Quill

‘No English enemy . . . everstooped so low’: Mike Quill, de Valera’s Visit to the German Legation, and Irish-American Attitudes during World War II

Brian Hanley

In May of 1945 Mike Quill, the Kerry-born leader of New York’s TransportWorkers Union, bitterly criticized Eamon de Valera’s visit of condolence to

the German legation in Dublin following Hitler’s death. Writing in his union’sBulletin, Quill accused de Valera of both disgracing the name of Ireland andbetraying the legacy of the Irish War of Independence. In response, the Irishpress in New York and various social and community organizations launchedviolent attacks on Quill. In part, the affair reflected long-standing politicaldisputes among the New York Irish and presented an opportunity for many tosettle old scores with Quill. However, it also showed their distinct unease withAmerican participation on the side of Britain and the USSR. While thisdiscomfort was partially overshadowed by patriotism after the bombing ofPearl Harbor, it was always visible under the surface of discourse among theIrish community. How does this fit into the prevailing view that Irish neutralitywas unpopular with Irish Americans? Here I will argue that the reactions ofmany Irish Americans to de Valera’s legation visit reveal distinct differences inattitudes between the immigrant and the American-born.

I

Eamon de Valera’s visit of condolence to the German Legation in Dublin onthe occasion of Adolf Hitler’s death was received with outrage and hostility

Radharc: A Journal of Irish and Irish-American Studies Volume 5–7 (2004–2006)

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 245

outside of southern Ireland. In the United States, Irish diplomats reportedthat even their “old friends in Congress” were very upset about the matter.1

However, within the twenty-six counties of Ireland and among Irishnationalists abroad, the visit created little initial controversy, partially becauseWinston Churchill launched his famous attack on Irish neutrality just a fewdays later.2 An exception was the reaction of Michael Quill, the president ofthe Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and American Labor Partymember of the New York City Council. In the May 1945 issue of the TWU’sBulletin, Quill used his monthly column to denounce de Valera in thestrongest terms.

Not since Padraic [sic] Pearse and James Connolly were forced tosurrender the Dublin Post office at the conclusion of the 1916 rebellion,did the Irish people live through a darker day or suffer such great shameas they did on May 2nd . . . on that day, De Valera, without the authorityof the Irish people . . . plodded his way to the Nazi legation in DublinCity and there publicly shed tears over the reported death of Adolf Hitler.

For Quill, de Valera’s “dastardly act” was a crime committed against the Irishpeople at home and an insult to the “sons and daughters” of the Irish in exile,especially those then fighting worldwide for “decency, freedom anddemocracy.”

Quill argued that de Valera had betrayed the “desire for freedom andjustice” exemplified by the lives of patriots Tone and Emmet, Pearse andConnolly, Terence McSwiney and Liam Mellows. Nor was the visit justifiableas a result of diplomatic duties. De Valera, Quill charged, had decided tocompel the Irish people to “play the role of a tail to the bloody and sinkingkite of the Hitler and Mussolini way of life.” By his condolences de Valerahad stained the Irish people’s hands with the blood the “arch-fiend” Hitlerhad “spilled so freely.” Ireland had been dragged into a “corroded Nazicesspool” by its leader’s shedding of tears for the “greatest internationalassassin that the world has known in two thousand years.” Quill went muchfurther than accusing de Valera of bad judgment. He charged that de Valeraconsidered Hitler “his idol,” and that he was in the same mold as thecollaborators: Quisling of Norway, Laval of France, and Horthy of Hungary.

1 Robert Brennan to Eamon de Valera, May 25, 1945, de Valera Papers, University CollegeDublin Archives, P150/2676.2 T. Ryle Dwyer, Strained Relations: Ireland at Peace and the USA at War, 1941–45 (Dublin:Gill and Macmillan, 1988), 166; T. P. Coogan, De Valera: Long Fellow, Long Shadow(London: Hutchinson, 1993), 610–611.


246 ‘No English enemy . . . ever stooped so low’:

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 246

Further, he claimed de Valera had supported Italian fascist expansion inEthiopia and Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Quill asserted that theIrish people themselves were “neither Nazi or fascist sympathizers,” but heurged them to “speak out now” and inform the world of their opposition tode Valera’s actions. He hoped they would demand for Ireland the “form ofprogressive government so necessary to fulfill the ideals of her departedmartyrs” at the next opportunity and replace de Valera, who, through “strictcensorship and his machine rule,” had tried to lead “his people back todarkness and create in the homeland a babbling Tower of Babel.” 3

Copies of Quill’s article were also widely distributed by post to interestedparties in Ireland and the U.S. by Quill’s close ally, Gerald O’Reilly.4 WhileQuill’s “venomous attack” did not go unnoticed in government circles inIreland, the strongest reactions to his statement came from New York City.5

Throughout May and June of 1945, the New York Irish press carried reportsof the “mighty wave of protest” that greeted Quill’s remarks. Quill wascondemned by the United Irish Counties Association (UICA); the GaelicAthletic Association (GAA); the Tyrone, Antrim, Longford, Galway, Cork,Monaghan and Cavan county associations; the Sean Oglaigh na h-Eireann, orOld IRA Association; the Irish American Citizens Committee of the Bronx;the Wolfe Tone Council of the American Association for the Recognition ofthe Irish Republic (AARIR); the Ancient Order of Hibernians in the Bronx,Kings County and Westchester; and by the Association of Catholic TradeUnionists (ACTU).6 In a direct response to the article, the GAA withdrewteams from a TWU field day planned for Croke Park.7

