AHC: Persecution of Anglicans in Ireland

Minty_Fresh

Banned
There was a distinct fear in the Protestant communities of Northern Ireland before the Irish Free State's establishment of "Rome Rule" being imposed on them. This never of course bore out to be true, and the old canard about Catholic governments all taking their orders from Rome did not hold much water either.

But what if it had? The Republic of Ireland after all banned divorce mostly at the behest of the clergy. The Irish Fascist movement never really picked up much steam, and the volunteers for Franco were more of an abberation than anything else, but basically, is there any chance that an openly Clerical Fascist party could take over Eire sometime before the Second World War and start persecuting or harassing Anglicans? The Anglican Church in Southern Ireland had lost a fair amount of people due to many of them moving away, but the remaining Anglo-Irish weren't exactly a popular minority in the early years. The Big Houses didn't magically burn themselves down, after all.

And ultimately, would a Fascist Ireland persecute based off of religion or ethnic Anglo status? There never was much chance of Ireland going fascist, but the core elements of fascist possiblity (historical humiliation that could be cleansed with ritualistic ceremony, territorial revanchism towards the North and the treaty ports, ethnic fraternity, an "other" that can be hated and has been historically hated, an economy that was weak and a breeding ground for populism and losing out through emigration) were there, which might make this at least slightly possible with the right POD.

How would this be brought about?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, it is hard to see how it could happen in any extensively organised way given the absolute dependence on Britain for Irish trade (and in many cases basic employment) and an overwhelmingly more powerful neighbour who would be sympathetic to the plight of the Anglicans. There is also the problem that the few Anglicans in public life seem to have supported conservative parties (Cumann na nGaedheal and later Fine Gael) which doesn't really synergise with the fears of communism that were much more a feature of the Irish right (Cumann na nGaedheal tried to hit Dev with the red scare label after all.)

In OTL generally anti-protestant sentiment seems to have been kicked off by events in the North - the Limerick riots of 1935 were inspired by the far worse riots in Belfast immediately beforehand.
 
OTL Remember that ethnic origin was the root of the Irish "Troubles", not religion.
A few centuries earlier, Prince Wiliam of Orange encouraged English-speaking, Protestant Scotsmen to invade Ireland, displace traditional Irish nobility and force Irish-Catholic peasants to work on plantations.
In many respects the Irish "Troubles" were more of a class-struggle with Irish-Catholic peasants rebelling against a recently-imposed, Protestant Scots-Irish ruling class.
As Irish-Catholics resort to "revenge of the cradle" they eventually out-number Protestants.

Don't hope for the Pope to intervene because Irish Catholicism developed along a different (more literate) path since the days of Saint Patrick.

The first step would involve encouragement to emigrate, followed by torch-lit parades, followed by shunning, followed by petty crime, followed by rape, followed by lynching, etc.
 
OTL Remember that ethnic origin was the root of the Irish "Troubles", not religion.
A few centuries earlier, Prince Wiliam of Orange encouraged English-speaking, Protestant Scotsmen to invade Ireland, displace traditional Irish nobility and force Irish-Catholic peasants to work on plantations.
In many respects the Irish "Troubles" were more of a class-struggle with Irish-Catholic peasants rebelling against a recently-imposed, Protestant Scots-Irish ruling class.
As Irish-Catholics resort to "revenge of the cradle" they eventually out-number Protestants.

Don't hope for the Pope to intervene because Irish Catholicism developed along a different (more literate) path since the days of Saint Patrick.

The first step would involve encouragement to emigrate, followed by torch-lit parades, followed by shunning, followed by petty crime, followed by rape, followed by lynching, etc.
Errr...
No.
Remember that the earliest pro-Irish movements had supporters from BOTH the Presbyterian Scots-Irish AND the native Catholic Irish, as the ruling class was restricted to 'Anglicans'. It wasn't until the presbyterians were allowed in the chambers of power that they became 'unionist'. So, it is pretty clearly 'religious' in origin, if more complex than modernly presented.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
OTL Remember that ethnic origin was the root of the Irish "Troubles", not religion.
A few centuries earlier, Prince Wiliam of Orange encouraged English-speaking, Protestant Scotsmen to invade Ireland, displace traditional Irish nobility and force Irish-Catholic peasants to work on plantations.
In many respects the Irish "Troubles" were more of a class-struggle with Irish-Catholic peasants rebelling against a recently-imposed, Protestant Scots-Irish ruling class.
As Irish-Catholics resort to "revenge of the cradle" they eventually out-number Protestants.

Don't hope for the Pope to intervene because Irish Catholicism developed along a different (more literate) path since the days of Saint Patrick.

