At its peak, the British Empire was the largest empire the world has ever seen, controlling almost one quarter of the world’s total land area. There were several factors leading to the expansion of Britain into Africa: the desire to civilise, international rivalry between the large European countries and economic motives, such as profits made from The Central African Trading Company and the United African Company. The desire to civilise was an initial driving factor for the British government and individuals’ expansion into Africa. However, over time, evidence has shown that this desire began to fade and was replaced with other overruling factors such as economic gain and political motives.
In 1807, Britain abolished the slave trade and created the Freetown of Sierra Leone. This shows that the British government were trying to create a civilised society in West Africa as they were putting a stop to the inhumane slave trade and were creating a society in which freed slaves could live and follow the civilised ways of British society. Historian Lawrence James said that ‘there was a general agreement that the Empire was a powerful force for the spread of civilisation’ There is a noticeable gap between the years 1807 and the 1870’s where Britain’s involvement in Africa was minimal. This is due to the lack of knowledge of the continent, although, this changed when missionaries started to explore deeper into Africa. David Livingstone, a missionary from Scotland, discovered that the slave trade was still happening in Zanzibar and influenced the British government to get involved in the abolition of this. And so, in the 1870s, Britain had great influence over the Sultan of Zanzibar and under strong British pressure, Zanzibar pledged to abolish slavery in 1873 and finally in 1897 the slave trade was officially abolished in Zanzibar. This furthermore shows a desire to civilise in Africa as the government are spreading influence on the abolishment of slavery and provided alternate ways to make money, rather than through the selling of slaves. The anthropologist William Bascom when considering the civilising aspects of government and missionaries in Africa wrote, ‘in many cases both missionary and government officials, two new forces on the African scene, worked towards the destruction of the slave trade’ .
A quote taken from Max Beloff’s article from 1996 in History Today’s magazine reads; ‘what united imperialists was the belief that order in the sense of known laws actively enforced was good in itself, and achieving this was far more significant for them than the hope of personal gain. …The core of empire was not profit but governance.’ This supports the view that desire to civilise was the key factor driving expansion in Africa. Max Beloff studied history at Oxford University and later became an assistant history lecturer at Manchester University. Furthermore, he has published many works on the Empire, such as: ‘Imperial Sunset’ 1962 and ‘Britain’s Liberal Empire’ 1969, which shows that he is an empire historian and is very well read into the British Empire, adding merit to this source. Beloff joined the Conservative party in 1979 and worked for Margret Thatcher. This could certainly have distorted his views on the British Empire as Thatcher saw the empire as a civilising force and he would have been heavily influenced by her views. The date of publication of the source is 1996, making this source more valid as he has the benefit of hindsight and would have access to more resources regarding the Empire. However, 1996 was subsequent to colonisation in Africa and a time where Britain was facing shame and embarrassment and therefore, Beloff’s view may have been a minority view. Although, Britain won the Falklands War in 1982 and therefore there had been resurgence in British pride within the British public, perhaps changing views on the morality of the empire. The source comes from the magazine ‘History Today’ which aims ‘to bring serious history to a wide audience’ and has been reviewed as ‘academic’ and ‘scholarly’ , which suggests validity within the article. A limitation to this source would be the over-simplification of this extract. Whilst there are examples of Britain wanting to civilise in Africa- British missionaries put an end to barbaric practises such as human sacrifice and cannibalism in Africa and the British troops involvement in the Sudan in 1882 in order to put down a nationalist revolution and protect the Khedive’s government from further threat- there were also many economic factors that contributed to the British government’s expansion in Africa. For example, the occupation of Egypt in 1882 in order to protect Britain’s investments, the occupation of areas within South Africa as it was one of the trade routes to India and the taxing of colonies to use some of the money for Britain rather than within the colony itself. Therefore, the fact the source states ‘achieving this (law and order) was far more significant for them than the hope of personal gain’ appears over simplified as there were in fact many events which came down to economic, personal gain. Therefore, this source is quite convincing as its author is a well-read, academically strong character and it comes from an educating magazine. However, it may not be fully valid as it over simplifies events in order to fit in with its overall argument and Beloff’s political views may have distorted his view on the Empire.
