News


A new exhibition reveals Winston Churchill's Irish connections

Wartime secret telegram to De Valera after Pearl Harbor revealed


A new exhibition at the Morgan Library reveals that Churchill sent a secret telegram to Taoiseach Éamon de Valera after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
A new exhibition at the Morgan Library reveals that Churchill sent a secret telegram to Taoiseach Éamon de Valera after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Guinness PubFinder Ad

A new exhibition in Manhattan reveals Winston Churchill's connection to Ireland.

When he died in 1965, at the age of 91, Churchill left behind nearly a million pieces of paper documenting his life as a journalist, soldier, politician, statesman, historian and author. According to the Irish Times, it took five archivists five years to catalogue 2,500 boxes of his papers in Cambridge.

'Churchill: The Power of Words," opened on Friday at the Morgan Library and Museum in New York. The project was curated and designed by Allen Packwood, director of the Churchhill Archives at Churchill College Cambridge, along with Morgan Library's head of historical manuscripts Declan Kiely, and Mark Leslie, the managing director of the Irish firm Martello Media.

One of the most interesting documents in the exhibition is a secret telegram that Churchill, as Britain’s wartime prime minister, sent to Taoiseach Éamon de Valera after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. “Now is your chance,” it says. “Now or never. ‘A nation once again’. Am very ready to meet you at any time.”

Leslie and Kiely believe the telegram is “the smoking gun” that proves the long-held belief that Churchill offered de Valera the North if Ireland would renounce neutrality.

However, Packwood interprets the telegram differently: “Churchill could be harking back to when we were one kingdom. Perhaps he was deliberately ambiguous. This is exactly the sort of debate we hope these documents will spark.”

The Cambridge dons who gave the go-ahead for the project “didn’t understand why on earth an Irish company should design an exhibition on Winston Churchill”, says Leslie. “I didn’t tell them I was Churchill’s first cousin twice removed, but I mentioned than an Irish lawyer in New York, William Bourke Cockran, taught Churchill elocution. I knew because it was family legend.”

Cockran, a former teacher from Sligo until he emigrated to New York where he became a prominent lawyer and politician, became romantically involved with Churchill's widowed mother, Jennie Jerome, in Paris. When young Winston, working as a journalist, stopped in New York on the way to cover the Cuban war of independence against Spain in 1895, he stayed at Cockran's Fifth Avenue residence.

Decades later, US politician Adlai Stevenson would write: “I asked the Prime Minster, ‘How do you account for your oratorical ability?’ and the Prime Minister said, ‘It was the New York lawyer Bourke Cockran who taught me to use my voice like a scale of the human emotions, how to hold thousands in thrall. I owe him everything.'"

Churchill’s grandfather, the Duke of Marlborough, was viceroy of Ireland and inhabited what is now Áras an Uachtaráin. Churchill lived in Dublin from the age of two until age six, when his father, Lord Randolph, served as the Duke’s secretary.


