lºsiºn High BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL By F. MAX MULLER - --> - Six times a week ------pril --- THE QUESTION OF RIGHT BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL *** By F. MAx MüLLER office of publication: Rooms 2128-29-30-31, Park Row Building THE QUESTION OF RIGHT BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSV.A.A.L." In letters to my friends I have so often expressed my views, founded, as I believe them to be, on historical facts, about the controversy between Lord Salisbury and President Krüger that it has finally seemed to me advisable to write them down once for all, for publication. I am assured, al- though I can scarcely believe it, that German journalists, who usually study all questions of international rights most con- scientiously, have this time permitted themselves to be taken in tow by such people as Doctor Leyds and Rochefort; that the Agrarians are enthusiastically for the republic; that the Catholics admire the Capuchin sermons of Krüger; in short, that the Germans no longer seek their allies of the future in England and America, but rather in France and Russia. They will seek a long time! It is to be hoped that before it is too late Germans will discover that blood is thicker than ink; and that the Saxons of Germany, England, and America are and will remain in the future, as in the past, true comrades in arms for freedom, manliness, and faithfulness. The extracts given in the “Times” from German papers perhaps fulfil their object if they amuse their readers at the breakfast-tables, in spite of the fact that English morning papers are now far from amusing. Although many of my German friends and comrades in thought have permitted themselves to be carried away with sympathy for the weaker party, nevertheless there are states- Originally printed in the “Deutsche Revue,” April, 1900. 3 4. THE QUESTION OF RIGHT men, even in the highest circles, who recognize neither a right in weakness or a right in power, but simply seek the right, and cannot be intimidated either by cannon or Cape Colony gold. That I am not afraid to express my opinion quite frankly, however unpopular it may be in my old or my new country, I think I have proved conclusively. At the time of the Dan- ish war, when the whole of England was enthusiastically in favor of weak Denmark, the native land of the princess of Wales, and would hear nothing about the rights of the Ger- man Confederacy, I simply pointed to the proceedings and the error of the Danish ministry in annexing Schleswig, although it belonged to the German Confederacy by the consent of other nations; this was the cause of all the following evil, but also of the good, for Schleswig-Holstein became, as is said, the match that kindled German unity. In spite of the not very pleasant attacks of the “Times” and of almost all the English papers, my opinion prevailed in the end, and, when- the Englishman returned to his senses, he gladly forgave me my somewhat severe remarks. But even worse was in store for me during a period of the Franco-Prussian war. I firmly believed that the best sympathies of England were on the Ger- man side, but every one, from the prime minister down to the anonymous correspondent of the newspapers, howled at me, and made it hard for me to live in England. In spite of this, however, truth finally prevailed. Of the two collections for the wounded which were made in Oxford, one in the palace of the duke of Marlborough for the benefit of the French, the other in my little house for the bene- fit of the Germans, the latter was decidedly the larger. Peo- ple would be amazed, should I only mention some of the orna- ments, rings, and bracelets–to say nothing of enormous gifts for the hospitals, which were then sent in cash and in heavy BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL 5 chests to the German army with never a thought of the Bis- marckian principle, “dout des.” - I mention this only to show that popularity means little for me, whether in England or Germany; and therefore, if this time I write what may not be pleasant to my German friends, I simply do it from the deepest conviction and affection for my old friends and countrymen, without being influenced by either one side or the other. Just as the “Times” opens its columns to me provided I do not write anonymously or under a - pseudonym, so I know will the German papers do. Germany has not yet sunk so low as not to give an opponent a chance to speak. “Fight, but listen,” is a precept of impartiality, which nowhere is or was more esteemed than in Germany. I do not claim that I have anything very new to say; I hope only to throw another and a clearer light on the facts as they are, and are known. To resolve all doubt, I acknowledge at once that the English nation and the English government seem to me to have acted on the whole most justly. The fact that certain members of parliament were permitted to express undisturbed what seem to me to be highly treasonable opinions is a proof of the complete, even if sometimes too unlimited, freedom of thought and speech under a constitutional govern- ment. The Englishman thinks, it amuses them and does not hurt us, and gladly avoids any public scandal. How is it that these shriekers, to say nothing of French shriekers and spies, have found in Germany an echo to their shrieks? The Germans can no longer be accused of envy to- ward England. They are now too great for that. They know now what is due to themselves. To judge by results is not the German’s way. It is indeed quite true that the Boers, those pious, innocent lambs of the Transvaal, have apparently been very successful. One can be 6 THE QUESTION OF RIGHT almost glad of it, for