...outbreak of the second Boer was because of the British wanting to seize control of The Boer Republic’s raw materials. The Boer war has produced a great deal of controversy among historians. The major area of the ‘historical debate’ are the roles of the so called ‘men on the spot’, who were Rhodes, Chamberlin, Milner and finally Kruger. Many Historians have stated other factors which started the second Boer war, such as J.A. Hobson who said that the second Boer war was caused by a shady conspiracy of financers, miners and ‘corrupt politicians’. After studying the debates carefully, it appears that the role of long term economics factors with the short term political decisions of the leading politicians caused the second Boer war. The first factor is the long term effects of Anglo- Boer antagonism. The Dutch East India Company established a small tracking station neat the Cape of Good Hope and this was to be known as the Cape Colony, There, there was a community of protestant farmers of Dutch/German decent. And this community was soon to be known as the Boers. The British ended the Boer dominance in the Cape colony is 1806, by capturing it, then having nowhere to stay the Boers made ‘the great trek’, where they crossed the Orange and Vaal rivers, in the more northern part of Africa. And then they set up two independent states known as the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Then many years passed, and nothing occurred until 1877, when the Boers were Boers were losing to the Zulus...
Words: 1530 - Pages: 7
...How far do sources 1 and 2 challenge the reasons for Britain’s involvement in the Boer war given in source 3? Source 3, written by Chamberlain is an extract of a speech in parliament justifying the involvement of the British Empire in the Boer war, October 1899. It suggests that the main reasons for the involvement of the British Empire in the Boer war was to protect British subjects – people like Bates, Milner and Rhodes who had invested in mines and were subject to harsh treatment – and to protect the Empire, giving his speech a more old imperialistic view. Also, the quote “in the last resort” suggests that the Boers have already had chances, but Britain gave them their last chance. Source 2 was an extract from Lloyd-George, a responding speech to Chamberlain’s. Source 2 suggests that the involvement of Britain in the Boer war was more to do with capitalism and profit instead of the defence of the Empire. “forces to defend our possessions”, this quote slightly agrees with source 3, as it shows we did have to defend ourselves in Boer territory. However, source 2 doesn’t agree with source 3 in other aspects, as Lloyd-George says that we are involved mainly for capitalism and profit, “the war has no connection with the civil rights of British subjects”. So source 2 does agree slightly with source 3 , on the basis that Britain did have to defend themselves, but Chamberlain wanted to defend the possessions (gold mines etc) to promote economic growth of the Empire. Also, source...
Words: 617 - Pages: 3
...there was widespread support for the war towards the start but as it went on and some issues raised themselves through the media that turned some against the war. All 3 sources agree that majority of the British public did support the Boer war but do suggest that there was some opposition. Source 4 is from a local newspaper; the newspapers at this time were seeing a change in reporting from broadsheet to tabloid and more human stories rather than old style reporting. It was part of a new generation of newspapers called ‘the yellow press’. This was shown in the Daily Mail which led the way in England reaching 1 million subscriptions. It was heavily pro empire and pro war which mirrored the view of most papers at the time and had an influence on the publics’ opinion. At the time the papers were writing what the people wanted the read so they could keep subscriptions. Therefore the paper could be accused of trying to please its readers rather than accurate reporting. Source 4 agrees with source 5 that there were wild scenes of patriotism. ‘patriotic songs’ songs showed that the public were proud of their country. Source 5 describes ‘chanting a singing’ at an anti war protest in Birmingham, the same place as the newspaper was published. Singing songs was common at the time and many songs were written in support of the war. The public would also go the music halls to listen and sing which would be patriotic and showed the public’s support of the war. Source 6 tells about ‘outbursts...
Words: 836 - Pages: 4
...Do you agree with the view presented in Source 9 that critics of the second Boer war ‘were wrong to say that the concentration camps were part of the deliberate use of the “methods of barbarism”’? Explain your answer, using Sources 7, 8 and 9 and your own knowledge. (40) The concentration camps during the second Boer War were set up in 1900 after several policies were introduced by Kitchener in response to the Guerrilla warfare, and were not intended as places of punishment. In fact, they were set up to provide food, water, entertainment and most of all protection for families during this time. Over the years many opinions have risen on the conditions in these concentration camps and although, as stated by Andrew Roberts, they were not deliberately set up as ‘part of the deliberate use of “methods of barbarism”, this theory has been challenged by many. Robert Ensor, who wrote that the camps ‘were grossly mismanaged’ and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman who stated that war is unfair ‘when it is carried on by methods of barbarism’, are both prime examples of how there are extremely diverse views on the purpose of the concentration camps during the Second Boer War. It is apparent that concentration camps during the Second Boer War were set up to protect individuals and families rather than punish them. In many ways the concentration camps were places of safety and hope for the Boers affected by this war, and to an extent attendance was not compulsory. Andrew Roberts, who wrote ‘Salisbury:...
