“Roger Casement – the Real and the Fabricated”
Jack Lane:
Text of a talk at the
Mother Jones Festival Cork,
26 July 2025
You
will find more work by Jack Lane on his website https://aubanehistoricalsociety.com
Roger Casement
remains a compelling figure in Irish and British history. This year is the 60th
anniversary of his re-interment. He has become an icon for many
causes. But icons are lifeless things and are deprived of context
and thus of any real historical meaning. But Casement
remains highly relevant because of what he said and did. After 49 of his
52 years as an active participant and onetime poster boy for
the British Empire, he became the most dangerous Irishman that
the Empire ever faced. Why did this happen? That is why he was hanged and that
is why there has been a consistent attempt for over 100 years since to traduce
his moral significance. This talk attempts to put the record straight.
This
talk is a very brief outline of the case for the real Roger Casement and why we
are now presented with a fabricated or concocted version of him.
Like some people here, and anyone of my vintage in particular, I
was introduced to Casement at the time of his re-interment in 1965.
Two events stand out for me at the time. A meeting in University College Cork
addressed by Dr. Herbert Mackey on the 'Black Diaries'. At the time he was the leading proponent of
the forgery thesis of the diaries.
That meeting was chaired by the then very radical and
ostentatious Republican, friend and admirer of Tom Barry – Eoghan Harris. In his FCA trench coat he would perform at
the Philosophical Society and seemed a reincarnation of Barry! And delighted to be regarded as such!
How times have changed!
Oh, how people have changed.
The other event was de Valera’s Address at the re-interment
ceremony, at which he said:
“It required great courage to do what Casement did, and his name would be
honoured, not merely here, but by oppressed peoples everywhere, even if he had
done nothing for the freedom of our own country.”
This was true, of course, and de Valera
was no doubt referring to Casement’s humanitarian reputation. But it left me with a bit of a puzzle. Why exactly was he hanged and his name
blackened ever since - and why is it still ongoing? Surely he was not hanged for his
humanitarianism—which was carried out by him on behalf of the Empire. (He went
to Putumayo at the specific request of his close friend, Sir Edward Grey, the
Foreign Secretary; and Casement did an excellent job as usual—but that did not
prevent Grey sanctioning his execution as a leading member of the cabinet that
did so in 1916.)
Casement did his job and Grey did his job.
OPPOSITION TO THE RISING
And there was a further puzzle. Was Roger
Casement hanged for his part in the 1916 Rising? Not likely, as he played no part in it, being
in custody at the time. He came back from
Germany to oppose the Rising—and the British knew this very well and prevented
him from getting this message to the Irish Republican Brotherhood [IRB] leaders
after he landed at Banna Strand.
So they hardly hanged him for that—for
opposing the Rising? They should have
applauded him rather than hang him, surely?
So the puzzle remained.
Casement's contribution to the Rising was echoed with
just a few words in the Proclamation, where it refers to support for “our
gallant allies in Europe” i.e., the Germans, a sentiment which Connolly
also endorsed - though they never met - and Connolly ensured was included in
the Proclamation.
But those few words are the key to an
understanding of Casement’s political position then, and his fate. That phrase
unlocks what Casement really was at that point, and what he meant to the
British then and since.
His was clearly not the simple Irish
Republican Brotherhood position of England’s difficulty is Ireland’s
opportunity. And I am not, of course, criticising that IRB approach – just
that it was not Casement’s.
Now, Casement’s opposition to the Rising
was quite understandable from his then point of view: he knew that it would be
a declaration of war on the Empire, and what matters in war is military
success and any other approach is reckless.
He knew enough about how the British Empire was built to appreciate
that. The sword was mightier than the
pen in the building of that Empire!
The likelihood of military success is also
a condition for a 'just war', as any
Catholic theologian will tell you. It is
immoral to start a war you cannot hope to win.
Of course, despite being a military
failure, 1916 turned out to be a political success as events developed and
confirmed the validity of its purpose.
The 1916 leaders could claim to be successful in beginning the end of
the British Empire: but there seems to be a sense that all is forgiven them by
the Empire! But for British historians
and commentators it is clear that this not the case with Casement.
Why?
CASEMENT’S IMPERIAL CV
A regular series of books have been
appearing since the 1950s that keep painting a very negative picture, shall we
say, of him. Vilifying him, in fact. Though he had faithfully served the Empire
and opposed the Rising? What is going
on?
To get an understanding of this, we should
begin by reminding ourselves that, for
about 49 of his 52 years, Casement was a committed and active British
Imperialist ‘at the top of the tree’ in the British Establishment, with
a worldwide reputation.
He was a British Consul in ten different
locations across two continents, was given the Queen’s South Africa medal
for his “special services, 1899-1900” in the Boer War, was made a CMG in
1905, Knighted and given the Coronation Medal in 1911. Not many got such
honours. Erskine Childers, another prominent Imperialist did not get them.