If the tone of Quill’s article had been intemperate, then this was morethan matched by the nature of the attacks on him. The Old IRA brandedhim a “disgrace” to the Irish race and accused him of desecrating the namesof “illustrious patriots . . . by using them to poison the minds of theunsuspecting.” The motion passed by the UICA accused Quill of “an offenceagainst the dignity” of Ireland and of attempting to undermine the “unity ofthe Irish people.”8 The ACTU’s Labor Leader claimed that “no Englishenemy of de Valera ever stooped so low.”9 Father Edward Lodge Curran, a

3 All quotes from Transport Workers Union of America, Transport Bulletin, May 1945.4 Gerald O’Reilly to Seamus O’Sheel, June 7, 1945, Gerald O’Reilly Papers, Robert F.Wagner Labor Archives, New York University.5 Department of External Affairs, May 20, 1946, National Archives of Ireland, Dublin, Jus8/931. 6 Gaelic American and Irish World, May and June 1945. 7 Gaelic American, May 26, 1945.8 Irish World, June 9, 1945.9 Quoted in Gaelic American, June 2, 1945.


Brian Hanley 247

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 247

popular weekly columnist in the Gaelic American, denounced the “vile”attack on de Valera and challenged Quill to publicly debate Ireland’s right toneutrality with him. He urged that no Irish organization continue to keepQuill “on its register.”10 The Galway association charged Quill with an “actof treason to the land of his birth.” The Cavan county association appealedto their Kerry counterparts to “cleanse their ranks of this liability.”11 DavidO’Connell of the Irish American Citizens’ Committee felt Quill had brought“humiliation and disgrace” to his native country. The Monaghan associationdenounced this “so-called Irishman” as a “traitor and a coward.” TheAmerican Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic alsodescribed Quill’s remarks as “vicious and cowardly.”12

The attacks on Quill centered on three themes. One was Quill’s allegedcommunism. “Red Mike,” the AOH’s John A. Devaney charged, was “adues-paying member of the Communist Party.”13 For the Gaelic American,Quill was a “fellow-traveler of the Stalins, Browders, Bridges, Hillmans andothers of the Communistic tribe . . . the favorite statesman of the DailyWorker, and darling of the assorted Reds.”14 The Labor Leader accused Quillof “crucifying de Valera for the Kremlin’s sake.”15 The Irish AmericanCitizens Committee noted Quill’s record as a “mouthpiece for the subversiveelements boring at the foundations of our American and democratic way oflife.”16 For the Cavan men, Quill was a “disciple of an ideology foreign toChristian teaching and especially repulsive to the Irish, both here and in thehomeland.”17 One correspondent of the Gaelic American described Quill inverse as

The man Joe Stalin made . . .We can leave him where he is today, to either sink or swim, into the

cesspool of his hate, he cannot drag us in, We should tie the rubble on his neck, and make him take a hike,

To where the boss dictator pens, his orders to Red Mike.18

Another correspondent describing himself as “Transport worker” alsoexpressed his indignation in verse:

10 Gaelic American, June 9, 1945.11 Gaelic American, June 16 and 30, 1945.12 Irish World, June 30 and August 18, 1945.13 Gaelic American, May 26, 1945.14 Gaelic American, May 19, 1945.15 Gaelic American, June 2, 1945.16 Gaelic American, June 23, 1945.17 Gaelic American, June 30, 1945.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 248

The war in Europe has ended, Mike still feels hurt and sore,Then he used our union bulletin to attack his native shore,He calls de Valera a criminal, but the truth he cannot tell,

Who saved Ireland from destruction, by an enemy’s shot and shell . . .Don’t disrupt our union Mike, don’t be a foreign tool,

For we are good Americans, we don’t want foreign rule . . .When I was born in Mullinasale, the meanest would not dare,

To trade St. Patrick’s Shamrock, for a lock of Stalin’s hair.19

The second theme of Quill’s critics was his lack of patriotism. The OldIRA wondered whether Quill had “ever raised his voice” over the persecutionof Catholics in Northern Ireland.20 The Irish American Citizens Committeecharged that Quill had “earned a right to take his place with Ireland’s ancientenemies . . . Churchill, bloody Balfour, Sir Edward Carson and the Black andTans.”21 That Quill’s article was published shortly before Winston Churchillbroadcast his famous critique of Ireland’s wartime role was seen as crucial. Allthe New York Irish press was united in supporting Ireland’s “peerlessdefender,” de Valera’s equally famous “brilliant and comprehensive” rebuttalto Churchill.22 In contrast, Quill’s critics highlighted perceived similaritiesbetween his remarks and Churchill’s, even suggesting there was some priorcontact between the two. The motion proposed by the Tyrone associationand passed by the UICA noted that Quill’s statement “followed closely asimilar attack by the Daily Worker and preceded an attack by WinstonChurchill . . . we are satisfied that Michael J. Quill has aligned himself withthe ancient enemy of Ireland who by force of arms has established and stillmaintains a puppet government in the north east corner of Ireland.”23 TheGaelic American’s headline described how “Mike the Bronx peddler spreadsred propaganda as ‘Winnie’ blasts on radio. With Ireland partitioned andCatholics persecuted, the man responsible for the Black and Tans blasts Irishneutrality—Mike Quill aids him.”24

Yet another poetic correspondent (styling himself “Kilgarvan”) composed“Winnie meets Mike” about the supposed collaboration:

[Winnie:] Will you do a little smearing, Michael Ruadh?

18 Gaelic American, July 7, 1945.19 Gaelic American, June 16, 1945.20 Irish World, June 9, 1945.21 Irish World June 30, 1945.22 Irish Echo, May 25, 1945; The Advocate, May 25, 1945; Irish World, June 9, 1945.23 Irish World, June 9, 1945.24 Gaelic American, May 19, 1945.