A contrasting historian’s view would be that of J.A. Hobson who argued that civilising was not the main motive for expansion and instead economic profit was. An extract taken from the book ‘A Theory of Capitalist Imperialism’ by Fieldhouse DK, included a quote by Hobson in 1902: ‘who cannot find at home the profitable use he seeks for his capital, and insists that the Government should help him to profitable and secure investments abroad’ is the main driving factor for expansion in Africa. He said ‘Cui bono? (Who gains) the first and most obvious answer is…the investor.’ J.A. Hobson was politically left winged, studied Classics at Lincoln College Oxford and was specialised in economics. This may make his argument convincing, as he comes from a well-educated background. Hobson was the Manchester Guardian newspaper’s correspondent in South Africa and went to South Africa as a journalist covering the Boer War in 1899. Therefore, it could be argued that this makes this source more reliable as he was deeply informed and involved with the events that occurred in Africa. However, Hobson was a known critic of imperialism and therefore it could be argued that his political views would be distorted by his personal views. For example, in the extract, it says how imperialism is ‘fraught with such grave incalculable peril to the citizen’ which may be seen as an exaggeration as British individuals did take action in order to help the citizens of Africa, such as Mary Slessor, the missionary, who promoted women’s rights and rescued children from infanticide amongst the Ibibio in Nigeria and the British troops that protected the rights of native African’s against the Boer’s in South Africa. Therefore, this source may not be completely convincing, as perhaps Hobson’s personal views on imperialism are too prominent within the source. The date of publication of this source is 1902, which is during a time where Britain is still heavily involved with Africa. This would be an advantage to this source as Hobson would be able to take into account things that were happening at the time of his writing, not only prior to it. Therefore, Hobson’s view can be taken as convincing as he is well educated and was involved in the reporting of the South African colonisation and therefore can be seen to have in-depth knowledge. However, due to his strong views on imperialism it could be argued that his view may not be completely accurate and therefore it may not be fully convincing.
Overall, Beloff’s view is more convincing due to the benefit of hindsight. Furthermore, he studied and was a lecturer in history, rather than Hobson who was specialised in economics, and so may have more in-depth knowledge on the history of the British Empire in Africa. Lastly, Beloff is not as highly opinionated as Hobson on imperialism, making Beloff’s article appear to have greater validity.
Britain showed a desire to civilise in South Africa in 1867 with the acquisition of Griqualand. As many of the Griqua were seminomadic, living by raiding and hunting, Britain took control in order to put an end to the raids and enforce law and order. However, this may not only be a civilising motive as diamonds were found in Griqualand in 1867 and historian I.B Sutton claimed ‘it has been convincingly argued that the desire to control the diamond fields was a central motive in the various British confederation schemes of the 1870s’. Futhermore, in 1871, Britain formally annexed Griqualand and many of the Griqua were forced to sell their farms and very few remained in the area by the end of the 19th century. Therefore, this shows that perhaps Britain’s confederation schemes were not always in order to civilise the African society but that economic gain was a larger motive. Furthermore, Cecil Rhodes, when talking about the occupation of South Africa said ‘we are the first race in the world…the more we inhabitant… the better’. This therefore suggests that perhaps Britain was not looking at civilising South Africa but instead were focusing on the power status they would get in inhabiting more of the world.
Another example of when Britain did not show a desire to civilise was during the Boer War from the years 1900-1902. F.A. Vvan Jaarsveld, a member of South Africa’s Afrikaans-speaking community, presented the war as ‘an ultimately unsuccessful struggle…by the rural Boers who had sought throughout much of the previous century to establish independence from the growing power of the British’ . The Boers were the descendants of the original Dutch settlers of South Africa. During the war, the British set up concentration camps for Boer women and children causing the death of 4 117 women and 22 074 children under sixteen. Furthermore, the Treaty of Vereeniging that ended the Boer war in 1902 postponed the treatment of the native Africans. Therefore, this makes historians question whether the Boer war was really a civilising movement, as the treatment of the native South Africans was never addressed. This suggests that perhaps the desire to civilise was not Britain’s driving factor for expansion in Africa as often treatment of native African’s was overshadowed by other factors.
