Collins de Valera Pact Query

bobbyss

I have been reading about this of late if anyone would care to put me right on a few things I would be most obliged.

The whole idea of the pact was to stave off division and a war. To try and bring some unity to Sinn Fein.

1. However what specifically were the panels all about? How did they work?

For example, lets say there is an existing constituency form the 1921 election with 6 sitting TDs in it: 3 SF, 1 Labour, 1 Independent and 1 Farmer and now for the 1922 election there are 13 candidates including those 6 sitting TDs. The voters have 13 candidates to vote from. Let's imagine the only thing on their mind is the treaty. They would already know which of the SF candidates are pro or anti Treaty. (So what's the point of the pact as regards candidates not speaking about it?)

How is the above scenario dealt with by the Pact.

Collins was called to London and criticized by Lloyd George for not letting the voters openly vote on the treaty.

1. In the end, Collins shortly before the election said to voters ; vote for whoever you want to. (Maybe because of being 'told off' by Lloyd George for not having an open and transparent election.) But Collins knew already that. He did not need to be told that it was not an open election so why the did he change his mind about who to vote for?

Most grateful for any replies.

mattser

3...2....1....

bobbyss

I will change that numbering ! A constituency of 3 sitting SF TDs now joined in the 1922 election by farmers, Independents and Labour all vying for the seats. How the panel effects voter choice?

Peregrinus

As far as I can see, it doesn't limit voters choice, except indirectly. The voter can still vote for (say) the pro-Treaty SF candidates, then all the other pro-Treaty candidates, and only then give preferences to the anti-Treaty candidates, or give them no preferences at all. The Pact was an agreement that the candidates wouldn't campaign against one another on the issue of the Treaty and would commit to entering an SF government with other SF candidates of opposite views, but it didn't (and couldn't) dictate how the voters would cast their votes, and what significance the voters would attach to each candidate's position on the Treaty.

But it could indirectly limit the ability of the voters to do this. Because SF candidates didn't campaign on the issue of the Treaty, a voter might not know, or might not find it easy to find out, what each candidate's position was. Plus, because of the agreement not to oppose sitting TDs, in some constituencies voters might not have had a pro-Treaty (or anti-Treaty) SF candidate, or their might not have been enough pro- (or anti-) Treaty SF candidates to give full representation to the votes. So, while the pact didn't prevent voters from voting to express a judgment about the Treaty, it probably did impede their ability to do so effectively and clearly.

bobbyss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119914004#Comment_119914004

Thanks for your response. It is appreciated.

A few points.

1. In the 1922 election all the sitting TDs are all SF. After a year the voters would know full well what position their SF TDs hold re the Treaty and vote accordingly?
2. The Pact was designed by Collins and de Valera to suppress a vote on the Treaty. Why did Collins disavow the Pact shortly before the election? He did not need Churchill to remind him that the agreed coalition with a pro and Anti Treaty SF cabinet was going to be impossible as regards approving the Treaty?
3. Finally what exactly is an uncontested constituency/election? What are the circumstances under which an election in a constituency becomes uncontested?

Many thanks

Peregrinus

1. Most of the sitting TDs would have voted one way or the other on the Treaty during the Treaty debates six months before the election. But the individual voter wouldn't necessarily know, or remember, the voting record of each TD plus of course there would be candidates in the election who weren't sitting TDs, so didn't have a voting record. Plus, per the Pact, SF candidates' views on the Treaty weren't supposed to be campaigned on, one way or the other, so the voter might have to do a bit of work to find out what they were; not all voters would do that work. Plus plus, in some constituencies all the SF candidates were on one side of the question so voters didn't have the opportunity to vote the other way — e.g. in Dublin North the four sitting SF TDs were all pro-Treaty. They all stood again and, because of the pact, they were not opposed by any anti-Treaty SF candidate. The only other candidate in North Dublin was a Labour candidate, also pro-Treaty. Any Dublin North voters wishing to cast an anti-Treaty vote had no-one to vote for.
2. I don't think the Pact was designed to "suppress a vote on the Treaty"; it was designed to prevent a split in Sinn Fein. (As we know, ultimately, it failed.) The fact that it made the election results difficult to interpret as an expression of the voters' views on the Treaty was a by-product.
3. If the number of candidates nominated is equal to the number of seats to the filled, no vote is held and all nominated candidates are deemed to be elected. This is described as an uncontested election. This happened in several constituencies in the 1922 election — e.g. Donegal, a six-seat constituency, had six sitting SF TDs (four pro-Treaty and two anti-Treaty); they all stood again; because of the Pact they were not opposed by any other SF candidate; no other candidates were nominated; all six were returned as TDs without a vote.

Jolly Red Giant

A bit late coming to this - but I have a few minutes.

There was no election in 1921 - so all the TDs were unopposed SF members.

The 'Pact' was primarily designed to force non-SF candidates out of the election, specifically the Labour Party. The election occurred during a massive strike wave that was hitting the country, including the Munster Soviets. The SF leadership - both factions - were deeply worried that the LP would end up getting a massive vote. Part of the plan for the 'Pact' was to get the Farmers Party to withdraw their candidates - the Farmers Party agreed not to run in any constituency that had no LP candidate. After that the SF leadrship went on a major campaign of persuading, forcing, intimidating, etc LP candidates to withdraw - and they succeeded in many constituencies, often at the point of a gun. The timing of the end of the pact was key - Collins pulled the plug the day after nominations closed - demonstrating that it was about stopping non-SF candidates than any real attempt to prevent the country sliding into civil war. Indeed Collins stated in the closing days of the election that a prime objective of the pro-Treaty side was the crushing of the strikes and soviets that had broken out.

The result of the election showed that the danger of the LP seriously damaging both wings of SF was real. The LP ran 18 candidates - 17 were elected and the losing candidate lost by 13 votes. In several constituencies the LP got over 40% of the vote. If the LP had run two candidates in each of the 13 constituencies where they did stand they would have won 24-25 seats (winning most of the extra seats from pro-Treaty SF). If the LP had stood in every constituency then they would certainly have had more TDs than anti-Treaty SF and possibly could have been the biggest political group ahead of both wings of SF.

The 'Pact' was never designed to bring about some reconciliation after the election - by June 1922 a civil war was inevitable as both wings of the IRA scrambled to get control of weapons. The only thing that could have prevented a nationalist civil war was a revolutionary upheaval led by the workers movement - a task that the leadership of the workers movement was sadly ill-prepared for and actively sabotaged.

bobbyss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120271615#Comment_120271615

Thank you very much Jolly.

BalcombeSt4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120271615#Comment_120271615

Yes, both anti & pro treaty forces were very much against any working class militancy or social/economic revolution.

Sean Moylan an anti-treaty fighter said in the Dail in 1946

"I Know what the IRA were doing, in 1920-21, they were engaged in an unselfish struggle for the freedom of this country... I remember very well a discussion by IRA HQ officers, and the question cleaning up the cattle dive in Mayo. And they were cleaned up by the IRA & the Mayo IRA".

Another anti-treaty TD for Dail described land seizures as "a menace to the Republic" and that "the mind of the people was being diverted from the struggle for freedom by class war".

They went on a lot about the "minds of the people" back then as if the populace were unruly school children, and Dev being a strict teacher probably saw things that way.

Writer Sean O'Faolain put it very well when he wrote "The policy of Sinn Fein has always been, since it's foundation, that simple formula: (Political) Freedom first, other things afterwards"