Editing Oath of Allegiance (Ireland) (section)

==Reaction==

The oath was largely the work of [[Michael Collins (Irish leader)|Michael Collins]], based in its open lines on a draft oath suggested by the [[President of Dáil Éireann|President of the Republic]], [[Éamon de Valera]], and also on the oath of the [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]]. In fact, Collins cleared the oath with the IRB ''before'' proposing it during the treaty negotiations.<ref>Coogan, ''Michael Collins'', p. 234</ref> By the standards of the oaths of allegiance to be found in other British Commonwealth [[Dominion]]s, it was quite mild, with no ''direct'' personal Oath to the monarch, only an indirect oath of fidelity by virtue of the King's role in the treaty settlement as "King in Ireland", a figurehead position. The public perception among those who were hostile to the treaty was that it was an offensive oath due to its inclusion of the British monarch.<ref>Coogan, ''Michael Collins'', pp. 234–276.</ref> In their view:

* The oath was an acceptance of a common citizenship between Ireland and Britain under King George and therefore was in total contravention to the oath to the Irish Republic which they had previously taken.<ref name=DEDebate1921>Dáil Éireann – Volume 3–19 December 1921 debate on treaty {{cite web|url=http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.T.192112190002.html |title=Dáil Éireann - Volume 3 - 19 December, 1921 - DEBATE ON TREATY |access-date=4 March 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721130127/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.T.192112190002.html |archive-date=21 July 2011 }}</ref>
* They rebutted the argument that it was simply an oath to the constitution by pointing out that the constitution itself made the King head of state and it was therefore the same as an oath of allegiance to him directly.<ref name=DEDebate1921 />
* They felt that the people had voted for a party which claimed it would fight for a full Republic and they could not accept something lesser without a fresh mandate from the people.<ref name=DEDebate1921 />

In contrast to this Pro-treaty campaigners declared that:

* The Oath of Allegiance was actually "true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State" (a line drafted by de Valera in his own proposed oath). The reference to the King involved a promise of ''fidelity'', not an Oath of ''Allegiance''.
* The fidelity to the King was not to him as ''British'' monarch but "in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations", in other words, in his role as the ''symbol'' of the Treaty settlement, ''not'' as British ''King''.

The Collins 22 Society later said of the anti-treaty position, the idea that the oath "was a direct oath to the Crown [was] a fact demonstrably incorrect by an examination of its wording. But in 1922 Ireland and beyond, it was the perception, not the reality, which influenced public debate on the issue."<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/life-times/saorstat-eireann/| title=The Irish Free State (1922-1937) Saorstát Éireann| publisher=Collins 22 Society| access-date=3 January 2015| archive-date=3 January 2015| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150103195808/http://www.generalmichaelcollins.com/life-times/saorstat-eireann/| url-status=live}}</ref>

As the Oath was effectively to the elected government in the Irish Free State, it was also described as the "Crown in Ireland". Opposition to this was based on the fact that it was not fully discussed and explained before the [[Anglo-Irish Treaty]] was signed in December 1921, and that many of the members of the second [[Dáil Éireann]], elected without opposition in May 1921, had already sworn an Oath to uphold an [[Irish Republic]].