Casement was the ‘go to man’ for
dealing with some problematic issues for the Empire. He was in fact a poster
boy for the Empire, exposing evils in the world such as the Belgian atrocities
in the Congo, and the atrocities of the rubber/robber barons in Peru.
In supporting the War on the Boers, he was
at odds with the Irish Republican Brotherhood and with Irish public opinion,
which vehemently opposed that war.
CASEMENT AS A CULTURAL NATIONALIST
Casement was an Irish cultural nationalist
from around the turn of the 20th century and, as with everything else he did,
put his heart into it. Purely cultural
nationalism is quite compatible with British Imperialism - and with any
Imperialism worthy of the name! The Empire can thrive by encouraging such
nationalism - as it can be quite containable politically because, in itself, it
is non-political and can remain “inside
the box” of the Imperial ambit.
This did not put him at odds with the
Empire. So, he was not hanged for that.
HOME RULE AND THE
IRISH VOLUNTEERS
Casement supported Home Rule and he helped
organise the Irish Volunteers to bring it about, in the face of Ulster military
resistance. The IRB played a part in
this, but only a bit part at this stage. The proof of this is that the
Volunteers were taken over by Redmond, and Casement supported that takeover.
The Howth Gun Running was an Anglo-Irish
achievement: with Casement and others intent on helping the Government
militarily ensure Home Rule. The Volunteer forerunners of the IRA came into
existence to help the British Government achieve its then aims.
All this was quite compatible with
Imperialism, as ‘progressive’ Imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes, the
greatest of them all, saw Home Rule as helping to consolidate the Empire, which
is why he supported it financially and otherwise.
Of course, the IRB had other ideas but
they did not then determine things, as Redmond’s take-over with Casement’s
support proved, and events did not yet fall their way. They infiltrated the
Volunteers - as they infiltrated everything that moved in Irish national and
cultural spheres at home and abroad - but they were not then the driving force
they later became.
What Casement was doing at that stage was
fully consistent with what he then was, an Imperialist, and there is no need
for any convoluted explanations for his behaviour as if he was some sort of
enigmatic self-contradictory figure.
He was helping to update Ireland’s role as
a member of the Empire, as Redmond was also doing with Home Rule. Like millions
of others for generations he saw the British Empire as a laudable and
worthwhile project and served it with great, if sometimes critical, loyalty—and
he was not hanged for that.
Again, his activity with the Volunteers did not put him at odds
with the Empire.
SO WHY BREAK WITH THE EMPIRE?
Why then did Roger Casement begin to break
with the Empire, shortly after being knighted?
And why was he hanged a few years later for High Treason to the King and
Empire that had knighted him, an honour which he had accepted with fulsome
thanks?
His disenchantment seems to have begun
with his research into the atrocities in the Putumayo, which were even worse
than those of the Belgian Congo in terms of torture, floggings, mutilation and
killing of the native population. But this time the rubber industry was
sustained and dominated by British capital investment, companies such as
the main one, the Peruvian Amazon Company, listed as the largest member on the
London Stock Exchange. Rubber was like
oil, another “black gold” of the era.
So, it was not nasty little Belgium and
King Leopold this time! Others knew of
all this but Casement saw it as it as an intrinsic part of the Imperial system
he represented and he began to question the raison d’être of the Empire
itself.
THE PLANNED WAR ON GERMANY
But, crucially, Casement also began to
realise that there was a much bigger and a more consequential horror in the
offing than anything he had witnessed in the Congo and Peru. 16 million dead and 21 million wounded was to
prove him right. This was when he began to realise that alienation in writings
from about 1913 onwards and they were put out in his only published book, “The
Crime Against Europe”, which appeared just as the war against Germany
began.
This is a book that is not easily available
these days and rarely even mentioned by his 'biographers'. It is available from Athol Books. It is a clear and incisive analysis of the
international situation at the time, and it has stood the test of time. It is essential reading for understanding
Casement and the world at the time.
He suspected the existence of this war
plan for some time, while still accepting that the Empire was a constructive
force for good in the world. But, when
he saw his suspicions taking shape, he saw the plan as a wanton attack on a
central part of European culture and on civilisation itself. This was a crime against Europe as he
succinctly put it.
WHAT WAS THE ISSUE WITH GERMANY?
Since its creation in 1871, the German
Federation had become a powerful innovative force in the economic areas of life
– trade and industry (for instance, it created the pharma industry). It also brought advances in science, music,
culture, philosophy, scholarship, and political progress.
Politically, Germany had the largest
Social Democratic party in the world.
It developed the genesis of what is now the welfare state, partly copied
decades later by Lloyd George when he introduced Old Age Pensions.
It was a constitutional monarchy, like
Britain: with a parliament that was
directly elected by universal male suffrage on the basis of one man, one vote,
and was the most progressive electoral system in Europe at that time.
