There is a need to retrieve Thomas Russell's reputation from the historical revisionism that has ensued since his execution on the scaffold at Downpatrick on October 21, 1803. Some historians and governments attempt to revise history or rewrite it for a number of reasons, such as to suit a current political viewpoint or maybe there is something about an event or person that they feel needs sanitised. Russell's reputation has suffered from this practice from the time of his trial to the present day.
Attempts had been made to malign Russell's character at his trial. For example the prosecution said he had planned to assassinate members of the gentry in retaliation for the execution of local United Irishmen and that he had lied to the people in 1803 by saying French forces had landed in Ulster. Russell's friend, Mary Anne McCracken, said this was totally out of character for him and her argument can be substantiated by the fact he refused to attack his unarmed assailants while being arrested in Dublin a short time earlier. There were even insinuations that Russell was mentally ill in some way.
Russell's nephew, Captain John Russell, conducted much research into his uncle's life and intended having it published as a book in order to redress the unfair publicity Thomas Russell had received. He abandoned the project due to his friends persuading him that it would jeopardise his livelihood with the military. Captain Russell's unfinished manuscript was passed on to the historian, Dr RR Madden who presented a more balanced picture of Russell, but it was not until 1957 that the first extensive biography was written by Seamus Mac Giolla Easpaig.
Historians today drink heavily from the well of research carried out by Mac Giolla Easpaig, but there is still a tendency for some writers to portray Russell as being out of touch with objective political reality because he failed to ignite a rising in Co Down in July 1803.
My research has discovered that Russell was more of a political pragmatist than he is given credit for today. I have come to recognise that what happened to Russell's plans for Loughinisland was determined more by local politics and personalities than by any lack of support from the local people. Events in Dublin had forced Russell to rush his plans for Co Down, something that was outside his control. Far from being out of touch with reality, Russell had found himself in a situation from which he would not turn back out of loyalty to his colleagues who had committed themselves elsewhere. Russell was probably fully aware of the difficulties he faced in raising support in Down in such a short space of time.
It should not be forgotten that the 1803 Rising was to be completely different from 1798 Rebellion in the sense that it was to be mainly a coup d' etat with the plan to capture the Irish administration while they dined in Dublin Castle. The insurgents were not expecting a mass 1798 turnout and Russell only needed enough supporters to capture the small garrison stationed at Downpatrick.
For historians to argue that Russell's long imprisonment had effected his judgement does not sit well with the fact that he had been accompanied to the north by the Presbyterian weaver, James Hope, who had not been confined and who was a very shrewd and down to earth character. More than 1,000 troops had been deployed to Downpatrick to guard Russell, a footnote that would suggest the authorities feared he had enough support for the United Irishmen to attempt his escape. It is probable that the manner of the Russell trial was also intended to undermine his support.
Very little can be proven about Russell's activities at Loughinisland due to there not being any objective or reliable accounts about what happened. The only primary information source available to historians are accounts of Russell's trial that were published in various newspapers at that time which reported the testimony given by some local people.
It is surprising the number of historians who use testimony given at Russell's trial as a factual and literal account of what happened at Loughinisland in 1803. If people had been arrested on account of Russell's visit to their locality, then there is a possibility they had helped the insurgents. Again this would discount revisionist interpretations about Russell's visit to the district that say he received little or no support.
If individuals are forced to make statements at a trial then can they be reliable? Would it be reasonable to argue that in such situations, testimony can be designed to suit the needs of the prosecution. The Addington Administration in London had been embarrassed by Emmet's Rising in Dublin and as a result wanted to show that although the United Irishmen had been involved in a conspiracy at Loughinisland, they did not receive popular support.
The one thing that can be said with certainty about Russell's activities in Down District in 1803 is that the trial testimony has to be treated with suspicion and the historian will be required to dig deeper to get a clearer understanding of what really happened, if this is possible.
Thomas Russell was able to communicate with and become the friend of Presbyterians and Catholics alike. Gregarious and convivial by nature as he was, in his heart he passionately believed in and worked for the reconciliation of all traditions under a common interest.
The bridges he established and the links and friendships he made were permanent. The affectation and loyalty that he inspired, and reciprocated, endured even during his long imprisonment and after his execution.
This loyalty persisted in the after years when his memory was being officially tarnished for political purposes. This is the side of Russell that is also worth observing. Russell the mixer, the united, the bridge-builder. The spirit which he displayed in his struggle to bond together the different strands of his society is of particular appeal. Perhaps when his motives are better understood, his efforts to build trust and reconciliation will encourage us to face and resolve the problems of our own times.
A Blood Red Autumn: Thomas Russell and the Irish Rising of 1803 is published by Fairy Thorn Press and is £6.95. The Irish News are sponsoring a gala event to mark the bicentenary of Thomas Russell's death on Wednesday September 3 in the Wellington Park Hotel. The seminars will be delivered by James Quinn and John Gray and the event will be chaired by Carmel Hanna. Tickets cost £3 and £5 and are available by sending a stamped address envelope to Carmel Hanna's Constituency Office, 17 Elmwood Mews, Belfast BT9 6BD. Although tickets for the event have proved very popular there may be some available at the door on the night of the event.