Words: 1142 - Pages: 5
...South Africa is quite phenomenal; from the age of 37 he had become the Prime Minister of Cape Colony, and was part head of De Beers Consolidated, a diamond mining company which possessed a near monopoly of the global diamond market. However, this essay will claim that Rhodes as a businessman was not the main element in his imperial notoriety, prioritising NM Rothschild & Sons finance and subsequent corporate decisions over those made specifically by Rhodes. I will argue that Rhodes’ significance was mainly to the detriment of the British Empire, as his political blunders and capitalistic short-sightedness greatly tarnished public opinion towards Empire - nationally and internationally - and facilitated Britains losing independence in the Boer war of 1899. Rhodes’ methods were questionable to say the least, and his ability to strengthen Britain, whilst at the same time tarnish her long standing reputation as justified sovereign of her colonies was, impressive, to say the most. It has been said that Rhodes’ impeccable success as an imperialist can be greatly accredited to his success as a businessman. For it was his speculation in diamond and gold mining proper which facilitated his amass of wealth. Needless to say, the role of international financiers have been historically undermined, allowing Rhodes’ business acumen to be wholly exaggerated. John A. Hobson, writing in 1902 on the processes of imperialism, claimed that imperial enterprise was not carried on the shoulders of individual...
Words: 2677 - Pages: 11
...To what extent were economic motives the most important reason for Britain obtaining influence and possessions in Africa from 1868 – 1902? There are many factors involved which allowed Britain to obtain influence and possessions in Africa during the scramble. The main factors are Strategic, The individuals in the field, humanitarian issues and properly the most important factor; economics. Economics could be described as the main reason for British interests in Africa to begin with but also remaining an important factor throughout this period. The British involvement in Africa was down to economic reasons; this is clear throughout the time period as most events which take place in Africa can be linked back to economy. One of the most important ecological was the purchase of 44% of the shares in the Suez Canal, these became available when the leader of Egypt; Khedvie Ismali became bankrupt and had to be bailed out. Disraeli bought the Egyptian shares in the canal for £3,976,582 in 1875. The purchasing of these shares was important as it gave Britain influence over this area, but also it opened a direct trade route with India. Due to British and French influence in the area, Britain and France assume dual control of Egypt’s finances. Although they manage to control debt levels, this is done at the expense of the Egyptian public and army. This interference led to an anti - European uprising in 1882 led by Arabi Pasha. On the 13th of September 1882 Sir Garnett Wolseley defeated...
Words: 1581 - Pages: 7
...be considered viable with the interests to protect the Empire. • Many colonies in Africa were known as dependent colonies whereby they were generally ruled directly by Britain due to the trading or naval bases within them. • Took advantage of weaker economies that were unable to protect themselves such as India. • Egyptian nationalism had meant that they had freed themselves from Turkish rule and was now able to form alliances with European countries. Although Egypt had not been a priority to Britain, due to the French influence in the country they felt the need to intervene (to protect economic interests in Egypt and India). • Boer Wars- Britain wanted to consolidate their power in Southern Africa. It allowed for Cecil Rhodes to encourage the expansion of Britain in Africa. The approach was more racist and after the Second Boer War the Boer Republics were annexed and the people became a part of the Empire. • In the 1880s there was a stark increase in the support for the expansion of the Empire as the economic advantages were recognised. • Under Chamberlain, the British economy thrived as a result of the imposing direct control rather than relying on the loose trading agreements. Focus on bringing Christianity and a sense of civilisation to the colonies. Much of the increased support for imperialism came from propaganda. • Jingoism- type of patriotism that showed military power and presented Britain as a power that is not afraid of their enemies. • Until the...