Nster.com


37 Comments

15 - 37 | See all comments

It was meant to be ridiculous to show how stupid your post was.You're not half as clever as you think you are.
I was responding to your Yorkshire Post...if you can't give a logica,l argued response, at least you can keep it civil...religion is a badge of the tribe, nothing more...
what happened my post!! What ethnic boundaries I've never heard such a load of codswallop in all my life.The statlet was set up on religious grounds and to use your stupid argument three counties should revert to the republic post haste. You're pathetic Dano!! you should converse with your clone bythebay,a pair of bottom dwellers.
Ireland was divided using religion as the main reason.Using Ethnicity is ridiculous as they claim to be Scots/ Irish,which have a common ethnicity.After all the Irish kingdom of Dal Riada The Irish colonisation of Caledonia. Giving them their language,folklore,religion and the name Scotland,which is derived from an ancient name for Ireland..Your argument lacks credibility.
More accurate analogies were The Schleswig Plebiscites held in parts of Denmark and Germany after WW1. These were agreed because national borders did not coincide with the actual ethnic boundaries of the inhabitants of adjoining states…so the people of each municipality were given the vote to say which state they preferred to join with…on this rationale the prods had a good case for a plebiscite of their own, although none was ever offered
Using your logic if the majority of the citizens of Yorkshire demanded a separate state based on ideology they should have it and to hell with the wishes of the majority!!!
ancavker, you're so thick you don't even know there are Catholic unionists in Northern Ireland UK. You probably don't even know what the Ulster Covenant was. Ignorant you are.
Truth is the unionist weren't asked anything...they were expected to go with the rest of the country, a reasonable expectation from a nationalist point of view...The policy of 'No concessions to Ulster' meant they were not inclined to be pushed into a UI...The pressure came from them, not the UK Gov, who would have preferred to be rid of the whole country...but had to be aware of the 'Realpolitik' at the time...
It was the Ulster Protestants who demanded partition, not the Brits…and a UI may have been less Catholic, but more secular? I doubt it…
Northern Unionist were not asked to accept a "Catholic" state, as such and a united Ireland would have been more secular.The anti Catholicism of the British state and the fear tactics they used to prevent a UI is well documented.The divided states were the result of a British act of parliament against the wishes of the majority.
Ancavker – Partition could and should have been avoided…It required a generosity of spirit on the part of the majority, and a leap of faith on behalf of the minority…neither were forthcoming…You say the border could be ‘simply moved’, it was…which left many nationalists on the ‘wrong side’…as well as the unionists down south…While it’s hard to get into the mindset of people of 1920…to say that the main driver was anti-Catholicism may or may not be true…while bigotry was and is part of the mindset of some unionists, it’s also present in some nationalists too…selling a Gaelic, Catholic state to those who were neither was a stretch…but nobody tried to sell it, reckoning that the north would have to come in on nationalist terms sometime soon…then came the economic war, the 1937 Constitution, WW2 etc etc…each driving the two sides further apart…which brings us to the present…
Dan: Your explanation again is a stretch, to say the least. The huge difference between the two, is simply that the unionists/protestants of Ulster were settled there by force by the British, that historic fact should have been taken into consideration, and it was not. Had it been continental Europe, they like in so many other countries would have been resettled in the mother country, or the borders simply moved. I will even give you the fact that the uninosts/protestants could not be forced into a united Ireland, but they said no in no large measure due to their anti-catholicism. That being said the one glaring fact that you overlook, is how could so many nationalists/catholics be forced into a divided Ireland. Had the boundary commission been implemented as promised by the British, and understood by Collins, Fermanagh and Tyrone never should have been part of northern Ireland, or west Derry, and large chunks of Armagh.This would have left a rump state of perhaps 2 to 2.5 counties,which may have ultimately joined the free state, or if not, it would have at least been overwhelmingly unionist protestant.
It’s now accepted that political unions exist only for as long as each of the constituent member groups wants them to…that was certainly not the case in 1860, or even 1920. So whether or not different states agreed to unite, they are free to withdraw that consent eg Czechs and Slovaks (and I don’t think any US State vote which denied rights to African Americans could be considered entirely legitimate?). While this alone makes Irish independence legitimate, it makes efforts to coerce the majority in the northern part a lot less so…
My observation was just that…that there are certain similarities - for a start you quoted the ‘Curragh Mutiny’, where serving officers resigned their commissions if ordered to ‘go north’…Robert E Lee and many others did exactly that at the outbreak of the US Civil War…that’s not to deny that the Irish people had a right to secede and be independent…but those who did not want to secede had rights too…the failure of each side to recognise the rights (and fears) of the other side led to much avoidable conflict. Incidentally, I think northerners would feel a lot more comfortable in modern Ireland, if it wasn’t for the mess both are in at the moment.
Dano's mantra is his hatred for everything Irish and his lot in life is to object to any nationalist or anti west Brit posts on IC.




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail