The creation of the Irish Free State in 1922
The eclipse of the Irish nationalist and republican revolution
I continue today with my reflections on Ireland, drawing upon Ireland, Colonialism, and the Unfinished Revolution by Robbie McVeigh and Bill Rolston, published by Haymarket Books in 2023 and by Beyond the Pale Books, Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 2021. In my previous commentary of November 7, I discussed English colonialism in Ireland, in which I maintained that the norms and structures of English colonialism in Ireland from 1511 to 1922 were fully consistent with the patterns of Western European conquest and colonial domination of the Americas, Asia, and Africa from 1492 to 1914.
Sinn Féin, meaning “We Ourselves,” was founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith for the purpose of establishing an independent national legislature endowed with the moral authority of the Irish nation. It further advocated an Anglo-English dual monarchy under the British Crown.
In what became known as the Easter Rising, rebels seized and took over a number of key locations in Dublin. The Rising began on April 24, 1916, and was put down after six days. The Rising was announced by The Proclamation of the Republic, which was read by Patrick Pearce and issued by the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army. The Proclamation included announcement of an effort to attain independence through force of arms, with the goal of forming a republic. It declared the right of the people of Ireland to sovereign control of the destiny of Ireland. It promised universal suffrage, without distinction on the basis of religion or sex. Following the suppression of the uprising and the arrest of its participants, all seven signatories of the Proclamation were executed by the British military, which stimulated greater support for the republican cause.
Many Sinn Féin members participated in the Rising, and it was erroneously reported in the Irish mainstream press that Sinn Fein organized the Rising. This prompted many republicans to unite under the banner of Sinn Féin, which led to its radicalization. In 1917, the Sinn Féin Party committed itself for the first time to the establishment of an Irish Republic.
In the runup to the 1918 UK general elections, Sinn Féin emitted The Manifesto to the Irish People, in which it took a clear position for republic and against imperialism. The Manifesto declared:
“The coming General Election is fraught with vital possibilities for the future of our nation. Ireland is faced with the question whether this generation wills it that she is to march out into the full sunlight of freedom, or is to remain in the shadow of a base imperialism that has brought and ever will bring in its train naught but evil for our race. Sinn Féin gives Ireland the opportunity of vindicating her honour and pursuing with renewed confidence the path of national salvation by rallying to the flag of the Irish Republic.”
McVeigh and Rolston maintain that there were four important components in the Sinn Féin platform. First, withdrawal from the UK Parliament in Westminster. Secondly, the use of any and all available means to nullify the imposition of the power of England on Ireland. Thirdly, the establishment of an Irish constitutional assembly composed of Irish representatives. And fourthly, an appeal to the Paris Peace Conference for recognition of the establishment of Ireland as an independent nation.
In the 1918 elections, the Irish electorate supported Sinn Féin by a strong majority. The Sinn Féin Party won seventy-three of Ireland’s 105 seats in the UK Parliament. Sinn Fein’s MPs did not occupy the seats, in accordance with the Party’s policy of abstentionism. Instead, they assembled in Dublin and proclaimed themselves Dáil Éireann, the Parliament of Ireland. In its first acts, the Dáil approved its founding documents: a Declaration of Independence; a Message to the Free Nations of the World; and the Democratic Programme of the Parliament of Ireland. The Declaration affirmed:
“Whereas at the threshold of a new era in history the Irish electorate has in the General Election of December, 1918, seized the first occasion to declare by an overwhelming majority its firm allegiance to the Irish Republic:
“Now, therefore, we, the elected Representatives of the ancient Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command.”
Great Britain did not recognize the new republic, which prompted the newly proclaimed Irish Republic to seek to attain recognition through military means in a war of independence. After two years of guerilla war against the British army and reprisals, both sides were economically overextended. They had arrived to stalemate, as neither the Irish Republican Army nor the forces of the British Crown were able to inflict sufficient damage to attain military victory.
The conflict was brought to formal end with the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 6, 1921. The Treaty established a Free State with dominion status in the British Empire, a status shared with Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa. The Treaty gave six parliamentary counties of “Northern Island”—strategically selected to ensure a Protestant majority—the option of withdrawing from the Irish Free State within one month of the Treaty coming into effect. The Treaty also endorsed the creation of a Boundary Commission, which would be empowered to draw up the boundaries between Northern Island and the Irish Free State, in the event that Northern Ireland opted to separate. The Treaty thus ended the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, established in 1801.
The Treaty also stipulated the withdrawal of British troops from most of Ireland, with three Treaty Ports (Berehaven, Cóbh and Lough Swilly) continuing under the control of the British Navy. In addition, it mandated that the Irish Free State assume responsibility for a proportionate part of UK’s debt. Furthermore, the Treaty gave itself priority in the event of any contradiction with Irish law.
The Treaty established that the King of England would be the Head of State of the Irish Free State, represented by a Governor General. Members of the new parliament of the Irish Free State would be required to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Irish Free State, which included a section swearing loyalty to His Majesty George V and his legal heirs and successors.
The partition was regarded by the Irish Free State as temporary, inasmuch as the Treaty asserted that the agreement was being made “with a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland.” But on December 3, 1925, the Free State made an agreement with the governments of Great Britain and Northern Island, in which the Free State accepted the existing boundary with North Ireland, in exchange for ending the Treaty requirement that the Free State pay a proportionate share of the UK debt. The agreement, which gave greater legitimacy and permanence to partition, was approved by the Dáil of Ireland in a vote of 71-20 on December 10, 1925.
There was significant opposition to the Treaty from Irish republicans, because of the partition of the country as well as the requirement of allegiance to the King. Among the opponents was Cathal Brugha, Chief of Staff of the IRA from 1917 to 1919. He characterized the treaty as “committing national suicide.” He described the Treaty before the Dáil on January 7, 2022, as “breaking the national tradition that has been handed down through centuries…doing for the first time a thing that no generation thought of doing before—willfully, voluntarily admitting ourselves to be British subjects, and taking the oath of allegiance voluntarily to an English king….”
On the other hand, the Treaty was defended as what was attainable in the context of the military exhaustion of the new Republic and threats by Great Britain to launch a full-scale military attack if the Treaty were not approved. Michael Collins defended the Treaty as a stepping stone. He declared before the Díal on December 19, 1921, in the midst of charged debates, that the Treaty “gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire and develop but the freedom to achieve it.”
The Treaty was endorsed by the Díal of Ireland after nine days of debate on January 7, 1922. It was passed by a vote of sixty-four votes in favor, and fifty-seven opposed.
According to its terms, the Treaty had to be affirmed by the “Parliament of Southern Ireland,” which had been established by the British Parliament in 1920, in response to the Declaration of Independence by the Dáil in 1919. However, the Parliament of Southern Ireland had never met, inasmuch as all but four of its elected members were members of Sinn Féin, who had formed the Dáil of Ireland. In accordance with this provision of the Treaty, the Parliament of Southern Parliament met on January 14, 1922, for the purpose of ratifying the Treaty. The Anti-Treaty members of the Dáil of Ireland absented themselves from this unusual assembly. The “Parliament of Southern Ireland” ratified the Treaty and nominated Michael Collins as Chair of the provisional government of the new state. It then dispersed, never to meet again.
The establishment of the Irish Free State also required legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the UK Parliament approved the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, which became law on March 31, 2022.
The newly created Irish Free State called a general election on June 18, 1922. Pro-Treaty and Anti-Treaty factions contested the elections, both calling themselves Sinn Féin. The Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin won the election with 239,193 votes, against 133,864 for Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin. A greater number voted for other parties, most of which supported the Treaty. The Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin boycotted the parliament that was formed, which called itself the ‘Third Dáil’, so that the political process of constructing a viable state went forward without them. The Third Dáil reconstituted itself as a constitutional assembly, resulting in The Constitution of the Irish Free State, approved by this Third Dáil on December 6, 1922. Thus, the Irish Free State formally came into being.
The Irish Republican Army was also divided over the Treaty. Opposition within the IRA intensified as British institutions were transferred to the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State, a process that was initiated on January 16, 2022. On April 15, anti-Treaty IRA militants, led by Rory O’Connor, occupied several buildings in central Dublin. The Provisional Government appointed Collins Commander-in-Chief of a new National Army, and bombardment of the occupied buildings was initiated on June 27. The Minister of Defense of the Provisional Government called upon the people to protect the country from “a madness from within.” For its part, the IRA appealed to the people to support the cause of the Irish Republic against the treachery of Irish turncoats.
The forces of the occupied buildings surrendered after three days of bombardment, but pitched battles continued until July 5, leaving sixty-five people dead. The Free State government was in firm control of Dublin, but anti-Treaty forces were dispersed throughout the country, and they held control in Cork, Limerick, and Waterford. Subsequent government victories in the cities forced the anti-Treaty IRA to adopt guerrilla warfare strategies that had been used in the war against the British.
Michael Collins, Chairman of the Provisional Government and Commander-in-Chief of the National Army, was killed in an ambush by anti-Treaty republicans on August 22, 1922. His assassination raised doubts with respect to the viability of the Provisional Government. In measures adopted in September and October of 1922, the government expanded its military and judicial powers and authorized harsh punishments, which in the view of McVeigh and Rolston, “reprised the coercive methodologies of Ireland’s colonial past.”
Michael Collins is a historical figure who continues to generate debates in social media today. Collins was a participant in the Easter Rising of 1916, and he was present among the Sinn Féin who declared the Irish Republic in 1919. He was Director of Intelligence of the IRA during the revolutionary war with Great Britain, earning fame as a guerrilla warfare strategist using a tactic of sudden attack and quick withdrawal. As Chairman of the Provisional Government of Ireland, he defended the Anglo-Irish Treaty, but at the same time covertly provided support of an IRA offensive in Northern Ireland. He also was appointed as Commander-in-Chief of the National Army during the Civil War with the IRA. Collins was assassinated on August 22, 1922, apparently by a member of the Anti-Treaty IRA who previously had been an officer and sniper in the British Army. Some 500,000 people attended the funeral mass, held at St. Mary’s Pro-Cathedral in Dublin.
On October 11, 1922, the Irish Catholic hierarchy issued a pastoral letter approved by the Provisional Government that condemned the anti-Treaty forces and called upon them to “recognize the lawful government.” The letter mandated denial of the sacraments and Catholic burial to anti-Treaty volunteers, and it implicitly sanctioned extra-judicial killings by the government. McVeigh and Rolston maintain that the intervention of the Catholic hierarchy, along with the death of IRA Chief-of-Staff Liam Lynch, were crucial factors in bringing stability to the twenty-six counties that formed the territories of the Irish Free State. Frank Aiken, the new IRA Chief-of-Staff, issued an order suspending the IRA offensive, maintaining that the Republic could no longer be defended through the force of arms. Éamon de Valera, the leader of anti-Treaty Sinn Fein and former President of the First and Second dáilaí, issued a statement supporting the suspension of the offensive.
Thus, by 1922, it was clear that the people of Ireland had to accept partition. Through the struggle of 1916 to 1922, they had attained status as a dominion in the British Empire with respect to twenty-six of the thirty-two counties of Ireland. But this was far less than the Republic proclaimed in 1916 and endorsed by the electorate of the whole of Ireland in 1918.
Irish nationalism’s inconsistent opposition to British Empire
As late as the 1917 Party Conference of Sinn Féin, the Party had not yet arrived to consensus with respect to the question of monarchy versus republic. Moreover, it had not yet defined its orientation with respect to the question of solidarity with the rest of the colonized world. Indeed, some of its members were seeking to establish for Ireland a unique capacity to share imperial power and benefits with Great Britain in the administration of the British Empire.
Accordingly, McVeigh and Rolston maintain that anti-imperialism did not emerge naturally out of Irish nationalism. As I observed in the November 7 commentary on “English colonialism in Ireland,” an ideological tendency of “Irish nationalist imperialism” was afforded structural support by the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. This ideological tendency was reinforced by the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922, because it rendered impossible the attainment of the goals of Irish republicanism. Not only because it recognized Ireland as independent only with respect to twenty-six of the thirty-two counties of Ireland, but also because the carving of six counties out of the territory of the Irish nation condemned the newly independent nation to a crippled form of independence, deprived of the nation’s most important commercial and industrial companies and resources.
Many Irish nationalists and republicans advocated for acceptance of the Treaty, because Britain was threatening to unleash a brutal invasion if the Treaty were not approved, and because they believed that Northern Island could and would be incorporated into a reunited island through future political and/or military means. We know today that they were wrong. The source of their error was that they did not see, and they could not possibly have seen, that an Irish state deprived of its most important industrial and commercial center would be too weak to accomplish the eventual reunification of the island.
