Conference tallis::celt

    
    Before I get to the point of why 1916 is not celebrated, I would
    question if some of your points are historically accurate:
    
    "[The Rising] kicked people out of the long sleep and into action"
    Firstly, the "Anglo-Irish War" began in 1919, three years after 1916.
    It is doubtful if 1916 OF ITSELF started the war. For example, the
    Conscription Crisis of 1917 did as much to arouse the Irish as 1916
    did - some say even more. The sweeping Sinn Fein victory in 1918
    was another step in the process, and the meeting of the First Dail
    in 1919. Note: this was not today's Sinn Fein but a Sinn Fein 
    pledged to peaceful means. The war was started by Breen and Treacy
    as a conscious effort at Soloheadbeg to assert the military wing
    of the movement against the political - it is no coincidence that
    the Dail met on the same day as the Soloheadbeg shooting occurred.
    This was followed by a systematic assassination campaign against
    rural policemen, which led to the introduction of the Black and
    Tans, and things spiralled down from there ...
    
    I can't leave out the incompetent way the British Government
    handled the various Irish crises from 1912 onwards as a major
    contributory factor to the Rising and the war.
    
    Breen and Treacy were supported by the militarists like Collins
    who wished to see greater British repression knowing it would
    bring the mass of people over to their side. Collins, incidentally,
    fought in the GPO in 1916, and was not impressed. "Greek tragedy"
    was his description, a tragedy he did not intend to repeat.
    De Valera also fought in 1916, and was against violence for the
    rest of his life, though that secretive man having acceded to
    leadership of the Nationalists was not about to split the movement
    at this stage. As soon as he could, he went to America and 
    avoided the worst of the Troubles.
    
    Secondly, the Irish nationalists had been struggling for a generation
    for a thing called "Home Rule", and were in sight of their goal
    when war intervened. But for the fortuitous irruption of 
    World War I, Nationalist Ireland would have received a measure
    of self-determination to satisfy itself at least for a while.
    With the way the world has gone since then, it is definite that
    this freedom would have been expanded. What 1916 and the
    Anglo-Irish War achieved was the difference between Home Rule
    and the Irish Free State. 
    
    So 1916 was just one of a whole series of events that occurred
    between 1912 to 1921 that led to the Irish Free State. True, it
    was one of the most important events but if the British had
    boxed a bit smarter, if they had not tried to introduce
    conscription, if there was not a revolutionary genius
    like Collins prepared to use violent means.... the "ifs" go on.
    Nationalist Ireland would probably have achieved as much
    WITHOUT 1916, and without the Anglo-Irish War, though it might have 
    taken a bit longer. But it might have been achieved without the 
    innocent bloodshed and the deep bitterness that still persists.
    
    If I was to choose a single decisive moment that led to Irish
    independence, I would choose the 1918 election. People concentrate
    too much on the militarism and bloodshed of 1916 and 1921, but the 
    1918 election is the day the ordinary people got their say. 
    Without the moral authority of that election victory, Collins' 
    movement would have been reduced to the status of today's IRA - 
    men practising violence without any sanction. 
    
    The sad thing of course is that the solid majority for the 
    Unionists in Ulster also made partition inevitable.
    
    Toby

    
    Now to the question of why 1916 is not celebrated in Ireland
    with the same enthusiasm as before.
    
    I would ascribe it to a phenomenon called "dissonance". This
    occurs when a cherished idea seems violated by reality and 
    gets constantly called into question. The current classic
    example is the Soviet Union where the cherished ideal that
    the country had the most successful and advanced social
    system in the world finally collapsed in the face of reality.
    
    Dissonance always causes discomfort and stress so that people
    try to cope with it in various ways. For example, they grudgingly 
    modify their ideals in line with reality, they incorporate excuses 
    in their ideals or they blot out reality and refuse to confront it. 
    For example, the Soviets for years escaped from reality by
    saying that their socialism was not "fully developed", blaming
    the West, captialist sabotage etc. However, they were in no
    doubt that socialism would one day triumph. This went on
    until even this comforting fiction was no longer sustainable 
    and the system collapsed. 
    
