The Dáil Debates: the premises of the split? (14th of December 1921 ? 7th of January 1922)

Résumé du document

After the Anglo-Irish war of 1919-1921, the British government proposed in July 1921 to negotiate a Treaty with the Cabinet of the Dáil. The five plenipotentiaries sent by the Cabinet signed a Treaty on the 6th of December 1921, by which Ireland was granted a large autonomy, but was split into two and had to remain within the Commonwealth. There is a contradiction between the pivotal role of those debates, which are regarded as the premise of the split and the civil war and the "tragic comedy" described by the Irish Times on the final day of the Treaty debates. We will try to understand why the Dáil debates can be regarded as the premises of the split between Free Staters and Republicans, by looking at the content of the debates and at the mechanisms and the functioning of the debates. Did the divide between both sides appear as a genuine divide on principles or a "quibble of words" triggered by personal rivalries within the cabinet?

Extraits

[...] This alternative treaty proposed by de Valera was said to be a plausible alternative which would bring improvements to the treaty signed on the 6th of December. The strategy of de Valera was to keep secret alternative plan, of which so much has been heard and so little really known”[18] so that the deputies would reject the treaty just to know the alternative[19]. Mr de Valera also used his alternative treaty by trying to submit it to the vote, in order to confuse the Dáil and move the debates away from the ratification of the treaty. [...]

[...] Curran also assumes that one of the errors made by Collins and Griffith is that they refused to have a debate on Document no2. Such a debate would have shown that this alternative was very similar to the signed treaty, which would have discredited de Valera[24]. The Dáil debates are therefore very confused and both sides use tactics rather than arguments in order to secure a majority in the Dáil. The speeches became repetitive and were only rhetorical efforts. The two sides had to resort to tactics and tried to denounce the tactics of the other side, which created tensions between them. [...]

[...] Indeed, the personal influences of the two leaders were decisive. A lot of anti-treaty members of the Dáil said the only reason why the treaty was passed was because Collins had a lot of influence on the IRB Supreme Council and on the IRA General Headquarters[8]. The speech Cathal Brugha made on the day of the vote, dismissing Collins' importance during the war and explicitly saying that he was a subordinate with little importance is another example of the importance of rivalries during the Dáil Debates. [...]

[...] The newspapers noted this tendency: statement that the Irish army would be governed by the King of England was just as true as if it was said that the Irish flag would be the Union Jack”[15]. Kathleen O'Callaghan's speech was sentimental: said that the deputies might vote this country within the Empire but [ ] where her husband and others lay was Republican ground and she defied them to violate But the Republican side also used threats, and it did so because lots of the members of the IRA were attached to the idea of a Republic. [...]

[...] The end of the Treaty debates: the premises of the civil war The vote took place on the 7th of January. After the Treaty was ratified by 64 votes against 57, it soon appeared that the anti-treaty side was not going to accept the choice of the Dáil: resolution recommending a certain treaty for ratification is not a legal act”[25]. This behaviour can only be seen as the announcement of a deeper split between the two sides, which the Irish Times quickly understood: conflict in Ireland must now be a civil conflict between Irishmen and Irishmen”[26]. [...]