We know today that the principal challenge of a newly independent nation is the promotion of the economic development of the nation, made underdeveloped by colonialism and the peripheralization of its economy. It has limited resources to accomplish this task, because its colonized economy has been structured to take advantage of its forced and cheap labor to export raw materials. Compounding this economic problem, there is the political problem posed by imperialism. When a colony becomes politically independent, the formal colonial power mobilizes its resources—including its extraordinary capacity for hypocrisy, cynicism, and persistent repetition of untruths—in order to ensure that it will continue to have control over the natural and human resources of its former colony, thereby continuing on its road of economic expansion and development at the expense of the conquered and colonized.
The once colonized peoples of the Third World know today what no one knew in the early 1920s. They have learned it in struggle. Many Third World leaders today have inherited a legacy of struggle against the imperialist maneuvers of the former colonial powers and the new hegemonic power, which have persisted in their dark efforts to maintain control of the once-colonized economies. The most exceptional leaders have arrived to understand the kinds of steps that a post-colonial state must take to keep the imperialist wolves at bay and to direct the construction of a developing economy, an economy gradually but definitely increasing its productive capacity, in accordance with the sovereign political will of the people. They understand that the primary task is the formulation of a national development plan that emphasizes increasing the productive capacity of the nation on the basis of the mobilization of the nation’s economic, human, and natural resources. This national mobilization must be supplemented by foreign partners willing to trade and invest in support of the national project, who cooperate because they too benefit from the partnership. It is a question of seeking mutual beneficial trade with other nations, including nations that also are developing as well as companies in developed nations that find such cooperative economic agreements beneficial in one way or another. This task confronts the challenge of developing such cooperative agreements step by step, in spite of the determined opposition of the imperialist powers, who recognize that economically sound projects of cooperation are structural threats to their imperialist agendas.
Looked at from the vantage point of lessons learned in worldwide anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, the worst thing that a people seeking independence can do is to concede to the colonial power its continuing control over a territory that includes the nation’s most important commercial and industrial center. In the case of Ireland, as McVeigh and Rolston point out, northeast Ireland was the industrial center of the country, where the main industries of shipbuilding and heavy engineering were generating the accumulation of capital as well as relatively high-waged labor. This commercial and industrial zone would have been central for mobilizing national resources as well as attracting foreign investment for a newly independent Republic of Ireland that possessed internationally recognized authority over the whole of the national territory.
Not only was the Irish Free State deprived of territory that was a natural part of the Irish nation, it also confronted a twofold lack of cooperation. In the first place, there was not cooperation forthcoming from “Northern Ireland,” where political power had been ceded to a relatively recent settler population that had not been integrated into the national project for an independent republic. And secondly, there was not cooperation from Great Britain, which remained persistent in its desire to keep its former colony in a condition of economic dependency and to preserve an economically advantaged relation with the whole of Ireland.
When Irish nationalists and republicans accepted a treaty that left the nation’s industrial commercial center out of their control, they crippled their capacity to carry forward the next stage of struggle following independence. They left themselves incapacitated to carry forward the struggle for economic development. The Irish Free State was left in a position of dependency on England for the most fundamental needs of its people, with insufficient economic and social resources to confront England’s imperialist economic policies.
From the vantage point of the wisdom of today, we can say that the decision of Irish nationalists and republicans to accept the 1921 Treaty was a historic error. But those leaders whose comportment was in other ways patriotic should be pardoned. No one in the early 1920s could possibly understand the economic pitfalls that confront newly independent nations. Even the great anti-colonial revolutionaries of the Third World were not beginning to understand it until the 1950s and the 1960s. The great minds of the Western world, of course, did not even have a desire to understand it, so they were wallowing in ethnocentric misconceptions. The peoples and movements of the Third World have gradually arrived to understand the economic pitfalls of independence, arriving to understanding in the context of their own national struggles for development. They are today formulating and implementing strategies to circumvent the obstacles that have been placed before them.
Today, in the context of a capitalist world-economy and neocolonial world-system in structural crisis and decadence, there is the possibility for a renewed Irish republicanism and a reunited Ireland to cooperate with the nations of the Global South in the construction of a more just, pluripolar, and sustainable world-system. If an awakened Irish people were to accomplish such national renewal, they would be warmly welcomed in solidarity and as brothers and sisters in anti-imperialist struggle by the peoples of the Third World.
I will continue with my reflections on Ireland in subsequent posts.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigation.
Follow me on Twitter: Charles McKelvey@CharlesMcKelv14