    We in Nationalist Ireland were always taught to admire and glorify
    the blood sacrifice of 1916. However when we are confronted with
    the reality of the savagery of Northern Ireland today, it cannot
    but set up a profound dissonance. For here are men who espouse
    the ideals of 1916 (indeed use it a justification) yet they
    are behaving in a fashion repugnant to the beliefs of the vast
    majority of Irish people. Television (which was not around in
    1916) has played its part - we see the bloody remains, we see the
    hearse, coffins, grieving widows, the weeping children, and we can 
    only ask: "Is this what 1916 was all about?"
    
    We all know that Pearse, Connolly and the men of 1916 would
    have also been apalled at the deeds being done in their name,
    but it is difficult to cleave to their ideals when you know
    that the men who murder innocent workers and children are
    acting out the same ideals.
    
    It is no accident that it is since the Northern Troubles broke
    out that the glorification of 1916 has declined.
    
    Irish people are coping with this dissonance simply by blotting 
    out 1916, and searching around for other ideals with which to
    cope with the 20th century. Allied to that is a perception that
    the Irish have not used their freedom well - we are economically
    worse off than we were in 1920, and emigration has persisted 
    right to the present day. It is no wonder that a profound
    disillusion has set in, with only the ideal of becoming
    part of an European entity to offset the failed ideals of 
    yesteryear.
    
    The aggressive Nationalism of 1916 is ill suited to the
    modern day and age, and is incapable of modification while
    it seems to lead inevitably to bloodshed. A more moderate
    and pragmatic nationalism is taking its place - which 
    ironically is probably closer to the ideals of John Redmond
    than to those of Patrick Pearse.
    
    Toby

    
    I feel quite disappointed in this topic, from which I expected
    a livelier discussion. No one even used those comic epithets
    "shoneen" or "West-Brit"! 
    
    I would like a discussion because the base note has put its
    finger on a real phenomenon - Ireland (at least the Republic)
    is in a tremendous flux, and I believe Irish people are more
    confused than even about what it means to be Irish. 1916
    is just one part of it.
    
    For example, a recent survey found that a majority favoured
    maintaining Irish neutrality. But a majority also favoured
    joining a Western European Defense Union! Another issue
    is the liberalisation of laws regulating sexual morality
    - for example, polls favour divorce but (as in the last
    referendum) could swing the other way at the last moment.
    
    It seems that the old Gods of Catholicism and Nationalism
    are dying a slow death, but they have a strong kick in 
    them yet, and could still give us some surprises. And
    will be new Gods of Liberalism and "Europe" be an
    improvement?
    
    Toby

    If we can steer away from the still emotive and contentious issues of 
    Irish history it would be better for all of us. 1916 was a tragedy in
    many ways, but chiefly because of the way it was handled by the Irish
    of 1966. Violence was glorified and praised by the establishment and
    the Church. Anyone who had any respect for things or people from
    Britain had to hide it or be thought of as somehow "less Irish".
    My childhood memories from 1966 include parades of bands through our 
    home town and speeches at the local War of independence monument.
    Tricolors and Green white and Gold bunting were everywhere and the
    haunting melodies of Se�n O Riada's "Mise �ire" were all over the TV
    (in black and white, we hadn't colour until 1970 ). There wasn't a
    single dissenting voice back then.
    
    
    To a person with two English uncles to hear about the butchery of 1916 
    and the incompetant vileness of the Black and Tans in 1920 presented
    contradictory images of the English. How does one reconcile the
    memories of quite normal and often harmonious behaviour on the part of 
    those uncles and their children ( all English by definition) with the 
    barbarous and thoughtless actions of the authorities that is portrayed
    in that episode of Irish history? How does one reconcile the happy
    memories of work in England by BOTH parents for a period of years that 
    gave them their respective careers with the then almost unanimous
    verdict by the Irish of 1966 that the British were all bad and that
    1916 and Irish Independance and anti-British sentiment was all good?? 
    
    		Only with great difficulty and cynicism.
    