The first step would involve encouragement to emigrate, followed by torch-lit parades, followed by shunning, followed by petty crime, followed by rape, followed by lynching, etc.
Those are mostly Northern issues, however. Presbyterianism in the Republic of Ireland was basically nonexistent by the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish and the Ulster Scots are two very distinct ethnic groups, and I was referring to the Anglo-Irish in the Republic of Ireland who made up maybe 10% of the population around the time of independence.

There were things like what you discussed OTL, as the homes of many of these people were burned during the struggle for independence and right afterwards, with an ethnic emphasis on who was victimized. Lynchings were a bit more rare. All in all, the Irish War of Independence was hardly a war with its relatively low casualty figures (I don't think either side even lost 1000 men) and more of an extended period of lawlessness in a few concentrated areas, for the most part in Munster and Connacht. Hostility towards the Anglo-Irish however did exist, and the fact that their homes were seen as being oppressive by their very nature (being huge and sustained with rent payments) added a class factor to this. While it was mostly a Marxist class factor, Fascists have never been shy about using class when discussing foreign or hated races either.

I was wondering what kind of Fascists could take power in Ireland, and I figured the best bet would be Clerical Fascists in the Francoist mold based off of the widespread power that the Catholic Church had in Ireland, particularly in the mostly rural and agrarian areas that made up the majority of the country. The problem with this of course is that the few Fascists that there were in OTL were mostly pro-Treaty men who were in the same political party as the remaining Protestants who of course were also pro-Treaty.

The struggle is to get the Fascists to go against the treaty.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Errr...
No.
Remember that the earliest pro-Irish movements had supporters from BOTH the Presbyterian Scots-Irish AND the native Catholic Irish, as the ruling class was restricted to 'Anglicans'. It wasn't until the presbyterians were allowed in the chambers of power that they became 'unionist'. So, it is pretty clearly 'religious' in origin, if more complex than modernly presented.
The upheavals of the 17th century were far more ethnic than any succeeding conflicts, with the attempts to basically ethnically cleanse Ulster of Scots regardless of High or Low church affiliation during the 1640s and the subsequent actions by Cromwell which were really genocidal in nature.

The treatment of the Old English I believe is the best case to make for the conflict being religious in nature, though. Of course, the Old English, due to the medieval practice of having the aristocracy control Church positions, had vested self interest in remaining fervently Catholic, as they were simply going to be replaced by the new class of Tudor administrators otherwise, but Cromwell did not seem to differentiate between ethnic groups in his crusade against Popery.

Keep in mind that the British saw the rebellion of 1798 not just as a symptom of French meddling but also because the Protestant Ascendancy that controlled the Irish Parliament was particularly brutal towards the Catholic population in a way that the British Parliament, penal laws and all, would not be. The move to centralize control was a move to stop the Anglo-Irish landlord class from stirring up rebellions through incompetence.
 
There was a distinct fear in the Protestant communities of Northern Ireland before the Irish Free State's establishment of "Rome Rule" being imposed on them. This never of course bore out to be true, and the old canard about Catholic governments all taking their orders from Rome did not hold much water either.

Coming from Norn Iron as I do, I am reluctant to take any stance which might be perceived as sectarian and, to be fair, the Free State/Republic has been reasonably tolerant of its Protestant minority (certainly no pogroms and those who kept their heads down were largely left alone) but, nonetheless, I find your view of post independence Ireland a little starry eyed. I fully recognise that the IPP leadership under Redmond were strongly committed to a degree of separation of Church and State but this was somewhat less evident under the governments of Cosgrave and de Valera and those following after. I suggest you might wish to do a little research into the political role of the RC Church in Ireland and, in particular, Cardinal McQuaid. Also the fall of Noel Browne as Health Minister.
Even in the early part of my own lifetime, all the books on the Vatican's prohibited list were banned in Ireland (moreover, at one stage, a particularly illiterate censor banned "Black Beauty" to much hilarity) as were contraceptives, and the principal architect of the Republic's constitution was a Jesuit priest. Not to mention that the Protestant population of what is now the Republic has fallen in absolute as well as relative terms since independence(was 15% now 3%). Now there has been considerable liberalisation since around 1980, yes and the political influence of the Roman Catholic Church has declined. But, for the first sixty years after independence, I would suggest that the fears of my predecessors were slightly exaggerated rather than completely illusory.
 