Brian Hanley 249

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 249

For the Irish I am fearing Michael Ruadh, So I wish that you would tell ’em,To the fascists Dev will sell ’em,

When you say those words please yell ’em, Michael Ruadh.

[Quill replies:] I don’t think that you are kidding Winnie Dear,So I’m glad to do your bidding, Winnie dear,

Since no one yet has seen us,Sure the distance ought to screen us,

Why, we’ll do the job between us, Winnie dear.

The verse finishes with a duet between Churchill and Quill:

Yes, we’ll make the Irish sorry, dear old pal, That they’re not aboard the lorry, dear old pal,

That is heading into chaos,And who is going to stay us,

If they find out they will slay us, dear old pal.25

Some critics charged that Quill’s remarks were even worse than Churchill’s.After all, de Valera and Churchill had been enemies for years, but Quill wasIrish and therefore a traitor. Churchill had never questioned de Valera’s faithor character; instead that “dubious honor” went to “a little commissar in theBronx.”26

Charging that the Irish-born leader of a heavily Irish union was in leaguewith the ancient enemy of his country was clearly not to be taken lightly.Why did Quill’s statement arouse such resentment? There are a number ofanswers, all of which owe more to Irish-American political life than Irish. Forsome on the right, the episode offered opportunities to renew old battles withQuill. Father Edward Lodge Curran was a case in point. Curran was a priestat St. Joseph’s parish in Brooklyn, a chaplain of the Kings County AOH anda prominent member of the International Catholic Truth Society. His offersto debate Irish neutrality with Quill also contained pleas that TWU membersought to oust Quill from their union. Curran felt that the rank and file ofthe TWU was “decent, loyal and patriotic Americans” who deserved betterleadership than Quill gave them. He also reminded transport workers that“Red Mike” drew two salaries.27 Curran had been involved in severalattempts to prevent the TWU from organizing the Brooklyn-Manhattan

25 Gaelic American, May 26, 1945. Kilgarvan was Quill’s birthplace.26 Gaelic American, June 2, 1945.27 Gaelic American, June 9 and 23, 1945.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 250

Transit Corporation workers in 1937. He had helped organize the AmericanAssociation against Communism to battle left-wing influence in the transitindustry on several occasions during the late 1930s.28 However, the Catholicright had lost those battles, and the furor over Quill offered Curran a newopportunity to undermine him.

Similarly, the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists had a very definiteagenda in lambasting Quill’s criticism of de Valera. In the late 1930s thegroup had been supportive of TWU efforts to organize transit. But by 1945the organization’s chief function had become opposition to communism.29

That the Communists had such major influence in a union so Irish and soCatholic as the TWU was agonizing to ACTU. Hence, in its defense of deValera, the Labor Leader sought to explain how the Communists would haveto select someone “Irish and somewhat Catholic” when choosing a“commissar” for a union like TWU. Quill’s “brogue” and his bad legallegedly “got fighting for Ireland” were thus assets. Being “a lad from home,”Quill put the Irish transit workers at ease and was adept at “soothingCatholic suspicion by quotations from the Pope’s social encyclicals.” Whilein the early days of the union he had done some good, albeit “for the wrongreasons,” by 1945 he had become a “menace to democracy.”30 The de Valeracontroversy also offered a chance for ACTU to weaken Quill’s position.

The issue is yet more complex. There were distinct differences in how theIrish newspapers reported the issue. The Gaelic American led the attacks onQuill. The Irish World gave the issue extensive coverage but did not editorializeon it. The Advocate, in contrast, while stating that it had received “scores” ofletters attacking Quill, felt that since the letters concerned an article theythemselves did not publish, printing them would only “foster enmity”between Irishmen.31 The United Irish Counties Association had actuallysupported Quill’s council election bid in 1943, however narrowly, and one ofits prominent personalities was Paul O’Dwyer, an ally of the TWU.32 Both theIrish Echo and the Advocate had also supported Quill’s candidacy that year,although somewhat cautiously and for different reasons.33

Devotion to Ireland’s “Chief” among the New York Irish alone does notexplain the virulence of their reaction to Quill. While the Irish World had

28 Joshua B. Freeman, In Transit: The Transport Workers Union in New York City, 1933–1966(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 105, 107, 135–136.29 Freeman, In Transit, 106, 148–151.30 Gaelic American, June 2, 1945.31 The Advocate, June 9, 1945.32 New York Enquirer, October 31, 1943. 33 Irish Echo, September 23, 1943; The Advocate, December 11, 1943.


Brian Hanley 251

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 251

been an anti-Treaty paper, one of the staunchest defenders of de Valera wasthe Gaelic American, a newspaper that had been bitterly hostile to him since1921. Founded by the Fenian John Devoy, the newspaper supported theAnglo-Irish Treaty while remaining militantly nationalist. As late as 1936 itwas denouncing de Valera for throwing in his “lot with the British Empire.”34

Ironically, during June 1945, the Gaelic American was in turn favorablyquoted by the Irish World for its defense of de Valera in the face of Quill’s“scurrilous attack.”35 The key point was the perceived attack on Irishneutrality. All the New York Irish papers defended neutrality as the “policy ofthe entire Irish people,” and the various county societies expressed theiradmiration for de Valera’s having saved Ireland the rigors of war. De Valera’svisit to the German legation was explained, therefore, as an entirely“justifiable diplomatic gesture” that partisan critics had blown out ofproportion. Visiting the legation was showing the “barest courtesy thatdiplomatic procedure demanded” and critics were making a “mountain outof an anthill,” as the Old IRA put it. In reality, the Irish had “nothingwhatsoever to be ashamed of.”36 These attitudes surely conflict with muchof what has been written on Irish-American attitudes to World War II, whichhave generally stressed the unpopularity of Irish neutrality, especially afterPearl Harbor, among “even the most Anglophobic Irish Americans.”37 Yet, ifwe look at some of the same sources that expressed hostility toward Quill, wefind that throughout the war they also expressed a deep ambivalence towardmotives behind WWII and a very defensive attitude about Irish neutrality.