A speech made by Liberal M.P Lloyd George on the 27th of November 1899 said ‘we are fighting for a franchise in the Transvaal which we do not give our own subjects at home… I do not believe the war has any connection with the franchise”. This is saying how the Boer War was in fact not a civilising motive and that the government was using the protecting of the rights of the Uitlanders as an excuse to go to war for “45% dividends”. Uitlanders were British immigrants in the Transvaal, who due to restrictions from the Boer community in 1888 and 1890, were not allowed to vote and official documents and legal proceedings could only be in the Dutch language. This massively upset the Uitlanders and after British government involvement, led to the Boer War in 1899. In support of Lloyd-George’s view, there were many British companies, which made great fortunes through Africa. For example, the British South Africa Company, which was incorporated under a royal charter made fortunes out of the gold and diamonds found in South Africa. However, the company often exploited native African’s and their land, which suggests that the British government was more interested in economic profits rather than the fair treatment of native Africans. Lloyd George was making this speech in an attempt to encourage opposition towards the government. This could make his quote less convincing as his political stance against the Conservative party may have led him to speak negatively of Britain’s involvement in Africa, however, the evidence presented above substantiates his view. This speech was made in 1899, a time where the British public were in support of the Boer War; therefore after making his speech he came under increasing attack from the British public. This could make his view more convincing as it was not popular and so arguably may be more thoughtful than that of the British media or public. The tone of this speech appears factual rather than opinionated as Lloyd-George links the situation in Africa to one in Britain, therefore providing evidence to support with his views. This may make this source more convincing as he has approached it with a factual based speech, rather than one driven by opinion and emotions. Therefore, it appears as though this speech is fairly convincing as it is fact based and there are many examples of British economic interest in Africa to support his view. It is also a valuable source to indicate that in the 1900s economic motives were significant and given a higher status than the want to civilise.
Therefore, when talking about the desire to civilise as a driving factor for Britain’s expansion in Africa, it can be seen mainly as a part of the initial establishment of Britain in Africa. Examples would be: the abolition of the slave trade for Britain-which created the Freetown of Sierra Leone (1807)- the pressure over the Sultan of Zanzibar on the abolition of slavery (1897) and the ending of the Griqua’s seminomadic lifestyle to enforce law and order in Griqualand (1867). However, overall it appears as though once Britain began colonising Africa, civilising had become less of an important motive and economic and political motives became more prominent due to the economic profits companies and individuals were making.
Economic motives can certainly be seen as a driving factor in Britain’s expansion into Africa. There was not much economic involvement with Britain in Africa until 1882 when Britain bought shares in the Suez Canal. This arguably could be due to the fact that Africa was mainly seen as a stop off on route to India and was not seen as highly profitable to Britain due to the lack of knowledge about the continent. One of the main reasons Britain bought shares in the Suez Canal could be argued to be because it meant they could safeguard the route to India.