As regards scholarship, the Gaelic Revival
here would not have happened as it did without German linguistic scholarship,
as represented by Kuno Meyer and others.
Germany had been a multitude of at least
30 little states, kingdoms, principalities, municipalities, cities etc.—which
were united by language: so, the
relationship between linguistics and nationhood was of great interest to them.
It was to be an Empire of Germans only and
the State was not interested in acquiring other nationalities, having no
designs on any other country and certainly not on England! It was Anglophile and took great pride in the
fact that their royal families were first cousins. Prussia was the staunch Protestant ally of
England in the 19th century and it had ensured victory at the Battle Of
Waterloo for England.
It was a qualitatively very different
Empire to that of Britain and other contemporary European Empires. It would be better named as a German
Union. So different was it, that the
word Empire as generally understood is not appropriate. Bismarck did not even include Austria in the
Union and said of the nearby Balkans that “they were not worth the blood of
a single Pomeranian Grenadier.”
Being Anglophile, and after Bismarck had
left the scene, some elements tried to copy England’s methods in “the
scramble for Africa”, but the project was a bit late in the day and turned
out to be a pathetic venture.
Exceptional for Germany, but all the fashion for others.
Despite its spectacular success in less
than 50 years, Germany did not cause, or get involved in any war, from 1871 to
1914. The British wouldn't have counted
the German attempt to catch up on colonialism in Africa as a 'war'. Compare that with the many wars of the
British Empire in those years—it was almost permanently at war.
As Germany was developing growing trade,
it needed to develop an appropriate Navy.
This was potentially a point of conflict with Britain—which relied on
its Navy as a guarantee of its world trading supremacy, and prevented freedom
of the seas, i.e. prevented other nations from having the trading freedom
to grow to their full potential economically.
But Germany thought such problems could be
solved amicably between friends—how naive they were!
The British Empire was based on compulsory
free trade for others—and would try its best to counter efforts of states
which wished to use Protection to develop fully national economies, as Germany
was doing by following the trading principles of Friedrich List, one of the
founders of the German Union.
CONNOLLY ON GERMANY
Connolly, from a completely independent
standpoint to that of Casement, wrote a lot about Germany and this is a typical
example written just before the Rising:
“That
country had the best educated working class in the world, the greatest number
of labour papers, daily, weekly, and monthly, the greatest number of
parliamentary and local representatives elected on a working class platform,
the greatest number of Socialist votes in proportion to the entire
population. All this was an index to the
high level of intelligence of the German working class, as well as to their
strong political and industrial position. This again was an infallible index to
the high civilisation of the whole German nation. Germany had built well upon
the sure foundation of an educated self-respecting people. Upon such a
foundation Germany laid her progress in peace, and her success in war. Let
Ireland learn this lesson” (“Forces
of Civilisation’’, James Connolly Workers' Republic, 8 April, 1916)
And it is interesting to note that, like
Casement, he regards the war on Germany as involving civilisation.
On
29th August 1914, he published “The
War Upon The German Nation” in which he said
that for England:
“It
was determined that since Germany could not be beaten in fair competition
industrially, she must be beaten unfairly by organising a military and naval
conspiracy against her......remember that the war found England thoroughly
prepared, Germany totally unprepared....
The British capitalist class has planned this colossal crime in order to
ensure it uninterrupted domination of the commerce of the world.”
I think we can guess which side he was on
in the war and it was not neutrality as is sometimes suggested because of the
slogan over Liberty Hall. He did not serve the Kaiser but he certainly “served”
German Social Democracy as his model for socialist development.
SO WHY DECLARE WAR ON SUCH A COUNTRY?
The war against Germany was on the cards
since 1871 when Germany was first united and had defeated and repulsed France’s
invasion to prevent its unification. However, under the English balance of
power rules, Germany being the new power in Europe, was in the frame for being
attacked by England in alliance with other less powerful states.
This was Britain’s Balance of Power
strategy since the so-called Glorious Revolution, and should really be
called the balance of perpetual war and conflict within Europe, as it ensured
ongoing conflict between European states, giving England a relatively free hand
to increase its power in the rest of the world to build its Empire.
Casement summed it up:
“The balance of
power strategy had nothing to do with maintaining peace in Europe. Quite the contrary. It was a strategy to keep Europe in a
condition of unresolved conflict—of negating Europe as a force in the world by
keeping it in conflict with itself” (The Crime Against Europe).
It
worked a treat. Some Imperial apologists
even used to suggest it was all built by default and in a fit of
absentmindedness—and that it was 'lost' in the same way.
The
strongest Power in continental Europe at any stage, whether Spain, France, and
now Germany, was to be opposed by inciting, and allying with, the lesser Powers
against it.
Part of the plan to destroy Germany was to
ensure it was surrounded by alliances of hostile Powers, as pointed out in
detail by Casement in The Crime Against Europe—which is essential
reading for anyone interested the history of the period. It has stood the test of time.