II

When reading the Irish press and when looking at attitudes of the Irishactivist community before and during World War II, a number of themesdominate. One is the strong hostility to American involvement in anyEuropean war, especially on Britain’s side, throughout the 1930s. As the IrishEcho argued in 1939, American parents signed “death warrants” for their sonsonce before and “got nothing in return, except England’s abuse.” Now theydemanded “real neutrality.”38 That America had been fooled into war in

34 Gaelic American, December 26, 1936.35 Irish Press, June 21, 1945.36 The Advocate, May 12, 1945; Gaelic American and Irish World, June 9, 1945.37 Raymond J. Raymond, “American Public Opinion and Irish Neutrality, 1939–1945,” inEire-Ireland XVIII (1983): 20–45; Kevin Kenny, The American Irish: A History (Harlow:Longman, 2000), 247.38 Irish Echo, July 15, 1939.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 252

1917 and then robbed by British nonpayment of war debts was a recurringtheme.39 Even among sections of the Irish press that had been strongsupporters of Roosevelt in 1933, the neutrality issue had, by 1939, turnedattitudes to FDR bitterly hostile. The Irish World blamed “master swindlersand professional war mongers” for pushing America toward conflict in 1939and argued that the war hysteria itself was “concocted in the White House.”40

Many of the Irish newspapers promoted the view that British influenceran rampant in America through an Anglophile press, the public schoolsystem, and the influence of organizations like the Rhodes Trust.41 London,the Gaelic American believed, still regarded America as “a Crown colony”and, through British influence, loyalty to the United States was becoming a“high crime.”42 While this may seem fanciful, these themes had beendominant in Irish nationalist discourse in America since at least 1916 andwere deeply ingrained among Irish activists.43 Once war began in September1939, the Irish press continued to argue strongly for American neutrality,with some also expressing hope that the conflict might bring England “herdeath blow.”44

So much was opposition to American involvement a defining feature ofIrish political activity that non-Irish isolationist politicians were promoted bythe Irish press and invited to address Irish and even Irish republican events.During 1940 and 1941, Senator Rush Holt of West Virginia spoke at EasterRising commemorations organized by the Clan na Gael and antiwar ralliesorganized by Cumann na mBan.45 The antiwar activities of CharlesLindbergh, Gerald P. Nye, Burton K. Wheeler, and, of course, Father CharlesCoughlin all received favorable publicity in the Irish press.46

One of the most influential antiwar figures among the Irish was FatherLodge Curran. There has been a tendency to see Curran as a minor EastCoast Father Coughlin.47 While he was an ally of the “Radio Priest,” he wasalso different in significant respects. Firstly, he continued to write regularlyand speak publicly for the duration of the war without receiving the same

39 Gaelic American, November 6, 1932. 40 Irish World, May 6, 1939.41 Gaelic American, August 4, 1923, and April 8, 1933.42 Gaelic American, October 21, 1939. 43 See for example Anon., The Reconquest of America (New York, 1919) or The Sinn Feiner(New York), November 12, 1921.44 Gaelic American, October 14, 1939. 45 Irish World, December 28, 1940, and May 24, 1941. 46 Irish World, January 27, 1940; February 3, 1940; and May 3, 1941. 47 Kenny, The American Irish, 208.


Brian Hanley 253

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 253

censure that Coughlin faced.48 Secondly, he was much more interested andinvolved in Irish affairs than Coughlin and would continue to agitate on thatissue into the 1950s.49 Curran addressed Clan na Gael and Cumann namBan meetings and commemorations on the issue of keeping Ireland neutralduring 1940 and 1941. As president of the Catholic International TruthSociety’s antiwar committee, he spoke at antiwar rallies as far apart as Iowaand Boston.50 Curran’s support for both Irish and American neutrality wasframed in terms of American patriotism. Curran argued that pride in beingIrish was “not incompatible with our loyalty to America” as indeed the Irishwere “one of the most loyal racial groups in the body politic.”51 Irishrepublicans also stressed their American loyalty. The Cumann na mBandescribed itself as an organization of “American women” dedicated tokeeping the U.S. out of the war.52 The Old IRA was “Christians andAmericans of Irish birth.”53 Invariably, when defending Ireland’s neutrality,Irish organizations also proclaimed their American patriotism.

After Pearl Harbor, the Irish press did respond with support for the U.S.war effort. For the Gaelic American, the issue became “America, first, last andall the time.” It urged its readers to help “blow Tokio [sic] off the map.”Curran argued that the time for disunity was over and that Americans mustunite.54 Irish organizations and newspapers were clearly committed to thewar effort and proud of Irish-American sacrifice. Yet, while the heroism ofIrish-American soldiers was lauded, there remained an undercurrent ofresentment. The Irish World asked those who questioned Irish loyalty toglance at the names on “present casualty lists.”55 There was widespreadspeculation that while Irish-American troops fought, the British were allowedto avoid battle. In 1945 the Gaelic American claimed that not only wasseventy-five percent of the fighting in Western Europe done by Americantroops, but they had also been “battling the Japs, almost alone,” while theBritish had been sent home to vote for Clement Attlee, a socialist and former