now the whimpering about the weak and suddenly surprised Boers must cease. In Germany people know what it means to cross the Rhine, and even the canal is still considered a serious obstacle. Ask any general, or any historian, if there is now, or ever was, a nation able to send its troops with horses, cannon, and ammunition six thousand miles across the sea, just as one would march across the Rhine or over the canal? When comparing the Boer forces with the English forces, the latter should be divided by a hundred, and then a comparison made between the bravery of the English paid soldiers (or mercenaries, as they are commonly called) and the Boers. England was not ready for war. Why did the Boer republic buy its cannon and make itself ready for war long before the Jameson raid, if not to fight against England, whose protectorate over the republic was then commonly ac- knowledged, for Krüger himself, even if he did not sign the petition to the queen for annexation, at any rate accepted a position from the queen under the English government. In Finland or Poland this would be called high treason; at the Cape it is called slyness, cleverness, and statesmanship; and, if Krüger really remains the victor—well, an insurrection, when victorious, ceases ipso facto to be an insurrection. What nation will then send the first ambassadors and big-wigs to Pretoria is not hard to say. But, whether commerce will then find the same open door in Africa as at present is an- other question. on what does England found her right to exercise a protec- torate in South Africa as far as the twenty-fifth degree of latitude south of the equator? It is founded, as are the rights of most European nations, on the Vienna congress. The re- publicans laugh at the Vienna congress, but with this laugh many things would fall to pieces which even anarchists would BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL 7 be reluctant to let fall. The South African coast was dis- covered and settled in layers by Portuguese, Dutch, and Eng- lish. I mention this only to explain the rivalry and hate which prevailed and still prevails between Dutch and English. In 1689 there was a large emigration of French Huguenots, who also inclined more to the Dutch than to the English. The Dutch East India Company then assumed the protectorate over the colonists in South Africa, and often became involved in wars with the negro natives. But there was little talk of a national development of these colonists. The Dutchmen led a free and unfettered life on their farms, and defended themselves on their own responsibility against black and white neighbors. But for our object these are pre-historic things, which can scarcely have any meaning for us. The first time that the South African colonies formed the subject of international treaties was in the year 1814 at the Vienna congress. Then, after many blocãy battles, the map of Europe, and even of all continents, was reconstructed, and the great powers had no hesitation to make over the Dutch seizures in South Africa to England, without Holland (which at that time scarcely even existed) or any other nation making any decided objections. At any rate, statesmen find in this the first binding interna- tional treaty by means of which Europe recognized the pro- tectorate of England in South Africa, and for which she had to pay a sum of money considerable in those days. Such facts can be ignored, but cannot easily be explained away. This condition of affairs continued, and formed the founda- tion upon which all later treaties were founded. That the English officials at the Cape were not always the best; that they occasionally violated justice and humanity, especially in the suppression of local revolts, cannot be doubted, when the 8 THE QUESTION of RIGHT sad events in certain German colonies are studied. The hanging of five Boers in 1815 after the battle of Slagters-nek has always remained in the memory of the Boers, but their own misdeeds, such as the assassination of Captain John Elliott, a cousin of mine, they have forgotten long ago. In 1834 a new apple of discord fell between the English and the Boers. As is well known, the English had accom- plished the emancipation of all slaves with tremendous sacri- fices of money and men. Naturally this was also valid in the English colonies. But the Boers carried on their farming for the greater part by means of black slaves, and treated them very badly. As English subjects, they were naturally obliged to emancipate their slaves, but received an indemnity which, as in other colonies, did not seem to be sufficient. Therefore the discontented Boers trekked in 1836 from the Cape to that strip of land now called Natal. They would not, or could not, get along without slavery and slave traffic. This trek was carried out with many difficulties, and one person who ex- perienced the horrors of this period was the now so well- known Paul Krüger. In spite of this exodus, however, the English government always considered the emigrants as Eng- lish subjects, and, therefore, the prohibition of slavery re- mained in force. The new republic, Natalia, revolted, and it became a question of force. The new republic was de- feated, and therefore remained under English dominion. Another emigration, following upon these events, led a large part of the Boers farther beyond the Orange river. This happened in 1845, and, while it may have been right accord- ing to international law, it naturally made more bad feeling between the Boers and English. The Boers had to fight some very hotly contested battles, as, for instance, with the Mata- beles under Mosilikatse; in 1848 the English government BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL 9 again took possession of the whole Orange River State, be- cause from the date of the Vienna congress the land as far as the twenty-fifth degree of latitude belonged to England, and the Boers had never formed an independent State. This em- bittered the Boers to such a degree that, when, somewhat later, a war broke out with the Basutos, the Boers from the other side of the Vaal river allied themselves with the blacks, and in 1852 succeeded in bringing about the so-called Sand River Convention, according to which England gave up every inter- ference in the internal—but not the foreign—affairs of the republic, with which she never had much to do; but the pro- tectorate of England was preserved, inasmuch as the Boers had no right to keep slaves or to carry on the slave traffic. This also held good for the Orange River State, and shows plainly enough the English principle of giving to the republics, as to all English colonies, every possible freedom of self-government, but also leaves no doubt about the English protectorate. And they had good reason for this. Later the Boers under Bürger became involved in a war with the Zulus under Cetwajo, be- cause of their cruelty toward the blacks. I will not repeat the details. They are easily accessible in little books, such as “Great Britain and the Dutch Republic,” or “The Trans- vaal Trouble, How it Arose,” by John Martineau. When they could not raise an army or pay their national debts, they were very ready to be defended by the soldiers of the English government, and to permit England to rescue them financially as well. The Zulus under Cetwajo were defeated by the English with a great loss of men and at an expense of six mill- ion pounds sterling. A repetition of such things was natur- ally neither desirable or permissible. The Boers themselves saw this; even Krüger, they say, had an understanding with Sir Theophilus Shepstone. The English reserved the privi- 10 THE QUESTION OF RIGHT lege to defend the Boers against the natives and to put their fi- nances in shape. The treasury then contained only about four dollars, but many debts. If that is not a protectorate, what is it? The Boers very soon became discontented. They kept their slaves, but called them apprentices; indeed, they even broke their agreement with Sir Theophilus Shepstone, and de- clared their sovereign independence under a triumvirate of Pretorius, Krüger, and Joubert. Then came the insurrection against the little English garrison, with the defeat at Majuba Hill. Whether it was due to cowardice, or to his deep- rooted principle to accord the colonies the greatest possible degree of independence, in either case Gladstone, who was then prime minister, made the great mistake of treating with an insolent enemy after a defeat, and in the year 1881 the so-called independence of the republic was recognized by Eng- land. However, this treaty was not simply closed by word of mouth or by letter with a courageous or cowardly statesman, but the necessary clauses were all added, according to the method of treaties. And England insisted, in order to keep the restless Boers quiet in the future and thus to prevent a repetition of defeats like that by Cetwajo, and also to keep the nation from bankruptcy, that all the diplomatic affairs of the republic should be conducted by English diplomats; that slavery should never be established again; that all religions should have equal rights; and that at any time England should be permitted to march her troops through the territory of the republic. Was that not a protectorate? But such conditions were quite insufficient to preserve peace in South Africa between the whites and blacks. That the Boers and even Krüger were apparently greatly rejoiced at this convention of 1881 goes to prove that they recognized the suzerainty of England. They would not have accepted BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL 11 such conditions from Germany or France. Much has been said about the meaning of suzerainty, but what does it matter about the word, if one can make such conditions as England made in 1888? England is not fond of too much government, but she was obliged to preserve peace in South Africa, es- pecially as the discovery of the gold and diamond mines at- tracted an ever-increasing number of foreign workmen and speculators to Africa. England cared so little about the word suzerainty that Lord Derby did not even repeat the word. Let the word go, he thought; we have the thing, - namely, that the republic shall make no treaty with foreign powers, or even with the natives, without the previous consent of the queen of England. And there were paragraphs added to the treaty about slavery, slave traffic, the rights of the na- tives, and the recent immigrants. Especially the last clauses (Article XIV.) were of importance, but, even if they had not been included, England could never have made or permitted an exception in favor of the African colonies, by allowing them to treat the new colonists worse than in any other Eng- lish colony. A German who settles in any English colony has the same rights there as all the other colonists. For a time the Boers appeared more than contented with the treaty of 1884. But soon they tried to extend their boundaries in all directions, against the provisions of the treaty, and also attempted to break the paragraphs of the treaty in various other ways. They treated foreigners with the greatest un- fairness, as if they had less right than the earlier colonists. In 1884 they had the franchise after a year; somewhat later it was increased to five and finally even to fourteen years. The immense income of the republic, principally due to the foreigners, was squandered in