An expansionist Czarist Russia was
expanding eastward, in what in Britain was called the “great game”—the
contest between the two Imperial Powers over control of Afghanistan and other
places—as well as looking westward towards the Balkans and the carving up of
the Ottoman Empire. Here the intention
was to have Constantinople becoming a Russian city and centre of Orthodox
world.
On the other hand, Germany wanted the
Ottoman Empire modernised, not destroyed, and saw it as a necessary part of the
world order for Muslims.
Within Europe, Russia encouraged conflict
with Germany’s ally, Austria (the Hapsburg Empire), by supporting Serbia’s
expansion at Austria’s expense in the Balkans.
Hence the basis for a conflict with an aggressive Russia.
Separately, France wanted revenge for the
1871 defeat in a war it had started with Germany, and the recovery of Alsace
Lorraine which it had lost as a result—and this laid the basis for an
irredentist conflict from the west. And
France had an intense desire to recover its position as the main Power in
continental Europe by dismembering Germany back into its constituent parts.
SPECIAL PLANNING FOR THE GREAT WAR
Britain's special planning for the war
began in earnest with the setting up of the Committee of Imperial defence
in 1902 by Arthur Balfour—whose plans were kept secret from Parliament and most
of the Cabinet, and therefore from Casement.
Balfour was the main orchestrator of the war plans and was the
ever-present power, whether in or out of government. He was the personification of what today
would be called the deep state.
An eminence grise who exercised power without being officially in
power.
“Bloody Balfour”, as he was
nicknamed by William O’Brien after the “Mitchelstown massacre” when he
was Irish Secretary.
As the author of the “Balfour
Declaration” he gave the green light to Jewish nationalists with the unique
award of a “national home” to people who did not actually live in their
“national home.” And that bit of
'statesmanship' has worked itself out to have dire consequences ever
since—including the continuing Genocide in Gaza and expansionist war against
all its Muslim neighbours with no end in sight.
O’Brien could hardly have given the British leader a better, if very
understated, nickname.
The Balfour Declaration was a
tactic to win the war against Germany and the Ottoman Empire by getting Jewish
support. It ensured a conflict with, and
within, the Moslem world—weakening it so that Britain could increase its power
in the Middle East.
BALFOUR AND THE NEED FOR WAR ON GERMANY
Of course, we don’t need to rely on
Casement or Connolly for the causes of WWI.
We can go to the horse’s mouth, to the man himself, the doyen and
philosopher of British politics in that era, which is what Balfour was. It is not often we hear such a person give
his real views clearly on fundamental issues except in very private
settings.
But Balfour did so in 1907 with the American
Ambassador, Henry White, who was also a long-standing personal friend. White’s biographer recounts a conversation
White had with Balfour:
BALFOUR:
We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before
she builds too many ships and takes away our trade,
WHITE: You are a very
high-minded man in private life. How can
you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a
war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to have a navy as you
have? If you wish to compete against
German trade, work harder.
BALFOUR: That would mean lowering our
standard of living. Perhaps it would be
far simpler for us to have a war.
WHITE: I am shocked that you of
all people should enunciate such principles.
BALFOUR: Is it a question of
right or wrong? Maybe it is just a
question of keeping our supremacy.
(Alan Nevins, Henry White,
Thirty Years of American Diplomacy,
Harper, New York, 1930. p. 257)
You will see that this admission
corresponds exactly to what Connolly said about the War and Germany. But Connolly’s conclusion as an Irish
Socialist was the exact opposite of that expressed by Robert Blatchford, a leading
English socialist—who coined the famous catchphrase “My country right or
wrong”, a view which complements Balfour’s view perfectly. Blatchford
argued that the British working class were gaining so much from the Empire it
should take that attitude.
I think Balfour’s view might remind you of
what has become known recently as a transactional view of
international affairs: The action of
going to war against another state because it is more successful than yours, so
that you can be better off. Sounds
familiar?
This is of course a most realistic view of
what is euphemistically called 'international relations'—which in reality is dog
eat dog, however sophisticated the rhetoric! We should be grateful to Mr.
Trump for making that absolutely clear.
White's exchange with Balfour also shows
that the US had no problem with Germany and regarded it as a harmless nation.
WAR: RIGHT AND WRONG
Balfour’s concluding remark about right
and wrong not mattering sums up in a nutshell the morality of the planned
war against Germany. Right or Wrong
did not come into it.
This was the exact opposite of Casement’s
view—that war is always a question of right or wrong and this
1914 War was wrong. And should be
opposed in word and deed.
Casement, as always, had the courage to
act on what he believed in. He was not just a wordmonger:
“The rest of the writer’s task must be
essayed not with the author’s pen but with rifle of the Irish Volunteer.”
(The Crime Against Europe, New
York, September 1914).
