The Graphic Map: European Possessions in Africa. “By E. G. Ravenstein, F.R.S.G.”The Graphic 30 (December 1884 Supplement). Click on image to enlarge it.
As the map makes clear, by the close of 1884 the United Kingdom had almost no colonies or protectorates in Africa, and that was the case with almost all other European countries. Gladstone and his ministry had been elected on a liberal platform, a key portion of which was the assertion that other areas of the world (except India, of course) should have independence and self-determination. One additional reason for not wanting to acquire any more colonies came in the realization that, except for India, Britain’s colonies cost money, and another in the recognition that the United States, a former colony, provided a hefty portion of Britain’s international trade.
So what happened? What caused the sudden ultimately tragicomic rush by European nations to acquire great hunks of Africa? For England the answer always goes back to India, the crown jewel of the empire — more specifically to protect the sea routes between South Asia and the Great Britain. The Cape Colony had particular importance because it helped protect sea routes around Africa and the mideast both by providing ports that could serve as naval bases and, equally important, by preventing potentially hostile nations, particularly France and Russia, from establishing a foothold in the area. Britain’s main goal was to protect the Suez Canal, which the French had originally built and largely paid for but which Britain ended up controlling. Protecting the Suez Canal meant protecting Egypt and the waters of the upper Nile. In the first half of the nineteenth century, England sought to protect Egypt by firming up and supporting the Turkish Empire, which simultaneously served as a handy rival to Russia and barrier to its expansion. England’s well-laid plans pretty much came to nought when modernizing Turkey and converting it to a country with a modern economy and government failed, and that failure prompted England to make the same attempt with Egypt, a Turkish province, and it failed, too, as its Pasha, like the Turkish Sultan, plunged further and further into debt, eventually forcing England to make Egypt a colony in all but name.
Then came the Mahdi’s successful revolt in the Sudan, the area from which flow the upper waters of the Nile. Shutting off or diverting them would have destroyed Egypt’s agriculture and destroyed the country. Still, the British government wanted no part of the Sudan. According to statements by the British government published in the 1885 Illustrated London News, first Gordon and then the general in charge of the army sent to rescue him had orders to make Britain’s purpose clear to the Mahdi: (1) it did not want to conquer and colonize the Sudan, (2) it only wished the Mahdi to guarantee the safety of Egypt and the Nile, and (3) in an almost subservient statement of economic Realpolitik, the British government offered to pay tribute — protection money — to the Mahdi to keep the bargain. This last offer was considered realistic policy since it was far cheaper to buy off the Mahdi, if that would protect Egypt, than to wage a costly war for territory nobody wanted. But that seemingly perfect plan failed too. First, either Gordon did not follow orders or was assassinated before he could communicate these assurances and offer to the Mahdi. The costly war to rescue Gordon proved something of a tragic farce, since many British lives, including those of commanding officers, were lost after Gordon was dead.
Of course, having convinced themselves that they must protect Egypt into order to protect the Suez Canal in order to protect India and access to it, those who decided policy back in London, particularly the aggressive Lord Salisbury, worried, What if some hostile nation — and during this period all other European nations were considered hostile rivals at one moment or another — occupied the territories south of the Sudan? Shouldn’t Great Britain insure the safety of its trade routes to India by occupying — and colonizing — those lands first? Well, if Britain, owner of a rich, powerful empire, is grabbing territory in Africa, it must be worth something, so other nations began their land grabs, too.
Related Material
[You may use these image without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose as long as you (1) credit the person who scanned the image and (2) link your document to this URL in a web document or cite the Victorian Web in a print one. — George P. Landow]
Created 28 August 2020