Europeancapital.

For anarchists looking at the future theold saying ‘if I was going there I wouldn’tstart from here’ rings particularly true.It is all too easy to despair that the tinynumbers of anarchists who are active willbe unable to point to an alternative. Buthere is where we are, so here is wherewe have to start from. Northern workershave united across the sectarian dividein the past to fight on economic issues,this will happen again in the future. Weneed to be in a position when this hap-pens to turn that fight into a fight for ananarchist Ireland.

Based on an article published in WorkersSolidarity 54, 1998

Peace deal offers sectarianwar or sectarian peace

The huge vote, North and South, in favour of the 'Good Friday Agreement' shows that the vastmajority do not want a return to pre-ceasefire violence. Can this agreement get to the root of thesectarian problem and deal with the hatreds, fears and suspicions that have bedevilled ourcountry? Andrew Flood looks at the prospects.

The agreement represents a new consensus for Ireland, that the island ispopulated by two tribes of irrational savages who must forever be moni-tored lest one side gain advantage over the other. Under the deal the wisestrepresentatives of these tribes, supervised by the British and US govern-ments, will gather on a regular basis to fight for the scraps that are pro-vided.

Anarchism, at the moment, is a verymuch smaller force in Ireland then eventhe fringe loyalist groups, but it does of-fer a way forward. We argue for workingclass self-activity that appeals not to poli-ticians or priests as allies but to workerseverywhere, in Ireland, in Britain and in-ternationally. But this unity cannot bebased on just ‘bread and butter issues’.In the past Catholic and Protestant work-ers have united in common fights to getmore from the bosses. The largest andbetter known examples of this are

* 1919 Engineering strike when themostly Protestant workforce of Harlandand Wolff elected a strike committee thathappened to be mostly Catholic.

* 1932 Outdoor Relief strike when theunemployed of the Falls and the Shankillrioted in support of each other, andagainst the police.

Both these were broken by the unionistbosses convincing Protestant workersthat it was all a ‘Fenian’ trick and thattheir real interests lay in loyalism. Lookat the poverty figures for the Shankillroad today and you can see who was re-ally tricking who. But the bosses’ trickworked and economic unity crumbled, tobe replaced by a vicious pogrom and theexpulsion of Catholics and left-wing Prot-estants from the shipyards in 1919 andsectarian rioting in 1933.

For this reason, the idea we can wish thedivision of the working class in the northaway by simply talking about wages andliving conditions is a fantasy. More re-cently there has been unity in support ofthe nurses’ pay claim, against healthservice cuts and against sectarian intimi-dation in Housing Executive and Dept.of Social Security offices. All of these in-stances are heartening. Unfortunatelylittle permanent unity has been builtupon these successes because of a failureto confront ‘communal politics’.

Protestant workers have to rejectloyalism and unionism as ruling classideologies. They have to see their alliesas being workers who happen to beCatholic, north and south, and their en-emies as the loyalist bosses and the Brit-ish state. This is no easy break to makebut the big benefit of the ceasefire is thatit is now easier then it was.

No to the bosses Orange or GreenCatholic workers have a similar break to

make. The politics of both the SDLP andSinn Féin are essentially about extend-ing the southern state northwards. Thiswould have the benefit of ending rule bysectarian bigots (although the southernGarda’ are no more keen on the workingclass then their northern counterparts)but that’s about it. Many workers in theSouth have spent a good part of the lastdecade fighting the power of the Catho-lic church, from its influence on the legalsystem to its covering up of child abus-ing priests and enslavement of unmar-ried mothers in the Magdalen laundries.

Apart from that, the Dunnes Stores andother strikes demonstrates that thegobshite Southern bosses are every bit asmean as their northern equivalents. Italso demonstrates they can be beaten, ifworkers stand together.

Workers’ unity against the bosses is re-quired but the form that unity takes isalso vital. The unity must be political aswell as economic. The PSNI, the border,clerical control of schools and hospitals,and laws restricting divorce, gay sex andaccess to abortion all need to be opposed.

We cannot rely on a few “good men” tosort out the situation for us. That is themistake most of the socialist movementmade this century and is the reason whywe had ‘socialist’ dictatorships like theUSSR and China on the one hand, and‘socialist’ sell-outs like the Labour Partyor Democratic Left on the other. Thereis, however, a different current in social-ism, based not on good leaders but on theself-organisation of the working class.

This self-organisation is what anarchismis all about. We don’t believe the way for-ward lies in finding the right leader,whether it’s Gerry Adams, Tony Blair orLenin. Instead we see the way forwardlying with ordinary people; taking con-trol of our lives into our own hands, com-ing together and starting to fight back.The role of anarchists is not to assumethe leadership of such a process but toargue for self-activity, encourage it andseek to encourage those fighting back tounite in an overall struggle against capi-talism and for a new society.

And that’s where you come in. Unlikeother left papers, we won’t end every ar-ticle by telling you the only way forwardis to join the party. What we do say isfind out more about anarchism and lookat ways of encouraging self-activity in thestruggles you are involved in. If you de-cide you like what we say then please doget in touch and help us in saying (anddoing) it. Above all recognise that theanswer is not getting ‘our’ leaders intotalks but in taking back control ourselves.

Based on an article originally publishedin Workers Solidarity 46, 1995

Neither Orange nor GreenWhile welcoming the ceasefire we don’t expect the “peace process” to leadto much. Sinn Féin’s politics offer little more to Northern workers, as a class,than the politics of the fringe loyalist groups. Both aspire to getting a betterdeal for the poor and oppressed in their communities but neither are capa-ble of delivering, as they are limited to rhetorical appeals to the workers ofthe other side to “see sense”. Neither can offer a way forward because nei-ther can unite workers across the sectarian divide in a common struggle.

Workers Solidarity MovementThe articles in this pamphlet are based on articles and talks takenfrom the Workers Solidarity Movement web site. The WSM is anIrish anarchist organisation in existence since 1984.

The WSM web site includes hundreds of articles about Ireland andanarchism in general. Personal news reports of demonstrations inIreland, many with photographs are regularly added to the site. Youcan access these at

http://struggle.ws/wsm.htmlThe WSM publishes a regular newspaper called WorkersSolidarity and a magazine called Red & Black Revolution.To subscribe to these follow the instructions below...

Ireland: Send 10 Euro to WSM, PO Box 1528, Dublin 8 andwe will send you the next 9 Workers Solidaritys and the next2 issues of our magazine Red & Black Revolution

International rates (for 6 WS + 1 R&BR), Britain; 5 STR,Europe; 7 Euros or equiv, rest of world; 10 USD. Send cashor cheques made out to WSM to WSM, PO Box 1528,Dublin 8, Ireland.