He was always sincerely committed to what
he believed in, and acted accordingly.
He had physical as well as moral courage.
Balfour illustrated perfectly the moral
bankruptcy of the Empire. Casement’s
moral case against WWI has been overwhelmingly vindicated—that crime against
Europe was the seminal event which has given rise to every subsequent
War—right down to today’s reality of genocide in Gaza!
A war on Germany and the reasons for it,
as clearly stated by Balfour, turned
Casement’s view of the Empire upside down.
The Empire’s raison d’etre was at an end for him. He had believed, like millions of others,
that the Empire had been built to bring civilisation to barbarians. In turning on Germany it was barbarians attacking
a centre of civilisation. Why?
In acting in this way, the Empire was now
a destructive force, rather than the constructive force he had thought it
was—and worked for throughout his life.
This was the essence of his case against
the War on Germany.
This realisation was, to put it mildly,
life changing for him. But he was not
alone in the face of this British War on Germany, as others also had to come to
terms with this new situation created by Britain: they too had to change their minds and their
plans.
WHAT THE WAR DID FOR OTHERS’ PLANS
Many people had to change their minds
because of the War Britain declared on Germany:
and they would have reacted like Keynes when he was accused of changing
his mind on some issue and replied “When circumstance change, I change my
mind, what do you do, Sir?”
For example, Connolly had worked on the
basis of an international socialist revolution arising from a war between the
Empires. This did not materialise as hoped for when war was launched. So he decided to join with radical
nationalists to pursue his cause.
Ireland became for him, as for Casement, “the one bright spot”—to
coin a phrase from Edward Grey in another context—in having forces within it
that were prepared to challenge the Empire.
Pádraig Pearse had shared a meeting with
Redmond in 1912, accepting Home Rule.
But he had to radically change his views in the light of new realities
of the war. The Declaration of War was
used to reduce the promise of Home Rule to that of a piece of paper that
would never now become a reality. That
is why he decided other methods were needed.
Hence 1916.
Erskine Childers, also a hero of the
Empire, changed his mind—but after the War—and was executed as an unrepentant
republican.
THE RESULTS OF THE 'GREAT WAR'
The war on Germany turned the world upside
down and nothing has had such long-term consequences, right down to the present
day—the Gaza Genocide being the most extreme example today. My grandmother used to say “The world went
mad in 1914 and has never been right since”. She was right up to a point. But the War was not caused by madness, but by
design and the world has not recovered from its consequences. The world did not sleepwalk into that
War, as is sometimes said, and as Mr. Balfour made absolutely clear.
Casement’s indictment of the War has been
amply vindicated by history since. That
War declared on Germany on 4th August 1914 was nothing less than the pivotal
event for the subsequent history of Europe and for the world with its
continuing wars. That is why Casement
remains relevant: he presaged the
consequences of this War, an event which was in a real sense the beginning of
modern history.
It led to a series of revolutions, each
caused by the War—the Revolution in Russia and all that followed from that
being the most significant.
The propaganda to justify the war - ‘for
the freedom of small nations’ - which was intended to promote differences
within other Empires into national movements—was ironically the very thing that
led to the end of the British Empire itself:
by the success of the subsequent national liberation movements that
arose. The propaganda rebounded on the
Empire.
As Hegel observed "History
subverts the intentions of its dramatic actors."
The
US, in joining the War on the basis of support for self-determination for
nations—added fuel to the flames of national liberation wars against the
British, and other European, Empires.
The price exacted by the US for getting
the British Empire to be on the winning side (not the winners) in that War was
that in due course they replaced the British Empire, a price which Britain had
to pay as it had become a debtor to the US.
The US hurried up the demise of the Empire—and the end of the Empire was
the cost Britain eventually paid for launching WWI and its continuation, WW2.
Britain started that War but could not
finish it, as also with the Second World War.
What happened to the British Empire with regard to the US justifies
Kissinger’s warning that “To be America’s enemy is dangerous, to be its
friend is fatal!”
The way WWI ended with a punitive
Versailles Agreement ensured that another war would happen—which duly arrived
with the British Declaration of War on Germany again in 1939—and the
upshot of that was the destruction of Europe and Britain as World Powers. America took over—along with “the new kid
on the block”, the Soviet Union, which arose from the Bolshevik Revolution
of 1917 that was caused by the breakdown of Czarist Russia, Britain’s ally,
under the stresses and defeats of WWI.
Between them, both Wars destroyed
Europe: and Casement’s description of
WWI—that began that process—proved very apt, it was: “The Crime Against
Europe”.
The destruction of Europe and the
undermining of the British Empire was certainly not the intention of the
parties to this War but it was an unintended consequence which Casement
heralded.
Hence his ongoing relevance.