Coming from Norn Iron as I do, I am reluctant to take any stance which might be perceived as sectarian and, to be fair, the Free State/Republic has been reasonably tolerant of its Protestant minority (certainly no pogroms and those who kept their heads down were largely left alone) but, nonetheless, I find your view of post independence Ireland a little starry eyed. I fully recognise that the IPP leadership under Redmond were strongly committed to a degree of separation of Church and State but this was somewhat less evident under the governments of Cosgrave and de Valera and those following after. I suggest you might wish to do a little research into the political role of the RC Church in Ireland and, in particular, Cardinal McQuaid. Also the fall of Noel Browne as Health Minister.
Even in the early part of my own lifetime, all the books on the Vatican's prohibited list were banned in Ireland (moreover, at one stage, a particularly illiterate censor banned "Black Beauty" to much hilarity) as were contraceptives, and the principal architect of the Republic's constitution was a Jesuit priest. Not to mention that the Protestant population of what is now the Republic has fallen in absolute as well as relative terms since independence(was 15% now 3%). Now there has been considerable liberalisation since around 1980, yes and the political influence of the Roman Catholic Church has declined. But, for the first sixty years after independence, I would suggest that the fears of my predecessors were slightly exaggerated rather than completely illusory.
Good post. I would like to be able to say the northern Unionists fears were seriously rather than slightly exaggerated but perhaps I'd have to argue for significantly rather than slightly. And I might fail to convince even myself!

There ware, AFAIK, no organised pogroms in the Free State/Republic* against Protestants but up until 1980 at the earliest it wasn't very welcoming for Protestants as a community. Individuals yes, but even then I'm sure many never felt truly at home. Which may be one partial explanation why the Protestant share of the population fell so sharply since 1921. Another being the Catholic Church's insistence since the late 19th century on conversion of a Protestant spouse or at the least that all children be raised as Catholics. (Which I'm told went against earlier Irish traditions of letting sons follow the father's religion and daughters the mother's.) Many left of course quickly after 1921, some as they felt British rather than Irish, which is fair enough, especially for those with a tradition of service in the Navy etc. while others were officials posted to Ireland for business or government.

All in all no overt discrimination, as in the North against Catholics and no suppression of Civil Rights. But not necessarily a nice environment either.

* sadly there was at least one period in the War of Independence where an IRA Brigade is claimed to have targeted Protestants on ethno-religious grounds rather than their being "legitimate" targets as soldiers, police or spies.
 
* sadly there was at least one period in the War of Independence where an IRA Brigade is claimed to have targeted Protestants on ethno-religious grounds rather than their being "legitimate" targets as soldiers, police or spies.

Which gives a couple of potential scenarios where fear of Britain might produce a panic-led persecution of Anglicans and other Protestants.

First, between the outbreak of WWII and the Fall of France (or even US entry in 1941) the Irish government could have misunderstood UK actions as aimed at seizing back the Treaty Ports. So a fear that Anglicans etc. are potential security risks means they're driven out of sensitive areas and lose jobs in government etc. Possibly any seen as likely to assist such a British reoccupation are interned.

Second, the Free State government refuses to act fast enough against the Four Courts occupation for British liking and Britain tries to intervene itself. This scenario was the subject of a TL a while back (Churchill's War?, or something including that in the title) and I could see the fear that the Anglican establishment would back Britain as leading to its members being seen as disloyal and persecuted in its aftermath or during the conflict.

I suppose a Republican victory over the Free State in the Civil War is near ASB but an early ceasefire might have been achieved had Collins not been killed at Beal na Blath. A more assertive stance by the reunited IRA over the Border and catholic civil rights could make relations with the UK very strained and again potential Fifth Columnists (anachronistic use I know but.. ) might suffer persecution.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
In regards to a Republican victory over the Free State, perhaps you make that easier by having a less generous treaty, and therefore more support for the Republicans and more splits in the Free State leadership. For example, there was a case made for the British to retain Dublin due to the election of a few Unionists there in the landslide 1918 election, and there could have been more treaty ports demanded or for the entire province of Ulster to stay British rather than 6 counties.

It might be a stretch that these conditions would have been agreed to, but it was not as if Britain tried all that hard in the 'war' either. The empire was not mobilized and few if any regular combat troops were to my knowledge sent to Ireland, and the vast majority of the battles if you could even call them that were skirmishes between police and auxiliary units against Republican forces, which, as the later Civil War revealed were truly disorganized. Gandhi in fact stated that the peace negotiations were more about embarrassment at the conduct of the auxiliaries more than anything.

But if you get a bad treaty, you might see enough fracture in the Free State forces that the Republicans can win and perhaps get pretty nasty. Of course, if the treaty is bad enough, the Republicans can probably be physically restrained from their nastiness by the British Army.
 
Top