48 His weekly column in the Gaelic American was entitled “By the way.”49 See E. Lodge Curran, Partition Facts (New York, 1951). In 1951 Curran was chairman ofthe National Hibernian Anti-Partition Committee. 50 John F. Stack, Jr., International Conflict in an American City: Boston’s Irish, Italians, andJews, 1935–1944 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979), 128–134; Gaelic American andIrish World, July 5, 1941. 51 Irish World, April 19, 1941. 52 Irish World, January 4, 1941. 53 Gaelic American, June 9, 1945. 54 Gaelic American, December 13, 1941. 55 Irish World, April 10, 1943.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 254

conscientious objector.56 This was not an isolated allegation. Many agreedwith the Amalgamated Irish American Organizations that the lesson ofWorld War I had been “Don’t worry about Uncle Sam, he just pays the bill,”in terms of both men and finance.57 There was no reason to believe that theresult of World War II would be any different, especially since now theUnited States was not only fighting alongside imperialist Britain but alsoCommunist Russia.58

The enemy was not only abroad. Father Curran reminded the audience ata 1916 memorial mass in 1942 that the Nazis were the enemy “without thegates,” but the Communist enemy was already “within” them.59 Every weekthe Gaelic American warned of the danger of Communist infiltration,claiming in May 1942 that Communist teachers had “infested” the NewYork school system.60 In 1945 the paper ruefully speculated that the “flowerof young American manhood was sacrificed, not to make the world safe fordemocracy, but to make Europe safe for communism, socialism and everytype of ‘ism’ except Americanism.”61

Notable too was the extent to which the condition of Northern IrishCatholics was promoted as equal to or worse than any of the oppressionbeing visited on peoples under German occupation. For the Irish World, theCatholics of Ulster faced a “tyranny just as ruthless as that which wecondemn so vigorously in other parts of the world.”62 There was no “equalin history” to the “ruthless dictatorship” that governed Northern Ireland.63

Even in August of 1945, the Gaelic American could argue that conditions inUlster’s jails rivaled those of the “infamous Nazi concentration camps.”64 Theexecution of two IRA members in 1940 for bombings in Britain and thesentencing to death of six IRA men in Belfast in 1942 received widespreadcoverage. As “six Irish boys” faced death, the Gaelic American questioned,now where were those who criticized Ireland’s neutrality? 65

Thus throughout the war, not only during 1939–1941 but also1941–1945, Irish neutrality was praised, even as Irish Americans were urged

56 Gaelic American, August 11, 1945.57 Gaelic American, April 14, 1945.58 Gaelic American, May 12, 1945.59 Gaelic American, May 16, 1942.60 Gaelic American, May 2, 1942.61 Gaelic American, August 11, 1945.62 Irish World, April 10, 1943.63 Irish World, June 24, 1939.64 Gaelic American, August 18, 1945.65 Irish World, February 17, 1940, and Gaelic American, September 5, 1942.


Brian Hanley 255

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 255

to greater sacrifice themselves. It was defended aggressively as a policy chosenand supported by the Irish people themselves.66 There was no contradictionbetween being a patriotic supporter of the American war effort and adefender of Irish neutrality. However, there was little in the pages of the Irishweeklies hailing the “great leaders” Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and ChiangKai-shek, or arguing that peace should bring jobs for all, postwar planning,and an end to discrimination, in sharp contrast to Quill’s monthly articles inthe TWU Bulletin.67

The Irish press’s wartime coverage also reflected a wider resentment,whereby Irish writers felt that prejudice toward Irish Catholics waswidespread but unremarked upon, while other prejudices (especially anti-Semitism) were constantly warned against. One Irish paper had, in 1939,called anti-Semitism in New York “non existent.” Instead, it argued that theIrish suffered more “unemployment and discrimination than any other

66 Irish World, April 1, 1944.67 Transport Bulletin, January 1944.



FIGURE 1. Born in Gortloughera, Kilgarvan, Co. Kerry in 1905,Michael J. Quill was President of New York City’s Transport WorkersUnion of America when this photograph was taken in 1937. Courtesy

of the Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, New York University.

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 256

race.”68 The Gaelic American became embroiled in several wartime disputeswith Jewish groups and concluded that anti-Semitism was “a bogey” inventedby Jewish organizations themselves.69 These attitudes were often expressed inreference to the failure of those who protested about the Nazis to do anythingfor Irish Catholics. For example, in 1939, when former champion heavy-weight boxer Gene Tunney endorsed an appeal against anti-Semitism, theIrish Echo asked, “Did you ever hear of Ireland?”70 Obviously these attitudeswere more related to the social and political ethnic conflict of the 1930s inNew York than to Irish neutrality, but the same defensiveness and feeling ofpersecution was revealed in the wartime debates.71

III

This background is important because defense of Irish neutrality fit into analready very defensive Irish worldview, in which Anglophile Americans,Communists, and sometimes Jews conspired against Irish interests. In thatcontext, when Quill, as an Irish man leading an “Irish” union, joined theNew York Times, the rest of the American press, and Winston Churchill inattacking de Valera, then the New York Irish reaction is not surprising.72 Theimportant point is that Quill was already by 1945 largely outside themainstream of New York Irish politics. Despite his involvement with theAnti-Treaty IRA in Kerry, and with the Clan na Gael in New York in theearly 1930s, Quill was, by the 1940s, operating politically outside Irishrepublican circles.73

There were a number of reasons for this shift. He gravitated toward theleft of the Clan na Gael, where Gerald O’Reilly and a number of others wereattempting to overcome what one called the “open hostility” towardsocialism among the organization’s leadership.74 In 1935, Quill had joinedthe New York branch of the Republican Congress, formed in Ireland by

68 Irish Echo, June 15 and July 12, 1939.69 Gaelic American, December 5, 1942.70 Irish Echo, June 15, 1939.71 Ronald H. Bayor, Neighbors in Conflict: The Irish, Germans, Jews, and Italians of New YorkCity, 1929–1941 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).72 New York Times, May 4, 1945.73 For accounts of his early life see Freeman, In Transit, 55–57, and Shirley Quill, MikeQuill, Himself: A Memoir (Greenwich, CT: Devin-Adair, 1985), 7–37.74 Charles McGinnitty, June 6, 1932, Moss Twomey Papers, University College DublinArchives, P69/223 (48).


