Talk:Roger Casement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An event mentioned in this article is a August 3 selected anniversary

---

Wikipedia puts people in using their highest title received. As Casement was knighted, his knighthood is stated. The fact that he was stripped of it is immaterial to the opening line but should be stated later. FearÉIREANN 17:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Photo 2 (accurate but unencyclopaedic) quote moved to talk 3 Casement's origin 4 Ballycastle 5 Africa 6 Knighthood 7 Black diaries 8 Comma 9 Sexuality 10 ...(secretly) baptised a Catholic?.... 11 Black diaries 12 Does anyone take any responsibility for the truth of what is in here?

[edit] Photo

I'm glad we finally have a picture of Roger, but would it be possible to get one without a big postmark across his face? I've got a bunch of pictures I could probably upload, but I'm unsure of the legality. When exactly does something constitute "fair use"? -R. fiend 18:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

R fiend have a look at Fair use, I am happy with stamps as there are lots of examples on wikipedia already but I have no idea if scanning a picture from a book or copying one from the web would be illegal, may keep an eye out for a cleaner stamp so the postmark is not hiding the image. Kglavin 19:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

R Fiend, believe it or not, I have another stamp scan of Roger, I have about 10 more sheets (10 stamps on each sheet) to go through before I get to 'clean roger' so I will overwrite the image Kglavin 19:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (accurate but unencyclopaedic) quote moved to talk

I've moved this edit to this page from the article. It is correct, but is not suitable in the form it was written for the article.

I write this not as an addendum to the above, but as a correction. The 1916 Uprising occurred towards the end of April, 1916. It lasted less than a week. By the end of May scores of Irish republicans had been condemned to death by the victorious British authorities. By mid-May, good sense came to prevail, and the British, rather than create further martyrs for the Irish cause, rescinded the death-penalties on those surviving Irish leaders, De Valera, as an example. Many many people were sentenced to death, and were hereby reprieved. The executions ended in mid-May. But we are left with Casement. Why did the British insist on killing Casement, when they had stopped, as a matter of policy, the execution of Irish leaders? The answer truly lies in his homosexuality. Casement was tried for treason, but his true treason was not against his King, but against his sex: for this it was necessary that he be hanged. And because of his sexuality, no voice was raised in protest, though protest was much expected, particularly from the USA. It was only that quaint eccentric, GBS, who had anything to say at all. GBS -- God Bless Shaw. My name is Jamie O'Neill. I am the author of a book, set in Dublin in 1916, called "At Swim, Two Boys". I don't know everything; but I know an awful lot.

It is a fair analysis. (And At Swim, Two Boys is a good book, BTW!) FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casement's origin

The article doesn't mention where Casement was born or what his initial connection with Ireland was. Did he suddenly adopt the Irish cause as a result of his experiences in the Empire? --Morgandp 08:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A very good point. Born in Ireland, I'm quite sure. I'll get the specifics. -R. fiend 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There is mention that the British authorities decided against the executions of the rebellious leadership, and the case of Eammon de Velera is cited as an example. My readings indicate that "Dev" had US ancestory and US pressure was brought to bear. The British did not want to alienate the US in 1916 which is why he was not executed.

Furthermore, the article on Casement ignores an important facet. Casement has been called The Man Who Was Hanged on a Comma: the search for an appropriate indictment took the authorities to The Treason Act, 1351. This statute was written in Norman French and did not have punctuation. The relevant portion, defining treason, said "levying war against the King or being adherent to the King's enemies in his realm giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere." The argument was that Casement's attempted recruitment of Irish PoWs took place in Germany and therefore could not have been within the King's realm.

[edit] Ballycastle

Casement was subsequently brought up in Ballycastle in Ulster. Members of the Casement family still live in the same house.

Also no mention of Casements work in The Bannister shipping corporation.

[edit] Africa

This article doesn't mention the fact that Casement spent considerable time in both Nigeria and in the Portuguese colonies(modern Angola and Mozambique) working as a British consul. In fact he was still present in Loanda(now Luanda) when the Boer war broke out. Also this article does not include what languages he spoke.

[edit] Knighthood

The article claimed that Casement's knighthood was the KCMG, but this is incorrect. He was appointed CMG in 1905 and in 1911 was knighted as an ordinary knight bachelor. Both these honours were cancelled after his conviction for treason in 1916. I've amended the article accordingly.