    The fact that the risings 75th Anniversary was not celebrated as
    triumphally as the 50th in 1966 is both a reflection on politics and 
    the economies of the different years. 1966 was an era, in Ireland at
    least, of low prices, full employment (almost) and relative prosperity.
    There was very little crime, almost no violent crime, and there was 
    very little poverty except through the causes of alcoholism or
    subnormal intelligence.Almost everyone was happy with their lot and the
    country was regarded as a success.
    
    1991 saw things totally differently, massive and still rising
    unemployment, internecine conflict in the North about which we could do 
    nothing, massive poverty regardless of health or education and
    widespread emigration have caused a lot of people to judge this country
    as a failure economically. A series of financial and political scandals
    have not engendered confidence in authority. A long period of
    questioning and readjustment awaits us.
    
    One can only wonder what 2016 will bring.
    
     

    One point which struck me in last 2 replies, was that Irelands economy
    was alot better in the 1916-1922 era. It probably was, and the point
    being that there was no partition issue as there is today. What I am
    getting at is the Border and all its ills are bleeding this country
    dry, economically. I read somewhere some time ago that we in the
    Republic spend more per head on security than the British taxpayers do.
    
    Apart from the simple money side, the energy of politicians has been
    given in large measures to the N.I. 'problem'. Just think what could be
    done with the time and money that the Border costs us. How many
    politicians can avoid the hard questions with a good old Brit bashing
    speech.
    
    My solution? The British own the problem, only they can fix it. We are
    suffering the spillover in many ways,(jails, court cases, more
    guards/soldiers etc..), not to mention a poor world image.
    
    Lets put our money and energy to work here.
    
    Patsy.
    

    RE: .-1
    
    Well said.
    
    The British government are the key to any peace process in the north.
    If the MI5 people have their way, then Northern Ireland will be their
    roosting ground and new employer.  If however reasonable British
    politicians have any influence, then the British will withdraw
    completely from Ireland and in the words of John Lennon "leave Ireland
    to the Irish".
    
    The Northern Irish don't need British tanks and guns and military
    borders.  It's a spark waiting to ignite - like what happened recently
    in Coalisland.  At least David Andrews showed some guts by calling that
    the 3rd parachute regiment be withdrawn completely from Ireland.  It's
    about time that other faceless Irish politicians get interested in what's
    happening in the North. 
    
    And no Toby, my pashioned plea for British military withdrawal in
    Ireland does not translate into support for the IRA.  I just think that
    throwing 17 year old unemployed lads from Liverpool into a completely
    different country with a fully loaded machine gun is not the answer
    for peace at all.
    
    The whole Coalisland affair is disgusting and Britain should be
    ashamed of herself.  How much is every Irish resident (north and south)
    paying in taxes for Northern security - for this military farce - for
    what - who is the real enemy?  is there an enemy?
                                    
    

    
    I'm glad I tried to expand this note .. got a few stimulating
    replies.
    
    Its simplistic and wrong to blame all our problems on the 
    British, and on the border. That's what we did prior to "the
    Troubles". Granted, I have little of good to say about the
    British government in Ireland, "benign neglect" would be the
    kindest description, particularly prior to 1969.
    
    Given that, I must affirm my own belief in the 
    intrinsic decency of the British people. Since independence
    and before, Ireland has exported tens of thousands of
    emigrants to that country. Despite the false accusations of
    racism levelled at the British people, Irish people have
    not come up against any organised prejudice, the majority
    have prospered, just as they have in the US. No British
    politician has yet come to power on a ticket of "Exclude
    the Irish". This in spite of a wave of IRA terror-bombing.
    There are no British Le Pens.
    
    While "benign neglect" might be the British attitude,
    the Republic of Ireland also ignored the North for years
    except for public whingeing sessions, usually at 
    election time. No effort was made to hold out a hand
    to the Unionists - until it was already too late. And
    the Unionists can take no credits for running a 
    secarian state, riven by petty bigotry and prejudice.
     
    Irishmen of both creeds could solve the problem in 
    the morning if they wished. But I also believe that the
    British Government must be closely involved in arriving at
    a solution. And it must also hold the line for Law and Order
    until a stable solution can be agreed, at which point it
    can disengage. There is no one else who can do the job,
    not the UN, not the EC, certainly not the Irish Republic.
    