Brian Hanley 257

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 257

socialists who had left the IRA.75 When he visited Ireland in 1937, the IRAthemselves noted that the Irish Labour Party seemed to be in charge of Quill’sarrangements.76 Indeed, Quill was fêted by the Irish Labour Party leadershipand spoke at party meetings in Dublin and Cork, where his speechesreflected a critical attitude to nationalism. As far as he was concerned, the“two political parties in Ireland seemed to have brought little change exceptof [sic] the color of the letter box.” It made little difference to an Irish manabout to be evicted if the official were in a “green or red uniform.”77

Quill was also scathing about Irish business and political interests in NewYork, especially Tammany Hall, which had “done nothing” for the ordinaryIrish. He argued that the lesson of his American experience had been that ifworkers, “black and white, Catholic and non Catholic, Jew and Gentile aregood enough to slave and sweat together, then we are good enough to uniteand fight together.” The Irish Labour Party hailed him as its “ambassador” tothe American labor movement, notwithstanding that his politics were a gooddeal further to the left than theirs.78 Nevertheless, Quill made it clear that hefavored an Irish Labour Party government, which was not a position held bymany among the New York Irish. Finally, his opposition to fascism was notwell received by some influential republicans who saw the Nazis as potentialallies against Britain.

In 1939 the Clan na Gael’s leading figure, Joe McGarrity, criticized Quillin a letter to IRA leader Sean Russell for taking part in a New York protestmarch against Nazi Germany. McGarrity felt it showed that Quill was now asupporter of Britain and he was particularly scathing of a placard bearing theslogan “Ireland stands united against Nazi oppression.” Revealingly, he alsonoted that Quill “took a rap” at Father Coughlin.79 During 1939, Coughlinsupporters in the Bronx, many of whom were Irish, disrupted a TWUmeeting at which Quill was speaking.80 Coughlinites were also involved in anumber of anti-leadership moves within the TWU during the late 1930s.81

While it would be wrong to say Coughlinism was the dominant force amongthe New York Irish, the Irish ethnic press in particular was highly defensive

75 Republican Congress, July 13, 1935.76 Moss Twomey to Joseph McGarrity, December 27, 1937, McGarrity Papers, NationalLibrary of Ireland, MS. 17,490.77 Irish Times, December 23, 1937, and The Kerryman, January 8, 1938.78 Labour News, January 1, 1938.79 Sean Cronin, James Connolly and the Transport Workers Union of America: The IdeologicalLinks with Mike Quill and His Associates (Dublin: Labour History Workshop, 1983), 10.80 The Nation, July 22, 1939; Irish Workers Weekly, August 12, 1939.81 Freeman, In Transit, 139–140.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 258

about attacks on him.82 In addition, the conflicts of the 1930s were notreadily forgotten. In 1938 Quill had attacked “Irish fascists” for exploitingIrish patriotism to enlist support for the “spoilers of Guernica.”83 Whencondemning Quill in 1945, the Old IRA remembered that he had bemoanedthe “success of the Christian crusade in Spain.”84 Even the Labor Leadersuggested that while Quill had been “adept at quelling the fears of the Bronxstore keepers” with denunciations of the Christian Front, he actually “createdanti-Semitism by over stressing it.”85

Hence, for a variety of reasons, Quill was already politically and sociallyremoved from the mainstream of New York Irish life during WWII. He wasnot involved in one of the most popular movements of the period, theAmerican Friends of Irish Neutrality (AFIN), even though betweenSeptember 1939 and July 1941 his union did support both American andIrish neutrality. The AFIN brought together both Irish liberals such as PaulO’Dwyer and conservatives such as Judge Daniel F. Cohalan in response tothe threat of British seizure of the Irish ports during 1940.86 In contrast,Quill was associated with the American Irish Defence Association (AIDA)during 1942, a group that promoted Irish support for the Allies and whichincluded Quill’s American Labor Party colleague Eugene P. Connolly.87 TheAIDA organized St. Patrick’s Day events, pledging support to the Allies andpublicizing messages from Notre Dame clerics in praise of Stalin’s defense ofthe USSR. It included Communists such as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn amongits supporters. In turn, the Gaelic American described it as composed of“fanatical pro-Britishers of reputed Irish ancestry.”88

However, Quill was not completely isolated within the Irish community.From 1943 onwards he attempted, with some success, to utilize Irish hostilityto partition into support for the Allied war effort. At the TWU’s annualJames Connolly commemoration in May that year a resolution was passedcalling on Britain to “grant immediate and complete independence” to

82 Irish World, August 5, 1939, and Gaelic American, February 20, 1943. 83 Irish Democrat, June 26, 1937. Guernica, in Spain's Basque country, was bombed onApril 26, 1937.84 Gaelic American, June 9, 1945.85 Gaelic American June 2, 1945.86 Michael Funchion, Irish American Voluntary Organizations (Westport, CT: GreenwoodPress, 1983), 34–38. Further irony, given his bitter opposition to de Valera during 1920,was provided by Cohalan being the main speaker at a farewell dinner for Fianna Fáil minis-ter Frank Aiken in New York in 1941. Text of speech in Aiken Papers, June 23, 1941,University College Dublin Archives, P104/3572 (6–7).87 PM, March 18, 1942.88 Transport Bulletin, October 1942, and Gaelic World, April 4, 1942.