[edit] Black diaries

The manner in which this question is being debated here is a farce. Sullivan was some 90 years old when interviewed by McColl. He subsequently withdrew the comments he supposedly made in the interview. It is hard to prove a negative, but I can recall no evidence of Casement actually meeting Sullivan. The nearest they got to one another was when RC was in the dock and S was on the bench in the Royal Court. George Gavan Duffy took instructions from Casement. I have seen the notes, they are in the NLI. Also, you are ignoring the lawyer who DID meet Casement, the US-American, Francis Doyle. Doyle told Casement about the diaries. He left a signed account of the meeting in the NLI. Casement was disgusted that the British should stoop to such methods, and wrote a letter to the authorities stating that they were forgeries, Doyle wrote. So please Wikipedia fans, why are you distorting the truth like this? Why concentrate on the discredited Sullivan nonsense and ignore Doyle. For a full account of McColl's fabrications, see Professor Roger McHugh's article in Threshold Magazine.

The comments on Casement's religion are a fabrication and deeply offensive.

The Giles Report was rejected by James Horan, the forensic expert commisioned by the Goldsmiths' Team to peer review the report. Horan's review has been published by the RIA.

The bibliography is utterly one-sided.

It is obvious that Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda vehicle to distort perceptions. Casement is a hate figure. Neutrality is essential. If Wikipedia is interested in the truth, it should go offline until it sorts out the quality problem. As things stand, it is a disgrace to all involved in it.

kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de, Pforzheim, Germany

If the "Black Diaries" are classified until 2020, how was the handwriting comparison done? Eyeresist 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC) homosexuality or at least of deep platonic affection for other men.”

Extract (pp 521-2)from Jeffrey Dudgeon's book relating to Serjeant Sullivan's recanting: "Casement’s lawyers were to be involved in disputes and recriminations for forty years after the execution. Serjeant Sullivan, his senior counsel, took vigorous issue during the Casement controversy that raged throughout April 1956 especially in the columns of the Irish Times consequent on the publication of René MacColl’s book for which Sullivan was a key source. The Serjeant had had many discussions with his client after his first consultation on 12 June 1916 and could thus illuminate the matters in dispute. However his memory was poor (in 1956 he was 85) while he plainly relished, most of all, a proxy fight with his Irish separatist enemies. Indeed he wrote off his antagonists in letters to the editor as “Casement worshippers.” Much of the dispute centred around what Casement had actually told him on the question of the diaries and his homosexuality.

Sullivan was so divorced from the diaries, which he had never seen that he even surmised Adler Christensen had provided them. In an interview with the distinguished historian and journalist Robert Kee, Sullivan retold the 1916 story. Kee initially noted on 15 February 1956: “I have absolutely no doubt as a result of this interview that Roger Casement asked Sullivan to explain to the jury if the matter arose that there was nothing wrong about being a homosexual - that it was even a mark of distinction to be one” and that “Casement discussed his diaries as being diaries in the possession of the Crown and containing detailed accounts of acts of sodomy.”

By 21 February, Kee had had justifiable second thoughts about Sullivan’s remarks and reinterpreted his notes, instead writing “If certain material concerning Casement’s private life were introduced into the trial that there was nothing discreditable about the personal attitude revealed in it…I have little doubt that some diaries of Casement’s were discussed between Casement and Sullivan and that these diaries contained evidence of some sort, either of Casement’s homosexuality or at least of deep platonic affection for other men.”

In the New Statesman of 18 May 1957 Robert Kee took his scepticism a stage further and made a series of points about the diaries themselves; he reckoned there was no corroboration in style and content with the innocuous material in the NLI; that many homosexual entries bore a vague relation to a perfectly harmless, trivial diary phrase just preceding; and that many sexual items appeared at the beginning of a day’s entry. Two of these points are to a degree true but in essence amount to little. In the case of sexual material often appearing at the beginning - more often the end of a day - one must remark that much of Casement’s sexual activity was nocturnal and would therefore be recorded late in the night and last thing in the diary, or first thing in the morning. The matter of the relationship between sexual and mundane items just does not stand up especially in the torrid 1911 diary which Kee had not seen. The style was in many ways of itself, a diary style, (or one of several such styles) while there are no other private diaries extant to compare.

In the Irish Times of 16 April 1956 Sullivan felt obliged to rephrase his previous statements, having checked his memory. He conceded “On reflection, I perceive that he neither affirmed nor denied authenticity. He took up the attitude that we pygmies could not understand the conduct of great men and had no right to pass judgment on it…He was neither glorifying nor repudiating what was alleged against him.” Not to be outdone, Sullivan added “Everyone seems to have forgotten, as I have done myself that Casement was a megalomaniac.”