THE
REACTION TO CASEMENT’S CONVICTION
When convicted and sentenced to hang for
High Treason, a foregone conclusion, Casement’s standing made many notable
people in various walks of life seek clemency for this traitor. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle organised a petition
of very distinguished people. The cream
of the literati—writers such as Chesterton, Arnold Bennett, John
Masefield, Jerome K Jerome, C.P. Scott (Editor of The Guardian), the
Webbs, Ben Tillett, Robert
Blatchford, some Professors, some Knights of the Realm, some Bishops and others. Douglas Hyde organised a similar petition in
Ireland.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had spoken
for a reprieve but the 'Black Diaries' (i.e. the police typescripts) changed
his mind: and that of others. Shaw and Yeats worked for a reprieve, despite
them.
Opinion in the US was so strong that the
US Senate voted for a reprieve. The
only comparable person in modern times with such a reputational influence would
be Nelson Mandela.
Casement’s standing was so high that these
eminent people, seeking clemency for him, were saying his reputation should
override the High Treason verdict of execution:
even though that treason was committed in the middle of a 'life and
death' war for the Empire.
WHY THIS APPEAL FOR CLEMENCY?
This was an extraordinary situation and
confirms Casement’s moral standing. His views on Germany, and against War with
it, were fully shared by the leading Liberals and by Liberal opinion before the
War was actually declared. But they had abandoned their position as soon as War was declared,
when “the drums began to roll”.
Blatchford’s cry became operative for them – “My country right or
wrong.”
They betrayed and debased themselves,
while Casement had remained a consistent Liberal and acted on his beliefs—and
was thereby, while alive, a stinging rebuke to the moral cowardice of his
fellow Liberals. In their hearts they
knew he was right about Germany and the War with its horrors. And, to coin a phrase “they did not like
it up ’em!” The appellants for
clemency tried to salve their conscience as best they could.
Casement thereby touched a raw nerve in
the English psyche—he punctured its self-righteous war morality—and that wound
has never healed, and has never been forgiven.
England would not be England if it did forgive him: because War is an existential necessity for
England since the so-called Glorious Revolution.
Wikipedia and ChatGPT tell us that “The
United Kingdom's forces (or forces with a British mandate) have invaded, had
some control over or fought conflicts in 171 of the world's 193
countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all
countries.” This is not a complete
picture as there were more than one war with/within many countries.
And since WWI these Wars have been peoples’
wars—with the masses, the democracy engaged—which was not the case
previously. The masses were somewhat
like spectators in earlier wars.
Such Wars could not be “sold” to
the masses as transactional issues à la Belfour’s admission to the
American Ambassador. So the moral case
had to be the focus, i.e. the wars became wars between Good against Evil, Right
against Wrong, and always against demons, who appear as regular as clockwork
when required right across the world.
The moral self-righteousness became an absolute necessity in waging
these Wars.
Casement personified the opposition to all
this, in opposing the greatest war that England ever launched and labelling it a
crime and supporting the enemy to defeat the Empire. Failure did not prove him wrong. This was
supposed to be “the war to end all wars”
but it was concluded by “the peace to end
all peace” in the Treaty of Versailles.
What he did to England in
puncturing its moral self-righteousness about its wars was more detrimental to it than what he
did for Ireland. To
misquote “Shakespeare”, he “did the State some disservice and they
know it.”
That was the real Casement and why he had
to hang.
CREATING THE FABRICATED CASEMENT
Casement had to be countered and
fast. This is why the fabricated
Casement had to be urgently created and promoted. It’s easy to kill a person but not so easy to
kill his reputation and his ideas and their subliminal effect. So a more powerful weapon was needed to
obliterate him. But what to do? How to discredit such a man?
The old reliable weapon used was sex—a sex
scandal. That always captures the English imagination and is part and parcel of
its socio-political life. This was the
well-tried and often successful weapon of choice for such a purpose in Puritan
England with its “nonconformist conscience”. And its use may not yet be at an end.
Within the then living memory it had
worked against Dilke, Rosebery, Parnell—and had been tried earlier with
O’Connell. Many more, but less famous
people, before and since were treated likewise and were victims.
But, despite being one of best known
people in the world, with countless friends in every walk of life across four
continents, with every door open to him—and bedroom doors as well if he
wished—no evidence could be found of a sex scandal.
When Devoy heard about the allegations of
homosexuality coming from the Foreign Office he remarked along the lines, “I
am not surprised, they know all about that.
They are obsessed with it over there in that place.”
But nobody from the Foreign Office or
elsewhere came forward with any information to make or confirm a scandal: despite his hundreds, if not thousands, of
friends and colleagues he had known across three decades.
And it was not for the want of
trying. Agents were even sent to Peru to
find some evidence but to no avail (see Irish Political Review, January
2025).
As there was no evidence of such a scandal
attached to Casement, it had to be created and fast: because Casement’s surprise arrival in Kerry
caused consternation: this famous open,
indeed proud, traitor had to be tried and dealt with as soon as possible for
public morale—as the Empire was then at its lowest point in the War and it was
touch and go as to whether it would win or lose.