Brian Hanley 259

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 259

Ireland as part of bringing Ireland into the struggle against fascism.89 InDecember of 1943, Quill organized a conference in New York on the themeof “Justice for Ireland.” Quill argued that the issue of Irish reunification hadto be forced before the Allies for discussion as part of any postwar settlement.Ireland, Quill believed, was as opposed to Nazism as it was to Britishdomination; however, Ireland could not play a full part in the struggle againstHitler unless it was united. “How can any small nation fight for freedomwhen one hand is tied behind its back? As long as Ireland is cursed with twogovernments, it cannot have an opportunity to do its part fully.” Quillasserted that Irish men and women were already playing their part in thefight against fascism, whether in the American, British, or other Alliedarmies, as well as by their war work in the United States and Britain. Acommitment by the Allies that partition would be removed following Hitler’sdefeat would be a powerful impetus toward allowing Ireland to officially playits part. Quill also claimed they needed to answer the “anti-Irish whisperingcampaigns” that told Americans that the Irish were pro-Axis.90 The calllargely fell on deaf ears, and the Justice for Ireland conference received littleattention in the Irish press, even though 250,000 copies of Quill’s speechwere distributed in pamphlet form. The Irish government’s contactsinformed them that Quill’s Communist links made Irish organizations inNew York very wary of him and, although Paul O’Dwyer agreed to becomesecretary of the new organization, they did not see it becoming a success.91

(For their part, the Irish government—especially the influential secretary ofthe Department of Justice, Peter Berry—was also convinced that Quill was aCommunist and a potential IRA supporter.)92 However, the editor of theAdvocate, John C. O’Connor, and the prominent GAA figure, John ‘Kerry’O’Donnell, did attend the conference and were supportive, as was theCarmelite priest Father Sean Reid. Cross-Atlantic perceptions varied widely;while the Irish government believed that Quill would get nowhere, the FBIspeculated on his becoming the “dominant Irish political figure” in NewYork.93 Quill’s influence was also evident in the securing of a number of Irish

89 Resolution, May 7, 1943, in O’Reilly Papers, Wagner Labor Archives, New York University.90 Michael Quill, “Justice . . . for Ireland” (speech, Justice for Ireland Conference, NewYork, December 1943; pamphlet, Justice . . . for Ireland, 1944) Series I: A, TransportWorkers Union of America Records, Wagner Labor Archives, New York University.91 Irish Department of External Affairs, May 20, 1946.92 Notes on IRA Activities, 1941–1947, Sean MacEntee Papers, University College DublinArchives, P67/550.93 Federal Bureau of Investigation report, January 7, 1944, in Sean Prendiville Collection,Archives of Irish America, New York University.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 260

supporters for the election campaign of left-wing congressman VitoMarcantonio in June of 1944.94

Interestingly, Quill made clear in his December 1943 speech that the dayhad passed when Ireland’s future could be decided through the “medium of theambush, the crack of the rifle or the explosion of the landmine,” a statementthat alienated republican militants. Quill did manage to get the 1944 Congressof Industrial Organizations convention to pass a resolution asking the bigpowers to “help restore the geographical and political integrity of Ireland” bygranting her a place at a postwar peace conference.95 Again, Quill received littlecredit from the Irish for this in either the United States or Ireland, although theresolution was distributed widely. In response to his earlier initiative, theveteran Irish republican and Fianna Fail member of the Dáil, Dan Breen,instead called Quill a “mischief maker” and asked that the Irish abroad refrainfrom interference in the affairs of Ireland. Quill’s reply stressed that while heagreed with Breen that Britain was chiefly responsible for Ireland’s misfortuneshistorically, since independence the Irish themselves had not done so well. Hereminded Breen that the opposing leaders in the Civil War, Liam Lynch andMichael Collins, were not killed by “the headhunters of Java, but,unfortunately, by Irishmen, dressed in the uniform of Padraig Pearse.” Hefurther asserted that there were many “Irish politicians and job holders” whowould “drop dead” the day Ireland was free, as they would have “no moreslogans to dangle before the people in order that a few incompetents canmaintain themselves in soft jobs.”96 A further factor in Irish governmenthostility was probably Quill’s stressing the Irish Labour Party’s electionsuccesses in 1943.97 It was clear by 1944 that Quill had a different conceptionof what Irish republicanism meant than many of his fellow New York Irish.These differing conceptions explain some of the reactions to his attack on deValera. For his comrade Gerald O’Reilly, who actually had a much more activeIRA history than Quill, de Valera’s legation visit was a “blasphemy against allthose who fought, suffered and died for Ireland.”98 For the Old IRA

94 “The Irish speak out for Congressman Marcantonio” in The Advocate, June 28, 1944.95 Gerald O’Reilly, December 12, 1944, in O’Reilly Papers, Wagner Labor Archives, NewYork University.96 Quill to Dan Breen, November 22, 1944, Cathal O’Shannon Papers, Irish LabourHistory Museum and Archives. 97 Transport Workers Union of America, Transport Bulletin, September 1943.98 Gerald O’Reilly, May 14, 1945, National Archives of Ireland, Jus 8/931. O’Reilly wasborn in 1903 in Drogheda, County Louth. He had been one of those rescued fromDundalk Barracks by the Anti-Treaty IRA in August 1922. He was involved in the massIRA breakout of Mountjoy Prison in November 1925, and was jailed himself in November1926 and August 1927. He emigrated to the U.S. in November 1927.