    Of course, excessive and illegal action by the security
    MUST be rooted out, this goes without saying in Northern
    Ireland, just as it should go without saying in Los Angeles
    or any city, town or rural area in the world. 
    
    We must constantly remember that the "British garrison" is
    the 1-million people who live here and are fiecely proud
    of their British identity. We must convince them that this
    identity will be treasured in a United Ireland. This is a
    difficult task and only great statesmanship on the part of the
    Nationalists, and leadership on the part of the British,
    will bring this about. And it will be a LONG process,
    the results may not even come in our lifetime, but we
    will have to accept that.
    
    Britain has now got no strategic or economic reason for
    staying in the North. There are no key military, naval
    or surveillance installations of any significance. With
    the Cold War over and the Republic seeming set to join a 
    European Defence Union, the North has no military value. 
    I suggest (and of course I will be attacked for saying 
    it) that the reason Britain is still in Northern Ireland 
    is a moral reason - it is there because it has promised
    it will stay until a majority decides otherwise. For 
    the moment, there are no signs of a weakened resolve
    on their part.
    
    Measuring the length of the process required to get a 
    peaceful United Ireland against the savagery we see today 
    in Bosnia, which would you choose? Because I believe those are 
    the alternatives. Premature disengagement by the British would 
    bring that about because it would be immediately followed by 
    a "grab" on both sides to hold territory for a visualised 
    bargaining position.
    
    Like most Irish people, the IRA and its activities, as
    well as those of Loyalist paramilitaries, are abhorrent to me.
    These men seek to continually destabilise and excerbate
    the problem by driving a wedge between the Irish and
    British, and between Protestant and Catholic. Power is 
    their abiding aim, not "freedom". Terrorism
    must be pursued by the full rigour of the law, North
    and South, but I also believe that the IRA cannot 
    ultimately be defeated until political stability of some
    sort is achieved. By this I mean agreed institiutions on
    this island and/or in the North.
    
    In general, I believe that the SDLP, the Irish Government
    and the British Governments are moving on the right lines.
    It is the Unionists whose main fears must be assuaged.
    However, I think also ordinary people (like you and me)
    must make ourselves available to work for Peace. This
    may mean joining Amnesty International, New Consensus
    or even Fine Gael. Whatever you like, as long as you 
    oppose and hinder the application of illegal violence
    by anyone at every opportunity. 
    
    My main objective in the short term would be to gain
    a decent life for ordinary people with no fear of Army
    searches, random sectarian murder or IRA bomb. The
    second objective is to bring people together. When
    Parnell was asked about excluding the North-East from
    Home Rule, he replied (referring to the Protestants)
    "Ireland needs every one of them". The same is true
    today. Sadly, that spirit of generosity did not long
    survive into this century.
    
    Toby
    
    
    
    

    I remember quite well the 1966 celebrations of the 1916 Rising. How
    anybody can have found it anything but exceptional either does not
    understand Irish History.
    
    Mise Eire and the music and the FACTS. There were so many "shooneens"
    around. It was the first time that spies did not succeed in penetrating
    a group preparing a revolt against the British. Michael Collins and
    many of the future participants in the War Of Independence tasted
    victory here. Victory of the small over the big, David over Goliath.
    
    Remember the bridge over the canal where a few men held the British
    army trying to get to the city centre from Dunlaoighre. The Brits then
    massacred them with bayonets but they showed it was possible.
    
    Remember the far sight of the leaders who had democracy in mind with
    the rights of all citizens to vote. This was 1916.
    