CREATING THE BLACK DIARIES
Hence the creation of the 'Black Diaries'
as the most potent weapon to discredit and paint such a person as one that
hardly deserved to belong in society. He
should become a non-person.
To fill the need, the police created
typescripts of a ‘diary’ which tapped into the virulent homophobia of Puritan
England. These first appeared in the
Metropolitan Police’s ‘Submission of Evidence to the Director of Public
Prosecutions’ in mid-May1916. This is a
defining document among the hundreds devoted to Casement and today it would be
called the Book of Evidence for the Prosecution. A crucial document.
It is a large six-volume file that along
with the police typescripts had lots of the most minute details and photographs
of evidence. Included here were: a
sausage wrapping of Casement’s, a German train ticket, and some scraps of notes
about his journey from Germany. (Birkenhead later claimed this was his 'Black
Diary'.) There were photos of the Irish
Brigade, the boat he arrived in and of Banna Strand. All supplied by the very diligent Royal Irish
Constabulary in Tralee. These items
became official exhibits at the Trial.
The
RIC did not see fit to submit his coinage of gold and silver - then about £50 -
which was auctioned for £7,000 about 10 years ago. Sergeant Hearne and
Constable Reilly must have considered their share a nice little bonus for an
unexpectedly busy Good Friday in Kerry in 1916. Their annual salary would have
been around £60.
The police threw the proverbial book at
Casement — but no diary—nor even a photograph of one. For the police the most
potent item of all was missing.
To mix metaphors: there was no 'smoking gun' but plenty of
smoke (see the file at the Public Records Office, Kew: TNA DPP 1/46).
I have drawn attention to this file before
(Church and State, No. 141, September
2020) and I was surprised to read on Jeff Dudgeon’s website under the “Controversies” section reference to that
article in which Jeff says that this was a file “whose contents I had not been aware of.” This was amazing for such
an intrepid authenticity promoter and researcher on Casement. An elephant in
the room he did not see.
The police case for making a charge for the then crime of
homosexuality would be laughed out of court without a diary and some witnesses
– or at least one. Wiser heads prevailed to prevent such a debâcle.
HOMOPHOBIA IN VICTORIAN ENGLAND
Because different attitudes apply today, many
people may find it hard to imagine the then virulent homophobia of
England. Other countries did not share
such a virulent phobia about homosexuality.
Just one example was a contemporary
hysterical campaign led by MPs that claimed the War was being lost because the “moral
fibre” of the nation was being corrupted by the Government—by Asquith and
his wife in particular—in promoting a culture of homosexuality and
lesbianism. It led to a famous libel
case against the campaigners, but they were not convicted.
It was a readymade English version of the
“The stab in the back” thesis if England lost the War (See “Salome’s
last veil – the trial of the century” by Michael Kettle).
So virulent was this homophobia in Puritan England that, even 40 years
later, the war hero and computing genius, Alan Turing, was chemically castrated
for his homosexuality.
Some decades ago, I got to know Seán
McGouran, the well known, and very cultured gay rights activist in Northern
Ireland for over 50 years. He regarded
the behaviour attributed to a man in Casement’s position as incredible and
laughable. And clearly homophobic in equating it with homosexuality.
And one need only read the behaviour of
the persona created in the Government typescripts to see this. It has been well
described as that of a:
"...thoroughly repugnant pederast,
obsessed with the male sex organ, indiscriminately promiscuous, addicted to
prostitutes, an immoral priapic sex addict… unstable and incapable of affection
and ordinary discretion” (Paul Hyde interview, Irish Political Review,
June 2025).
And the most lurid creations were set in
Peru: exactly where the authorities tried and failed to find any evidence!
Casement was to be made an unmentionable
person, a non-person. I think the
behaviour created in the forged diaries would be described today as that of a
serial child sex abuser.
All Casement’s countless friends and
acquaintances were shocked at this portrait and not one of them ever gave it
any credence, then or since.
And in this era, I would guess that most
homosexuals, past and present, have been 'outed' or 'come out' and are now
proud of that. But Casement does not
appear anywhere in that category.
CASEMENT ON HIS SEX
In one of his most passionately honest
entries in a genuine diary—when reflecting on the genocidal behaviour of the
gangster owners of the company he was investigating (mentioned earlier) in
Peru—he bared his soul, confessing that:
“I swear to God,
I’d hang for every one of these band of wretches with my own hands if I had the
power to do it with the greatest pleasure.
I have never shot game myself with pleasure. I have in fact abandoned all shooting for
that reason, that I dislike the thought of taking life. I have never given life myself to anyone and
my celibacy makes me frugal of human life but I’d shoot or exterminate these
infamous scoundrels more gladly than I should shoot a crocodile or kill a snake”
(29/9/1910, “The Amazon Journal of Roger Casement”, edited and published
by Angus Mitchell).