Brian Hanley 261

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 261

Association, which contained some of O’Reilly’s former comrades, it meant nosuch thing.

IV

But there is more to the question than differing conceptions ofrepublicanism. This analysis must obviously be qualified. It is based largelyon the Irish ethnic press, which did not necessarily reflect anything except itsjournalists and owners’ opinions, and it says little about Irish attitudesoutside New York. However, the immigrant milieu is important. Many Irishimmigrants bought the Gaelic American and the Irish World for weekly newsfrom home and for their extensive social and sporting coverage. In New York,these newspapers and the Irish county associations were largely the preserveof the Irish-born. After 1922, Irish activism in the United States was alsomuch more marginalized and largely immigrant-dominated. This world wasmore defensive than Irish America in general because, in part, it felt lesssecure in the United States. This is reflected in the constant declarations ofloyalty to America, but it is also reflected in the very defensive attitude takentoward any criticism of Ireland. The attitudes of second- or third-generationIrish Americans could very well be completely different.

V

There is another source for Irish-American reactions to de Valera’s legationvisit. De Valera himself received a large number of letters from America in theimmediate aftermath of the publicity surrounding his visit. All were hostile,often violently so. Many differed little in tone from Quill’s article and otherswent even further in terms of abuse. Some were poignant, like that of MollieDunn, a munitions worker from Connecticut, who wanted an explanation forde Valera’s action as she had faced hostile questioning all day in the defenseplant in which she worked. Miss J. Mullaney of Akron, Ohio, a formermember of the AARIR, considered the visit to the legation an “insult to theIrish.” Elmer M. Murphy of Pasadena, California, felt that there was “no manof Irish blood” in the United States who did not resent the condolences onbehalf of “that brute” Hitler. Miss Gussie Ryan of St. Louis called Hitler the“worst enslaver the world has ever known.” A member of the Americanmilitary (Army Airforce) based in South Carolina felt de Valera had “degradedall the people of Ireland and those of Irish extraction.” George Riley of NewYork felt the visit was the “greatest disgrace to the Irish race.” J. H. Sheridanof Bancroft, Iowa, expressed his revulsion by calling de Valera an “old



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 262

turncoat.” Mary McGreevy described herself as an “ardent admirer” of deValera’s; now she was “heartsick and confused” by condolences for a man “whocaused so much sorrow by leading so many of our boys to slaughter.” AngelaWalsh was disgusted that the “head of a Catholic country” could expresssympathy for Hitler; she asked what would “the valiant Irish patriots” think?Others were more direct, like Mary Murphy of Brooklyn who hoped to hearof de Valera’s “unhealthy end before long,” or James O’Leary of Chicago whocalled him simply a “plain son of a bitch.” Mildred O’Brien of the same citywas more Cagneyesque: “you dirty rat . . . you are a disgrace to the Irishnation.”99 These reactions, almost all dating from the immediate aftermath ofthe legation visit, give us a glimpse of another segment of Irish America. Whatis notable about them, however, is that only one describes him or herself ashaving been born in Ireland. All the others refer to Irish ancestry of somedescription, such as being “an American of Irish blood,” but seem to havebeen American-born. While many express sympathy for the cause of Irishnationalism, only one mentions having ever been a member of an Irishorganization. They also came from many different areas of the United States,and the majority of them were women. What, then, is the more authenticvoice of Irish America? These outraged letters or the missives from the countyassociations of New York? Quill’s attack on de Valera, had they read it, wouldprobably have reflected many of the feelings of the above letter-writers.

VI

There was another complicating factor. Quill’s attack contained a number offactual errors. The Irish government did not support Italy’s invasion ofAbyssinia (although the opposition party Fine Gael did so), nor did de Valerarecognize Franco’s regime until 1939. (On both these issues, especially Spain,the Fianna Fail government faced intense pressure, as southern Irish publicopinion was largely pro-Franco.)100 Quill’s rhetoric betrayed a lack ofunderstanding of wartime Irish policy. His enemies, especially Father Curran,were quick to capitalize on the fact that between 1939 and 1941 Quill, alongwith the TWU, was in favor of neutrality.101 However, in the aftermath of thebacklash against his May 1945 article, Quill seemed to realize the complexity

99 All letters are contained in Eamon de Valera Papers, University College Dublin Archives,P150/2689.100 Fearghal McGarry, Irish Politics and the Spanish Civil War (Cork: Cork University Press,1999).101 Gaelic American, June 9, 1945.


Brian Hanley 263

R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 263

of New York Irish views. He successfully confronted his critics in the KerryAssociation and managed to face down a threat to expel him. He repliedcleverly to Curran’s demand for a debate by agreeing in principle, butproposed the topic as “Was it correct for Mr. de Valera on behalf of the Irishpeople to publicly mourn the death of the great murderer of civilization, A.Hitler?”102 He refused to apologize to de Valera and charged that, as far asmany of his critics were concerned, he was “happy” to throw their threatsback into “their fascist faces.” However, he also acknowledged that “hundredsof honest, well-meaning Irish nationalists” had “strongly” opposed his article.Many of these people, he conceded, were “excellent trade union members”whose “sincerity” he respected.103 Quill’s recognition that the backlashagainst his article was not simply a right-wing attack suggests once again thediversity of views on the war and Ireland’s role in it in just one segment ofIrish America.

102 The Advocate, June 9, 1945.103 Transport Workers Union of America, Transport Bulletin, June 1945.



R5-11 22/07/2008 12:40 Page 264

Date post:	10-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brian-hanley
View:	209 times
Download:	0 times

Quill

Documents