    Ren� 

		 POBLACHT NA H-EIREANN
	

	     The Provisional Government of the
	             IRISH REPUBLIC

		To the People of Ireland


IRISHMEN and IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations
from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, throug us, summons
her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.
    Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary
organisations, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military
organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having
patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right
moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her
exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying
in the first on her strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory.
    We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland,
and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be soverign and
indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and
government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished
except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish
people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six
times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms.
Standing on the fundamental right and again asserting it in arms on the
face of the world, we herby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign
Independent State, and we pledge out lives and the lives of our
comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of it
exaltation among the nations.
    The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance
of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The tepublic guarantees religious and
civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportiunities to all its citizens,
and declares its resolve to persue the happiness and prosperity of the whole
nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally,
and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government,
which have divided a minorit from the majority in the past.
    Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment
of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of
Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional
Government, herby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs
of the Republic in trust of the people.
    We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the
Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that
no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity,
or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and
discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves
for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which
it is called.
	      Signed on Behalf of the Provisional Government,
			  THOMAS J. CLARKE
      SEAN MacDIARMADA                   THOMAS MacDONAGH
       P. H. PEARSE                       EAMONN CEANNT
	 JAMES CONNOLLY                    JOSEPH PLUNKETT


Rene (FNYFS::AUNGIER)

    Six times in the past three centuries, so the documents says, there
    were revolutions in Ireland against British rule. Taking it as the
    period from 1616 to 1915 lets see if I can recall them all.
    
    1857    Fenian Rising.
    1848    Young Ireland Rising.
    1803    Emmetts Rising.
    1798    "The Year of the French", Battles in Mayo and Wexford.
    1690-1691 The Battle of the two Kings, Jacobites v's Williamites.
    1641	Cromwellian campaigns.
    
    			Yep, it looks like there were six occasions at
    least in those three centuries when Ireland said "no"  in the most
    emphatic way possible.
    
    Anyone who examines the Proclamation of 1916 closely will notice that
    different styles and sizes of print are used at random throughout the
    page. This is because it was printed secretly in Liberty Hall by
    Connolly's union men and they didn't have enough type of the same kind
    for such a big document so, rather than alert the British with a fresh
    purchase of sufficient type, they improvised with other kinds to
    maintain secrecy.

    Its quite a long time since I read the Proclamation, and having read 
    Rene's note, its well written. It contains many laudable aspirations,
    and as a model for a constituation or ethos of a society it would be
    quite acceptable. Its a pity we let some many of them slip from our
    constitution and society.
    
    On a lighter note, Brendan Behan used to say he knew someone who went
    into the GPO on Easter Monday 1916 to buy a stamp. He was rewarded with
    a cabinet post in the Free State!
    
    Patsy.
     

    
    I'm afraid when Pearse claimed that "Six times in the last 3 
    centuries, Ireland has struck for her freedom....... " he was being 
    very free and easy in defining his precursors.
    
    Two of those rebellions were on behalf of Kings of England. The
    1690 War was on behalf of James II of England. The 1641 rebels
    fought under the motto "Pro Deo, Pro Rege, Hibernia Unaminis"
    - Ireland United for God and King.
    
    The 19th century "rebellions" were tragic, but over-glorified by
    Pearse and his men. Emmet's rebellion was little more than a riot
    on the streets of Dublin, the 1848 rising was a semi-facicial episode
    (sometimes known as the "Battle of Widow McCormack's Cabbage Patch"),
    a historian described the Fenian rising as "a few pistol shots in the
    night". Hardly the stuff of heroism, though the rebels had courage
    if little else.
    
    More people were killed in sectarian riots in Belfast during the 19th
    century than in all the nationalist "risings" put together.
    
    Pearse was here trying to build up the "physical force" side of
    Nationalism at the expense of the democratic, Parliamentary side.
    It has to be said that through his death, and through the genius
    of Collins, he succeeded for a time in seizing the leadership
    of Nationalism from the Parliamentarians. 
    
    However the counter-argument is that since Daniel O'Connell, the
    democratic wing of Nationalism has generally held the majority
    support of the Irish people. Only on two occasions, under Parnell in
    the 1880s and under Collins and De Valera in the period 1919-21,
    did the two wings act in something like a united front. These
    were also the periods in which maximum concessions were forced
    from Britain - undoubtedly the unity of the Nationalists was
    a major contributory factor to this.
    
    Toby

    
    A person I will describe as "a leading Belfast Republican" since
    retired from public life, told me a story about the 1916 Rising
    concerning Major John McBride, father of Sean McBride.
    
    Now, we know that Major John was found of the gargle. Yeats
    called him 
    		"....a drunken, vainglorious lout.
    		He has done great wrong to one 
    		who is near my heart,
    		but I number him in my song."
    					(Easter 1916)
    
    Yeats was referring to McBride's estranged wife, Maud Gonne,
    whom he (Yeats) loved passionately.
    