Words: 723 - Pages: 3
...misconception and by reluctant we mean were the ‘British’ hesitant in their pursuit of Africa from 1870-1902. However it’s unfair to infer that the British as a whole were imperialists; when we could merely suggest that there were some key figures that played a larger part in the ‘Scramble for Africa’ as well as some key events that influenced the British to get involved. Moreover, it’s important to consider that the period from 1870-1902 spans more than 3 decades which would imply that the British people and those with power to influence may not have been whole-hearted imperialists throughout these 32 years. Nevertheless, whilst it’s also possible that the British weren’t as active in the years predating 1870; the Boer War presents a horrific illustration that even after the war, there were more passionate imperials than reluctant individuals. Hence why I am going to argue that the British definitely were reluctant imperialists; however only sought to defend their territories when they felt threatened and in doing so, they increased their Empire in the process. Firstly, it’s clear to state that every British citizen had the same imperialist ideas as Cecil Rhodes, a man who’s dubbed as the “most famous man on the spot”. However, it wasn’t only Rhodes as it’s possible the find that there were other ‘men on the spot’ that shared similar views and worried about the future of Britain and that of its Empire. Thus affirming that it appears that even the British government had no control over...
Words: 1212 - Pages: 5
...an effective way to express feelings and convey ideas. In order to have a attractive and persuasive speech, a successful speech should be formal and vivid at the same time. These requirements make a public speech have its own unique style. Due to this, for this task the famous speech, Blood,Toil,Tears and Sweat (appendix 1) from Winston Churchill is chosen as the subject of the study. I chose this speech because I thought it would be interesting to analyze a speech that promotes violence. Since, traditionally politicians think about the people, and would try to protect their countrymen and avoid any violence that would risk the citizens’ lives. But in this case Churchill advices to wage war for the good of the nation. He urges the country to fight against the Nazis. Even though, logically war brings misery to the nation and its people, here Churchill convinces the audience that it binds them together. “I have nothing to offer but blood, tears and sweat” these words are from Winston Churchill. You may know him from his time spent as Prime Minister or from some books he wrote. He was a stubborn yet courageous leader. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born in 1874 in Oxfordshire, England. He described himself as "an English-Speaking Union," being the son of Lord Randolph Churchil l and the American heiress Jennie Jerome. Churchill’s childhood did not belong to the happiest. His relationship with parents was limited due to their constant duties. Contact with mother was...
Words: 415 - Pages: 2
...with "The White Man's Burden", his most famous. Although T.S. Eliot would deem it only "great verse" and others "jingoistic nonsense," it is consistently ranked among the highest, if not the highest itself, of Britons' favorite poems. It was first published in the "Brother Square-Toes" chapter of Rewards and Fairies, a 1910 collection of verse and short stories. While the poem is addressed to Kipling's son John, it was inspired by a great friend of his, Leander Starr Jameson, the Scots-born colonial politician and adventurer responsible for what has been deemed the Jameson raid that led to the Second Boer War. The raid was intended to start an uprising among the British expatriate workers in the South African Republic, but there were complications and it was a failure. Jameson was arrested and tried, but he was already being hailed a hero by London, which was filled with anti-Boer sentiment. He served only fifteen months in prison and later became Prime Minister of Cape Colony back in South Africa. It appears that Kipling had met Jameson and befriended him through Cecil Rhodes, the Prime Minister of Cape Colony at the time of the raid. In his autobiography Something of Myself, Kipling wrote of Jameson and "If-": "Among the verses in Rewards was one set called `If-', which escaped from the book, and for a while ran about the world. They were drawn from Jameson's character, and contained counsels of perfection most easy to give. Once started, the mechanization of the age made them...
Words: 1122 - Pages: 5
...Review The Boer War History Essay ukessays.com /essays/history/review-the-boer-war-history-essay.php The Boer War of 1899 was a dirty little conflict. It started as a result of cultural resentment between the Boers (Dutch settlers) and immigrating British. At first, the war was fought with the honor typically associated with the British, but, in the end, it turned nasty. South Africa's Cape of Good Hope was colonized in the 17th century by Dutch Boers (farmers). The Boers used African slaves on their farms. Britain occupied the Cape during the Napoleonic wars and took complete control after the Congress of Vienna. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833. Many of the Boers then decided that they could no longer live under British rule. They began moving northward and soon established two independent republics the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. There was peace between British and Boers until the Boer republics were found to be rich in diamonds and gold. Fortune hunters, mostly British, poured in to stake claims. The Dutch farmers called these people uitlanders (outlanders) and bitterly resented their intrusion. In 1895 the outlanders in the Transvaal planned a revolt against the Boer government. The British Empire, seeing their subjects mistreated, decided to get involved. Leander Jameson, with a small British force, invaded the Transvaal to aid the uprising. The Jameson raid was a total failure. The angered Boers, led by their president, Paul Kruger,...