Nobody ever accused Casement of hypocrisy
and nobody could honestly believe that the person who confessed the above could
be harmonised with the rampant sexual behaviour of the Black Diaries.
In the pre-Freudian world, people were not
as defined by sexual activities or orientation as is common today. Celibacy was not then regarded as some sort
of affliction as it is now. It was in
those days a choice often made for many reasons.
SUCCESS OF THE VILIFICATION IN IRELAND
But the vilification worked for the
purpose at hand and Casement was hanged.
It was challenged in Ireland for generations but the lurid story has now
become accepted here as a depiction of the real Casement.
The success of this vilification here was
confirmed for me by RTE’s ‘resident historian’, Myles Dungan, just last
September 29th. I was taken aback,
listening to his interview with Casement’s latest 'biographer', Roland
Philipps, on RTE Radio 1. Dungan
concluded the interview by saying that it was obvious that Casement had “mental
health issues” (RTE, Radio 1, 29 Sept. 2024).
The claim is ridiculous. A person with such a psychological condition
would most likely be at his lowest point when convicted and facing the hangman.
But anyone who has ever read Casement's speech from the
dock—and Dungan must have done that—must know that it was one of the most
powerful and well-argued speeches ever made—and that is how it was described
recently by Norman Lamont, a former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK.
Casement's analysis of the legal basis of
the case against him showed it to be farcical.
His philosophical and historical narrative justifying what he had done
in opposing the War was so searing an indictment of his Prosecutor, Birkenhead,
the powerful Attorney General, that it drove him from the courtroom. Hardly the indication of a person with mental
problems.
Dungan was faithfully reproducing the
portrait created by the most recent Casement biographer, Roland Philipps—who he
was interviewing—which in turn was essentially repeating the case made by
Birkenhead at the Trial—that Casement was a mental case. He suggested this to
Casement’s Counsel as a defence that might possibly avoid his execution.
Philipps’ evidence for the 'mental health
case' is based on his own psycho-babble—and Dungun’s agreement with it speaks volumes for the
puerile state of historical understanding here at
the moment.
Philipps’ unique contribution to Casement
studies was to claim that he planned “a doomed invasion of Ireland”.
Which would also make Collins and others invaders of the country in 1916. You
could not make it up.
But, as homophobia does not have the
traction it once had in disparaging people, the 'mental health affliction
theory' is getting more emphasis. This shows that the vilification of Casement
is being honed and updated to suit a different audience today: mental illness is a more comprehensive and
more sustainable form of it. And, if
Dungan is representative, that means it is working a treat in Ireland.
Casement cannot be left rest in peace—his
disparagement must be kept up to date.
Watch this space! I understand yet
another biography is with a publisher in the US. He is like the proverbial
stone in the shoe that is stuck in the British subconscious.
THE GOOD NEWS!
But the good news is that the most
compelling and conclusive case for proving that these ‘diaries’ were forged has
been made over the past 5-6 years by Paul Hyde, in books, articles and
on the internet. It is based on
up-to-date research in the British National Archives and elsewhere.
But Paul Hyde's main book of 2019 has not
been reviewed in the MSM [Main Stream Media, - ed.], or in broadcasting, or in
academic or political outlets—including those that claim to be devoted to
history, such as History Ireland.
Village Magazine and the Irish Political Review are the only, and
honourable, exceptions. I would suggest
you consult the May issue of Village this year for an example of Paul
Hyde's latest forensic approach, and the June edition of the Irish Political
Review where I interview him. Both
are available at the City Library here in Cork city.
Hyde's main work is his book “Anatomy
Of A lie – Decoding Casement”. It
is available via the Internet from Wordwell Books or Amazon. He has also published: “Casement: Decoding
false history” (Aubane Historical Society), along with articles in Village magazine,
The Irish Political Review and on the website and Podcast Decoding-Casement.com.
Angus Mitchell, who is today recognised as
the leading Casement expert, says of the Anatomy book:
"Hyde exposes
the patterns of duplicity, misinformation and selective framing which have
produced the contemporary consensus… he
makes the crucial distinction between the police typescripts which were shown
in the weeks before Casement’s execution and the bound diaries which were not
shown in 1916… Biographers treat the
typescripts as if they were true copies of diaries for whose existence at the
time there is no independent witness testimony… the book draws to
a close a century of obfuscation, secrecy, and acres of academic and
speculative waffle."
Anyone interested should get that book from Wordwell at
a cost of about 20 Euro.
This talk is just a very brief outline of
the real and fabricated Casement, and I look forward to any questions and
discussion that time allows. The subject
is wide and deep, fascinating at many levels and vital to an understanding of
modern history.
Jack Lane Text of a talk at the Mother Jones
Festival, Cork, 26 July 2025