preparations for war and in other ways. Even Jameson's Quixotic raid was, in my view, 12 THE QUESTION OF RIGHT entirely the fault of the disgraceful government of the repub- lic. In Johannesburg they drove the Uitlander with force to conspiracy and revolt. No one will defend such a conspiracy and a revolt, still less the hiring of foreign mercenaries. But when, on the other hand, you consider the conspiracy of the Transvaal republic and its preparations for war, which had been carried on so long and so quietly, then the Jameson raid appears at least comprehensible, even if something like the attempt of a goat to stop an express train on the railroad track. That the English government was concerned in such a stupid business has been said, but never proven, and whoso- ever knows Lord Salisbury and his antecedents knows that such an accusation is absolutely inconceivable. The suspicion which has fallen on Chamberlain in the matter is very much to be regretted, but let them only bring an indictment, and his justification will not long be delayed. At any rate, Krüger’s remark that the preparations for war in the republic were not begun till after the Jameson raid is childish, for the State bills are available and we know exactly when and where the cannon were ordered and paid for. That the English nation did not desire a war with the Transvaal republic is proved best of all by the fact that they were unprepared for war. They still had hopes of reason and peace. And who declared war? Who made the first attack on English territory, if not the Boers? Should England ask pardon for having preserved her old protectorate? Should she permit the Boers to keep slaves or so-called apprentices, to start a war with the natives, and to treat the newly-arrived colonists like Helots! That is not the English idea of found- ing or governing a colony, and that England knows how to govern colonies is certainly proved by the devotion with which all colonial hearts now fly toward the old mother. But BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE TRANSWAAL 13 it should also be recognized that there are Boers and Boers. The Boers living in the country are certainly people who fear God and right. But those who stand at the head of the gov- ernment with Krüger, the Dutchmen who live from the millions belonging to the republic, deserve no sympathy, and least of all in Germany. Only when they have been driven out of Africa will the colonies at the Cape enter into a peaceful and blessed period, like that during the year 1877 under English government. When has the Transvaal republic ever been any more independent than other English colonies? When people really know the true facts of the political questions between England and the Transvaal republic, which are constantly twisted and ignored by paid advocates, then they will probably quit talking about English greed for land and money. England has land enough and to spare, but on account of her position in Africa she had duties as well. She can easily give up the Ionic Islands and even Heligoland and Samoa, but she can no more withdraw from South Africa without fighting than from India. To give up to Boers or Dutch the position which England has maintained up to this time would be just as much of an anachronism as if New Zea- land, which was formerly called New Holland, should be made over to the queen of Holland. But history goes for- ward, not backward. Every nation fulfils its task. Holland has richly done its duty, and still has, I think, the largest colonies, after England. But now the present, and, we hope, a long future, belongs to England. These are simple historical facts, easily accessible to any one who can read English. Therefore what does it mean, when people try to make England responsible for Jameson's raid, which surprised every Englishman just as much as every German? England with her ministry has not yet sunk so low 14 THE QUESTION OF RIGHT as to let herself be treated like a band of thieves. In im- portant questions the queen has a greater influence than is commonly supposed; and will Germany follow France in this respect, and throw mire at the grandmother of the German em- peror, the English woman par excellence? I have purposely refrained from speaking of the latest events. I care to show only that historically the Boers and Dutch have always been under English dominion since the Vienna congress, and that their constant attempts since 1884 to wrest new concessions from England, or to gain their freedom, are conclusive proofs that England did possess the protectorate in South Africa and was in a condition to make or refuse concessions. That is where logic is useful even for political questions. The revolt of the Boers is simply an insurrection. If it should be vic- torious, it would naturally cease to be called insurrection or high treason. But that the Boers will be unable to withstand a great power like England for any length of time is perfectly clear to every one, even to those who are ignorant of military matters. But, wherever the power lies, whichever way the scales tip with the sword, the right remains the same. It is possible that the victrix causa is pleasing to the gods, but even the vanquished are pleasing to Cato, and such people are not lacking in Germany. To one like myself, who for so many years has watched the course of events in the world, right is more than might. England has many enemies, and there are many people who envy her; this has been clearly proven by the last war; but England has friends, even in most unexpected places, -yes, even in Germany. And, whatever may come, defeat or victory, England can say with pride—“ Many ene- mies, much honor.’’ Oxford, FEBRUARY 24, 1900.