Words: 2232 - Pages: 9
...Britain, 1906-1914 The reasons for the ‘Liberal landslide’ in 1906 Debate: The 1906 general election has encouraged debate about whether the result was due primarily to Conservative weaknesses or to Liberal strengths. The Boer War: 1. It was far more costly in lives and money than had been expected and some of the methods used to defeat the Boers caused moral outcry in Britain. 2. It had revealed the effect of poverty in the cities, reflected in the findings by Booth and Rowntree that 10% of people in major cities lived below the poverty line. 3. It revealed the low national efficiency at that time and the need for social reforms. The Liberals had also gained support by claiming that the Conservatives had neglected this. 4. The war also had the effect of encouraging Joseph Chamberlain to push his campaign for tariff reform, which was argued as the Conservatives’ biggest policy misjudgement. The 1902 Education Act: 1. It provided for all schools to be funded from local rates. It was an unpopular reform with many amongst the electorate. 2. It had also helped to reunite the Liberal Party after the Boer War and restore Nonconformist support for the Liberals. A campaign was launched against the act led by the Liberal MP David Lloyd George. The 1904 Licensing Act: 1. Another issue annoyed nonconformist voters. Nonconformists denounced the 1904 Act as a ‘brewers’ bill’. The Chinese labour issue between 1902 and 1904: 1. It annoyed...
Words: 610 - Pages: 3
...Though initiating the war was part of a grander strategic aim of a united, confederated South Africa much like British India this did not change the typically small style of colonial army available for the job. Whereas the Zulu could call upon around 30,000 impi warriors, the entire male population of Zululand, meaning that breaking their will to fight was far more important than facing all these warriors head on. Lieven argues that Chelmsford is vastly unprepared to deal with this form of enemy. In terms of supply, terrain and even overall aims Chelmsford is misinformed and lacking. His main strategy, to attack the imperial capital of Cetshwayo’s shows this, the Zulu were not based around a capital or government in the way European nations...
Words: 1095 - Pages: 5
...Imperialism can clearly be seen as he envisaged bringing not only of the whole African continent under British Domination but the ultimate recovery of the United States of America to the British Empire. There were literally no limits to Rhode’s ambitions. He was a megalomaniac and this can be seen by his dream of creating the ultimate imperial railway from Cape to Cairo which would bring together all the British colonies in Africa. Firstly Rhode’s was responsible for expanding the British Colony of South Africa northwards from the cape. He was able to conquer many areas mainly using the BSAC (given to him in 1899). What is more Cecil Rhodes was the main catalyst towars many wars and conflicts such as the Battle of Shangani River of 1893 and the catastrophic for the British Second Boer War (also known as the South African war of 1899-1903). Last but not least another short- term significance of Rhodes was the deterioration of the lives of the native Africans through the racist attitudes he cemented during his terms as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. To begin with, it is almost certain that the most significant short-term consequence of Cecil Rhodes during the years of 1882-1902 was that he was able to expand the British Empire towards the north of Africa. According to Niall Ferguson: “he dreamt of becoming an empire builder” and indeed he succeeded of becoming one partly due to his...
Words: 2276 - Pages: 10
...Explain why the conservatives lost the 1906 General Election There are three main reasons the conservatives lost the 1906 General Election, one of the main reasons was the tariff reform. The Tariff Reform was a pressure group setup in 1903 to protest against unfair foreign imports to protect British industry from foreign competition. It was launched by Joseph Chamberlain; he wanted to reintroduce tariffs, with a lower level tariff for goods coming into Britain from the empire than for goods imported from non-empire countries. This policy was knows as imperial protectionism. Chamberlain argued, this would protect British jobs, help pay for social reforms and strengthen Britain’s position in the world be integrating the empire into an effective unit. At this time Balfour was the conservative prime minister and he was a very weak leader with not very many political skills he was also a weak leader, at this time he did not understand the working men’s reaction to the tariff and he allowed Joseph Chamberlain to make the Tariff Reform a key unionist policy from 1903 onwards this is showing us he could not control Joseph Chamberlain showing he was a weak and unsuitable leader. The Tariff Reform did damage the conservatives as there was a split in the party with people moving over to the liberals as the middle class and working class feared dearer foods and falling in living standards. The liberals voted for free trade so did disagree with the Tariff Reforms, Winston Churchill actually...
Words: 632 - Pages: 3