Nine days later, in a further letter to the Irish Times, Sullivan was finally forced to come completely clean. He honourably admitted that Casement “told me nothing about the diaries or about himself.” Sullivan had up until then been extrapolating an admission and a full discussion from Casement’s generalised remarks, which were probably uttered in the manner in which Gavan Duffy had tried to drill all concerned. It was not like Casement to be precise about his sexual status as the Dick Morten conversation also reveals. But it was well within his argumentative style to mention famous homosexuals of history in some sort of elucidatory and diversionary response. Casement in July 1916 did allude, cryptically as ever, to the diaries when he wrote to Gavan Duffy asking him “to protect my name” and saying “you know why I kept silent and why I did not refute many things as I might have done.” But he was undoubtedly less precise with Sullivan, who retired from the Irish Times correspondence and the controversy, dying in 1959."

[edit] Comma

Shouldn't there be some mention of the famous line that Casement was "hanged on a comma" (sometimes "by a comma"), on account of two Court of Appeal judges reading commas into the Treason Act 1351 (see the first paragraph of this PDF). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There should. That's very good. When I get my books out of storage in a week or two I'll go over my Casement biography and try to expand the article a bit. I'll take a look at that link you provided as well. -R. fiend 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Was there any further research done on this? --Sliver7 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

This information, in general, is often included in Wikipedia articles merely as titilation and more often than not is based on inunnedo and rumor. The sexuality of the subject is almost never a matter of import and can almost always be considered "unencyclopedic". This section on the subject sexuality essentially says nothing except there are rumors and as far as anyone can tell the rumors cannot be confirmed. It's inclusion here and similar interjections in many,many other sketches on Wikipedia need to stricken. It is simply ridiculous at best and activist at its worst.

Outside of Casement's MI5 file and the disputed diaries at Kew, there is no evidence that Roger Casement as much as kissed any other person during his life. During his time in the Congo he was checked out prior to employment by Baptist missionaries. A leeter was sent to London stating Casement was of good standing and morals, suitable for employment by the mission. During his time in Germany, he kept a full diary, which, in contrast to the Kew documents, contains no sex at all, although he was with his supposed boyfriend most of the time. The Germans suspected RC was a spy, so he was obseved closely, but they didn't notice his obsession with nocturnal cruising either.

It seems he had a very unusual sexual appetite. He only became aroused while under observation by MI5, or in documents which passed through their hands, even though he was not aware of the observation at the time. - kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de

[edit] ...(secretly) baptised a Catholic?....

I've just noticed that both this article and the Seán Mac Stiofáin article claim that both of these men had Protestant parents but were secretly baptised as Catholics. The Mac Stiofáin article says: 'Mac Stíofáin (who was baptized a Roman Catholic, despite the fact that neither of his parents was Catholic)'. The Casement article says that his mother 'had him baptized secretly as a Roman Catholic, but died when he was a baby.' These seem very suspicious claims. Now, why would anybody be "secretly" baptised Catholic especially when, in Mac Stiofáin's case, both parents were Protestant? If they felt so strongly about it, why didn't they become Catholic? Is the real link that both were British, the first British by profession the second British by birth, who betrayed their state's policies a more likely explanation for this story? The current story lends itself to the idea that "they weren't fully British though because they were really Catholic" rather than to the idea that they were British who disagreed with British actions concerning Ireland, a rational interpretation which is a much more powerful indictment of those actions. 193.1.172.166 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To try and put this into context: At the time of Casement's birth in 1864, the Protestant Ascendancy dominated Ireland's social, economic and political life. Irish Catholics were denied the right to vote until 1829. Given this, Casement's Protestant father, who was in service to the Crown, might have felt that in the interests of his son's future prospects, it better for him to belong to this elite class. Casement's R.C mother, in line with the custom that one takes on the maternal religion, secretly baptised him a Catholic, indicating that she practised her religion. Like Constance Gore-Booth another Anglo-Irish revolutionary, who converted to Catholicism, Casement's deathbed conversion might have owed more to his identifying Catholicism with the nationalist cause in Ireland, than to any religious or doctrinal conviction. Natalie West 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Small correction here; Irish catholics had the vote again from 1793, but could not sit in parliament until 1829. The protestant Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869; the catholic seminary at Maynooth had been set up with British funding in 1795. So by his 'rebaptism' in 1867 the 'elite' factor was irrelevant. Any Irish Jephsons that I have heard of were protestants; what proof is there that Mrs. C. was a catholic? It does seem that many protestant 'republicans' after 1900 felt the need to be seen to change sect. For that matter, is there any proof that he ever used the Gaelic form of his name? Has he been reinvented?Stamboul 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you google 'Anne Jephson"+Mallow, you'll see she was from Mallow, and those Js were all definitely protestant landlords. Just the sort of girl Captain Roger might marry. The secret baptism sounds very unlikely, but there was an RC church in Rhyl (Wales) from 1863. Have any of RJC's biographers actually been to Rhyl to check out the register? What difference did it make if he then felt the need to convert again in 1916? Beyond being seen as a 'good boy' all along? He seems to have been more of a humanist than worried about any church.86.42.203.104 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is another, related discrepancy. I do not think that the statement "So he was baptized twice, but never had First Communion or confirmation." can be accurate. A baptism in the Church of Ireland or the Presbyterian Church in Ireland would then have been recognised (and is now) by the Roman Catholic Church as a valid baptism as a Christian. That is why one speaks of being "received into" the Roman Catholic Church in the case of one who has been baptised in one of the other Christian traditions. There is no need to be baptised again. --Todowd 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