Figure 1 is a Punch Magazine cartoon representing the buying of the Suez Canal shares, published in 1876. Egypt was facing bankruptcy in 1875 and therefore, the Khedive of Egypt was forced to sell his shares in the Suez Canal to Britain in an attempt to repay his debts. A clear message within the cartoon is that the lion represents Britain and the fact it is holding the key with the label ‘India’ shows that now Britain has a quick route to India by avoiding the Cape. The two men in the back represent Prime Minister Disraeli (left) who is borrowing a £4 million loan from the Rothschild family (right). This loan allowed Britain to be able to buy the Khedive’s share of loans in the canal. However, this can be seen as ambiguous as the man on the right could also be the Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, and this exchange may represent Disraeli handing over his buying of the shares to the Khedive. ‘The Lions Share’ is when a person, group or project get the largest share of something, leaving little for other people’. This suggests that this cartoon is showing that Britain got the greatest share of the Suez Canal and left little for the remaining European powers. Britain was beginning to look towards Africa for economic profit and suggests that in fact economic motives were a driving factor in the expansion into Africa. Punch Magazine was a magazine of humour and satire, which was mostly aimed at an educated audience. This gives validity as it gives an accurate insight into how the well-educated British public viewed the expansion into Africa, as it is not from a government source but an ordinary magazine. Furthermore, due to the fact the magazine is known for its use of satire towards events, this may mean it can be more honest in its portrayal of events, giving the source more merit. The use of the lion presenting Great Britain suggests that at the time Britain saw itself as highly powerful and may also reflect the position of Disraeli as the buying of the Suez Canal shares increased Britain’s global status. The cartoon was published in 1876, a year after Britain had bought its shares in the Suez Canal and therefore the topic would still be very prominent within Britain. Punch Magazine had no political status and this could allow them to be more liberal with what content they included, perhaps making this source more valuable in giving a wider viewpoint to a historian. The main limitation of this source would be that it is a cartoon and therefore everything is implied and not explicit, making it hard to understand exactly what the source is saying. However, overall, this source is valuable due to the fact it emphasises the perceived importance of the Suez Canal as the key to India, which tells us that economic gains in India are a key reason for British expansion into Africa. Furthermore, it identifies key figures in the expansion into Africa, such as Disraeli. It also shows us key motives of the British government were strategic, economic and personal glory for Disraeli, making it a highly useful source.
Another example of when economic motives had driven expansion in Africa is the occupation of Egypt in 1882. The importance of Egypt to Britain had risen after the Suez Canal was built in 1869. Britain also had many investments in Egypt and as Egypt was heading towards financial ruin in 1882, Britain intervened to protect British investments. This led to the exploitation of Egypt and increased Britain’s trade and investments with Egypt. This therefore shows that the occupation of Egypt was not a civilising motive but instead was due to the economic gain the British government would achieve from it.
An area of Africa that was overlooked by the British government at the beginning of the century was West Africa. However, interest in West Africa increased when the British government realised that taking control of West African territories meant they could secure cheap supply of raw materials. This led to many native African’s being kicked off their land and often forced to farm ‘cash crops’ that were necessary for industry in Britain, rather than essential crops for their survival. This therefore counteracts Britain’s motive to ‘civilise’ as they were taking advantage of the native African’s and their resources. The chartered Royal Niger Company was in Nigeria from 1886-1899. Historians argue about the economic success of these chartered companies. A.M. Kamarack argued that ‘the chartered companies that went out of existence before World War Two on no case had given positive returns on the invested capital’. However, Scott R. Pearson states that ‘this chartered company (Royal Niger Company) was unquestionably a commercial success and…its economic profitability had important ramifications in the colonisation of Nigeria’. The Royal Niger Company, whether it was an economic success or not, can be seen as an economic motive on expansion into Africa. Furthermore, the discovery of gold in the Transvaal in 1885 led to an increase in British interest in South Africa and was one of the main reasons why Britain went to war with the Boer’s (The Boer War 1889-1902).
Overall, economic motives, such as increased trade due to occupation of certain areas in Africa and the security of cheap raw materials, were a massive driving factor for the British governments expansion into Africa from 1882-1902. This can be seen to be a greater driving factor than that of ‘civilising’ as often the events that gained economic profit for Britain were not beneficial for the native Africans.
International rivalry between Britain and other European powers can also be seen as a driving factor for British expansion into Africa.
Before the 1870’s, only a small part of Africa was under European rule, and these were largely restricted to the coast. However, in 1870, the ‘Scramble for Africa’ took place and by 1914 the whole vast continent had been partitioned between the major European powers. This was a movement in which major European powers competed with each other to claim territories overseas. This developed as expressions of their national strength, pride and ambition. Ronald Robinson gives an explanation for European expansion into Africa, built around geopolitics and a strategy of protecting British India from encroachment by European powers. This therefore shows that in fact the ‘Scramble for Africa’ was not a civilising motive-as it did not take into account any native tribes within Africa- but was purely economic and a way to show Britain’s power in comparison to other major European powers. In 1884, the ‘Congress of Berlin’ was held in which the European Powers set out rules of ‘Effective Occupation’. This marked the climax of European competition for territory in Africa. However, this conference did not provide any say for the people of Africa over the partitioning of their homelands and the “partition was done without any consideration for the history of the society” , therefore another example to support the argument that this was not due to a desire to civilise but rather is a portayal of the rivalry between the powerful European countries.