    According to my acquaintance, McBride because of his weakness
    for the jar, was not party to the plans for a Rising. Hearing
    of the cancellation of the "manoeuvres" planned for Easter
    Sunday, he went on a bender for the day. The following morning
    he was standing on O'Connell Bridge with a sore head, hoping
    to get a lift out to the Fairyhouse Races, when he saw the
    volunteers come marching along.
    
    Realising something was afoot, he fell in with his comrades,
    signed the proclamation, and got shot for his pains.
    
    I can't vouch for the truth of this, and doubt if its all
    true. However, its a good story .....
    
    Toby

    re .13
    
    Did McBride sign the proclamation ?
    
    I thought it was only signed by the seven people listed on the bottom
    and they signed it `for and on behalf of' .
    
    Were there other's who signed over and above the seven, can you list
    them .
    
    Feargal.

    
    re -1
           On my copy it reads
    
                         Signed on Behalf of the Provisional Government
    
                                   Thomas J. Clarke
                                   Sean MacDiarmada 
                                   P.H. Pearse
                                   James Connolly
                                   Thomas MacDonagh
                                   Eamomn Ceannt
                                   Joseph Plunkett

    
    Hey, you're right, McBride didn't sign the proclamation.
    
    I shoved in that bit myself, I'm bad at dates and lists of
    names anyway.
    
    I was hoping someone would confirm or deny the story. Nothing
    I've read contradicts it, but no one has corroborated it 
    either. Its so plausible in its detail, that it rings with
    an element of truth. It may have happened to SOMEONE, if
    not to McBride.
    
    Toby

  Pearse's statement before the British Military Court. 1916

From my earliest youth I have regarded the connection between Ireland
and Great Britain as the curse of the Irish nation, and felt convinced
that while it lasted, this country could never be free or happy.
When I was a child of ten I went down on my bare knees by my bedside one
night and promised God that I should devote my life to an effort to free
my country.
I have kept that promise.
We seem to have lost.  We have not lost. To refuse to fight would have
been to lose; to fight is to win.  We have kept faith with the past, and
handed on a tradition to the future.
I repudiate the assertion that I sought to aid and abet England's enemy.
Germany is no more to me than England is.  My aim was to win Irish
freedom; we struck the first blow ourselves but should have been glad of
an ally's aid.
I assume that I am speaking to Englishmen who value their freedom and
who profess to be fighting for the freedom of Belgium and Serbia.
Believe that we, too, love freedom and desire it.  To us it is more
desirable than anything in the world.  If you strike us down now, we
shall rise again and renew the fight.
You can not conquer Ireland.  You cannot extinguish the Irish passion
for freedom.  If our deed has not been sufficient to win freedom, then
our children will win it by a better deed. 

    Pearse was a great speaker. Everything is has written is very profound
    and yet simple. I like the poems he has written both in English and
    Irish.
    
    Ireland needs more people like him.

    Ireland needs more dead heroes???  I don't think so. 
    More people living for Ireland perhaps.
                                     

    Not dead heros but Pearse did awaken the people of Ireland. Michael
    Collins was not a dead hero when he was assasinated during the Civil
    War.
    
    Heros are needed by every nation. I don't believe there is any nation
    on this earth that does not have dead heroes.
    
    Ren�

               The Mother - by Patrick Pearse 1916

        I do not grudge them: Lord, I do not grudge
          My two strong sons that I have seen go out
        To break their strength and die, they and a few
          In bloody protest for a glorious thing.
        They shall be spoken of amoung their people,
          The generations shall remember them,
        And call them blessed;
          But I will speak their names to my own heart
        In the long nights;
          The little names that were familiar once
        Round my dead hearth.
          Lord, thou art hard on mothers:
        We suffer in their coming and their going;
          And tho' I grudge them not, I weary, weary
        Of the long sorrow - And yet I have my joy:
          My sons were faithful and they fought.

    I already entered this one some years back, copycat --). It is a lovely
    poem.
    
    Ren