According to one of Casement's biographers, Roger Saywer:

1865 Casement baptised an anglican, 1868 secret R.C baptism, 1881 anglican confirmation, 3.8.1916 recieved first Holy Communion as a R.C,having been accepted into the Church, in articulo mortis; executed. Article probably should be reworded to reflect this. Natalie West 13:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger Sawyer's account is given in good faith, but not quite right. Casement was attended at Pentonville by Fr James McCarroll. He left a good account of what happened. Herbert Mackey recorded most of it again in the late 1960's. McCarroll found out that RC had been baptised a Catholic (presumably, Casement's sister Nina remembered it, or his cousin Gertrude Bannister heard about it) he obtained confirmation of it from Rhyl. He heard Casement's confession, but the Bishop of London, who had been made aware of the diaries, refused Casement absolution until he signed a statement recanting his actions, both private and public. Casement refused. Shortly before the execution, McCarroll gave Casement absolution and the sacrement of Holy Communion, defying the bishop on the grounds that RC was facing death. Casement was given the last rites and a christian burial. At some stage before the burial his anus was examined by a Home Office doctor. It was a busy morning at Pentonville. Cheering broke out when the execution was announced, but it stopped when others waiting outside went on their knees to pray for the soul of the departed.

Casement's supposed last minute conversion to Catholicism was a cause of much ridicule at the time, but it was not as last minute as some think. RC was seen attending the Catholic Church in Malahide before he went to America in 1914. He attended a mass in Irish in Limerick, said for the Volunteers around that time too. And of course, he had many contacts with Catholic priests when he was in Germany. Letters recently discovered in Clare suggest he supported the pope's peace initiative in 1916. -kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de

[edit] Black diaries

The Giles Report, and a peer review rejecting it, by James Horan, have been published by the Royal Irish Academy. There is no need to rely on "indications". - kvm

We say "a simple|forensic handwritng comparison" but the indications are theat handwriting was merely the main focus per the BBC:

On 12th March 2002 the results of the first ever fully independent forensic examination of the Black Diaries were announced at a press conference in London. The examination was carried out by Dr Audrey Giles, an internationally respected figure in the field of document forensics. It was commissioned by Professor Bill McCormack of Goldsmiths College, London, and jointly funded by the BBC and RTE. The verdict was as follows: "The unequivocal and confident conclusion which the Giles Document Laboratory has reached is that each of the five documents collectively known as the Black Diaries is exclusively the work of Roger Casement's hand, without any reason to suspect either forgery or interpolation by any other hand. The Diaries are genuine throughout and in each instance. 'This investigation, based on impartial scientific analysis, should bring to an end more than 80 years of controversy.'" The main focus of Dr Giles' examination was handwriting analysis, which involved making direct comparisons between known examples of Casement's handwriting and the entries in the Black Diaries. As well as identifying similar characteristics, Dr Giles looked for inconsistencies that would indicate the work of a forger. Having found 'many similarities' and 'no significant differences', she reached an inescapable conclusion in favour of authenticity.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:23 27 September 2006 (GMT).

Whether or not he was a practising homosexual, a fantasist, or that the dairies were forged, Casement was hanged partially on irrelevant evidence, homosexual activity being illegal in1916, tipping the balance to a death sentence. Natalie West 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No; he was going to be hanged anyway, but the diaries (whether true or faked) were revealed before his trial to possible interest groups, such as Irish-Americans, fellow-diplomats, liberals and the Catholic church, and of course the newspapers, to ensure that they did not intervene or support him. In wartime, with the law as it was, and with the weight of evidence, he was going to be sentenced to death.Stamboul 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you explain all those others involved in the Easter Uprising who were condemned to death and later were spared to avoid creating martyrs, e.g. DeValera? So, no, he was not "going to be hanged anyway".