An extract from a British Foreign Office Memorandum on East Arica from the 20th of October 1884 states that ‘Apart from the mineral wealth which is believed to exist between the coast and the great lakes, there is an unlimited capacity for the production of cattle, cereals and all the usual articles of tropical trade…it is needless to dwell on the advantages of this to our navy, to our officials, and to our traders’. This tells us that the British government was mainly looking towards West Africa for trade and naval purposes and advantages, rather than for civilising motives. Due to the fact it was written in 1884, the year of the Congress of Berlin, tells us that Britain was strategically thinking about the best places in Africa to colonise for their benefit, as Africa would be divided between the major European countries during this conference. It is an extract from a British Foreign Office Memorandum and therefore was not published to the British public. This makes it convincing as it should be a reliable indicator of the government’s position on Africa. However, a limitation of this source is that it does not actually tell us what the government decided to do, as it is only trying to persuade the government to show interest in Africa, and therefore, the source may not be a full representation of the government’s motives. The purpose of this source was to boost interest in East Africa. Therefore, the fact the main points in the source include trade benefits and naval advantages suggests that the government were not interested in the civilising capabilities in Africa but rather the political and economic benefits it provided the country. Germany’s interest in East Africa was beginning to grow and by 1885 Germany would control 60,000 square miles of East African territory . Therefore, during the time this source was published, Britain would have been under increasing pressure to expand into Africa. This further emphasises that the British government needed to be persuaded using economic and political motives rather than civilising. Overall, this source would be useful to an historian as it gives us a good insight into the government’s position and provides us with key factors towards expansion during the late 1800s such as trade and naval advantages. Furthermore, it appears convincing as it was not published to the British public and therefore would be a more honest portrayal of the government’s real motives in Africa.
Much of Britain’s gain of territory in Africa was due to the threat of other major countries taking essential trade in certain areas. George Goldie was the founder of the Central African Trading Company in 1876 and secured concessions from tribal chiefs, with whom he signed treaties obliging them to trade solely with the company’s agents and his agents secured over 450 local treaty arrangements, which transferred territory and jurisdiction to the United African Company. His efforts meant that he won the trade war with rival French companies and bought them out. Therefore, this shows that the risk of other countries taking vital trade in Africa was a driving motive of Britain’s expansion of territory in Africa. Furthermore, the United African Company founded in 1879, controlled 30 trading posts, however, was refused an application for a charter due to competing French interests. This furthermore shows the rivalry Britain was in with other European countries.
Therefore, international rivalry can also be seen as a driving factor for the British government’s expansion into Africa. This could arguably also be seen as a stronger motive towards expansion into Africa than the desire to civilise as international rivalry was mostly based on power status and economic profits (?) and the desires of native African’s was mostly overlooked and not taken into consideration.
In conclusion, certainly in terms of land acquired post-1884, it appears as though the ‘desire to civilise’-whilst it may have been an initial driving factor- was not the main factor in the expansion of the British Empire into Africa, but rather economic factors alongside international rivalry, appears to be a major driving force. Whilst events such as the abolition of slavery in 1807 and individuals, such as Mary Slessor, putting an end to barbaric practises within Africa show a desire to civilise, once profitable resources- such as the finding of diamonds and gold in South Africa in 1866- Britain’s motives became more economic, rather than civilising. This can be shown through the vast amounts of wars in Africa in which the native’s did not benefit from, such as the Boer War 1899-1902, where once the war was over, the Treaty of Vereeniging did not address the rights or treatment of the native Africans. Furthermore, when talking about British attitudes towards the ‘River War’ in Sudan, Winston Churchill said ‘we are told that the British and Egyptian armies entered Omdurman to free the people from the Khalifa’s yoke. Never were rescuers more unwelcome’. This can all lead one to believe as though the main driving factor for Britain’s expansion into Africa was for economic profit, rather than the desire to civilise.