Ireland in the 20th century: Commentaries on a selection of pro-treat and anti-treaty handbills

Résumé du document

I decided to examine four documents which are both pro and anti-treaty handbills and pamphlets, in order to understand the arguments put forward by those who supported the treaty in 1921 and those who rejected it. This Anglo-Irish treaty, signed by the British and Irish delegations in December 1921, concluded the war of independence started in January 1919 with the Irish Republic's declaration of independence.

For almost three years, the country was divided between Irish nationalists and the British (the British army, the RIC and the Black and Tans). In such dramatic circumstances, this treaty established the Irish Free State as a self-governing dominion within the British Commonwealth. It also allowed Northern Ireland to opt out of the Irish Free State. Although it apparently provided Ireland a complete control of its resources, this treaty was criticized and rejected by many nationalists who thought it was not sufficient to consider Ireland as independent.

Indeed, the status of dominion comprised in the treaty generated a significant matter for dissent in their minds. As we shall see below with anti-treaty handbills, many people considered that British domination over Ireland would be continued in spite of the treaty. On the other hand, those who defended the treaty considered it was a good compromised which allowed a real independence.

Extraits

[...] The authors of the handbill characterized such oath as a ‘servile' act on the part of Irish. It comes back to the idea that this ‘free' state is in fact still under British domination. Whereas De Valera wanted international recognition of Ireland as an independent Irish Republic”, the treaty brought more freedom but not absolute independence. It means that British were the winners in the negotiations because their main request was accepted. Furthermore, the independence was not total pragmatically speaking, with certain areas where the British still had influence over Irish. [...]

[...] The second phrase written on the handbill implies that the treaty does not create a free state but a state under the domination of Britain sort of thing is slavery?'). This idea also corresponds to the third statement made. This statement suggests that the treaty will not bring economic prosperity but economic starvation. The British would be partly responsible for such economic starvation because as the author of the pamphlet ‘Free State promises are they true?' argues, reduction in the present rates of taxation is highly unlikely. An increase is possible”[1]. [...]

[...] We can note that this text is not only written in English, but also in Irish: it emphasizes the national dimension which is at stake here. As for the soldiers who are dying for the Irish nation (doc people can be part of the national project by voting for the Parliament they want. Both documents are propaganda to make people believe that the treaty was the best way to be independent, the United Kingdom remaining a partner in the Commonwealth[11]. Both those who supported and those who rejected the treaty had good incentives to do it, if we go back to this period. [...]

[...] “Days of decision”, p.241. “Free State promises Are they published by The Republic of Ireland, Dublin, p Chapter 2 and peace: Realpolitik and the acceptance of the Anglo- Irish Treaty' in John M. Regan, The Irish counter-revolution 1921- 1936 (Dublin, 1999), p.37. Chapter 2 and peace: Realpolitik and the acceptance of the Anglo- Irish Treaty' in John M. Regan, The Irish counter-revolution 1921- 1936 (Dublin, 1999), p Chapter 2 and peace: Realpolitik and the acceptance of the Anglo- Irish Treaty' in John M. [...]

[...] Historical events corroborate with this fear of the authors of the handbill because the split between pro and anti-treaty degenerated into a civil war which lasted around two years. This is the chaos brought by this treaty. The second document (document I have studied is another anti-treaty handbill which explains that Irish members of the Parliament will have to take the oath of allegiance which is already taken by members of the British Parliament. It is actually an extract of the treaty[3]. Lyons considers that one of the main issues encountered during the negotiations was the constitutional partition of the new Irish State[4]. [...]