Casement was a dead man the moment he landed on Banna Strand. Hell, Pearse probably had a better chance of coming out alive. Dev was a special case, and arguably his American background and some lucky timing saved him. Casement, on the other hand, was a ex-British diplomat who had directly worked with the enemy in a time of war in an effort to harm England (which cannot honestly be said of any of the others, with the possible exception of Plunkett). He had treason written all over him. and he knew it. There was no way they could execute Sean Heuston and let Casement live, regardless of any sexual exploits. -R. fiend 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone take any responsibility for the truth of what is in here?

Or is Wikipedia a fraud? This reader would like to know. kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.60.234.246 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

This article has improved a good deal since I asked this question, not least because of the link to the paper I did with Marcel Matley :-) However, Wikipedia is still a fraud. It cannot be that Wikipedia publishes a load of nonsense to deceive the innocent reader, until someone comes along by chance who happens to know something about the subject. There are other far more sophisticated efforts at deception out there, which will remain to fool the reader for years to come. If you want an encyclopedia, you need to vet the editors and have them take responsibility. If they publish obvious drivel, then they lose their editing rights.

The problem is that there is enough fraud as it is. Even serious academics indulge in it. The Casement trail is riddled with fabrications such as McColl's Sullivan interview. Even the Royal Irish Academy has put its name to thumping errors. Then there is the problem of intelligence service history. We will be a long time waiting for the official MI5 historian to give us an explanation for the forged Casement poem in MI5 records. Yet only the official historians have anything like full access to MI5 files. You will find the original of the poem "Lost Youth", which Casement wrote in 1914 in the NLI. The MI5 historian has wrongly claimed Casement wrote it in 1916 in Pentonville. The RIA duly published it as such in the book Roger Casement in Irish & World History (missing, incidentally from the bibliography). In fact, it was first published by Casement in the Irish Review in 1914. Don't hold your breath waiting for the academics to own up and tell the truth. I have seen the copy in MI5 files, it is an obvious forgery, uttered to discredit and harass Casement's supporters in 1916. kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de

Wikipedia's goal is to be a snapshot of the academic environment of the time. When better information comes along, it is integrated into the article. Wikipedia, however, is not the place for independent research, and more so, not the place to wage a campaign.

If you have sourced information disputing this article, you should add your information to create a more complete article. If, however, you find the article (or, in fact, the entire encyclopedia, you claim) to be "fraud" because the prevailing research of the time is contradictory to your own personal beliefs, then your issue is with those researchers and not Wikipedia itself. Contrary to your assertion, I think any good encyclopedia would act in a similar manner. It is an encyclopedia's job to summarize the facts that are available, just like it is a dictionary's job to define the words, and not create them. catParade 21:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat Parade, your contribution takes a cheap shot at my position, suggesting by innuendo that I am complaining because prevailing research is contradictory to my beliefs. I am complaining because Wikipidia is pretending to present prevailing research to readers. It is not. At times it is presenting drivel which has no basis in prevailing research and no basis in fact. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. If someone writes in here that Roger Casement died on the cross beside Jesus of Nazareth, that is not the state of prevailing research, it is drivel, and it has nothing to do with my beliefs. The problem is that it is not always easy to spot the drivel, so unsuspecting readers are being conned, defrauded, by Wikipedia. Who are you? If you claim to have any interest in the truth, please put your name to your contributions. Wikipedia editors should have the guts to stand up for what they write. That is the basis of honest research and honest journalism. Wikipedia is providing the platform for phoney research and pseudo-journalism, that is why I have an issue with Wikipedia. kevin.mannerings@vr-web.de

First, I sign all my posts with my username, and my userpage has my my contact info, picture, etc. Obviously, my name is already attached to everything I do here, and my entire edit history can be looked up with a click of the mouse.

Second, I did not take a cheap shot. I specifically said, if you have sourced information disputing this article, you should add it. If you do not, then yes, it is simply a matter of your beliefs. The fact that you took that as a cheap shot may indicate which of those two cases is true. Furthermore, if you have such information but do not improve the article, then you've just come here to complain. Wikipedia has plenty of critics who for some reason can't wrap their brain around the benefits of an encyclopedia that can be continuously and instantly fixed and improved, and I don't know how to make the idea any more plain. catParade 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheer up Kevin, wiki is not God, just put together by mere mortals. Of course Casement's story has been changed and realigned and that makes it interesting. As Catparade says, put in your references. Historian A says xxx -quote; historian B says yyyy-quote.86.42.203.104 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)