Madam, - For once, I have to applaud Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, May 23rd) and the way he has highlighted the State's neglect of its non-violent heroes, as opposed to its violent ones.
He mentions, in particular, the downplaying of the memory of Daniel O'Connell. Yet not only was O'Connell probably a more effective nationalist than his militant rivals, but also a vastly more popular one.
The crowds which attended the topping-out of his memorial were among the largest the city has ever seen.
Other non-violent figures are also ignored. What about Isaac Butt, or John Redmond, or John Dillon? Or any of the old Parnellites who got us land reform and increased local government and paved the way to national independence? - Yours, etc,
EAMON DELANEY, Pembroke Road, Dublin 4.
Madam, - I read Fintan O'Toole's latest column with interest. To depict O'Connell, whose family served in French and British armed forces with his apparent approval, as opposed to "gunmen" is surely ahistorical? When one considers the praise O'Connell lavished on Irishmen in the British Army, and on the gallantry of Wellington, it is questionable. When one considers the killing by O'Connell of d'Esterre in a duel, it is decidedly rum.
Consider the oath taken by O'Connell, following the granting of "emancipation" to Catholics, alongside the 1916 Proclamation (both can be read on the Internet). Which is the more democratic document? Consider the 1916 promise of universal adult suffrage. Consider beside it the price paid for "emancipation" - the disfranchisement of the Forty Shilling Freeholders and the shrinkage of the Irish electoral roll to almost zero.
I can't recall O'Connell ever describing himself as a democrat. But he definitely did proclaim himself a Benthamite utilitarian, holding the greatest happiness of the greatest number as his ideal and his object.
Which does more to further Benthamite aims - the 1916 Proclamation or the 1829 disfranchisement?
O'Connell failed utterly in his primary object - the repeal of the Union. And more Irish died of famine in the 1840s than died in battle in 300 years. The struggle of 1916-1921 was partially successful, and resulted in a net saving of lives through seeing off the threat of conscription in two global and many colonial wars. - Yours, etc,
DONAL KENNEDY, London N13
Madam, - Fintan O'Toole notes that the Government has shown very little interest in recalling Michael Davitt's contribution to the breaking up of the landed aristocracy in Ireland.
It is worth noting that Davitt was attracted to the notion of land nationalisation and was influenced by Henry George, who wrote a highly popular and widely read book, Progress and Poverty (1879). George argued that increases in land values should be captured for the state through land value taxation.
Nowadays the debate about how to capture for the community the immense windfall profits created by planning decisions emerges periodically. As a means of commemorating Davitt we would do well to recall his ideas and consider their relevance to that debate. - Yours, etc,
TOM DUNNE, Head, School of Real Estate and Construction Economics, DIT, Bolton Street, Dublin 8.