A Study on The Political Motives in Europe During The 19th Century

Imperialism and Nationalism were prominent forces shaping European politics in the early 19th century. As nations sought to elevate their status on the global stage, European powers embarked on aggressive territorial expansion, often disregarding the sovereignty of other nations. This essay explores the political motives driving European actions during this era, with a particular focus on the British involvement in Sudan and the implications of these actions on international relations and national identity.

Context of Imperialism and Nationalism

The early 19th century was marked by a fervent desire among European nations to assert their dominance. This period of imperialism was characterized by the acquisition of overseas colonies, driven by both economic interests and national pride. Countries believed that their greatness was measured by the extent of their territorial possessions. This competitive mindset led to conflicts and rivalries that shaped global politics.

In 1833, the British government faced a critical decision regarding its involvement in Sudan. The options included remaining neutral, attempting conquest under General Gordon, or rescuing him from a precarious situation. Geographically, Sudan is situated directly beneath Egypt, with the Nile River serving as a vital artery of commerce flowing from the Mediterranean to the heart of Sudan. The British government, under Prime Minister William Gladstone, recognized Sudan as part of Egypt, leading to a complex interplay of interests in the region.

The Dilemma of British Involvement

As the situation in Sudan escalated, members of the British Parliament expressed divergent views on the appropriate course of action. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, a member of the House of Commons, cautioned against further military engagement, arguing that Europeans were not welcome in Africa and that war was imminent. His sentiments reflected a growing awareness of the potential consequences of colonial expansion.

Another significant voice in the debate was Sir George Campbell, who warned that British intervention could ignite a religious conflict reminiscent of historical clashes between Christianity and Islam. He argued that if the situation devolved into a religious war, the entire African population might unite against their perceived Christian oppressors, resulting in catastrophic outcomes.

General Gordon's Mission

On January 18, 1884, General Gordon was dispatched to Egypt with the mission of occupying Khartoum, a crucial commercial hub at the confluence of the Nile's two branches. His appointment marked a pivotal moment in British imperial policy, as it represented the initial steps toward effective occupation in accordance with the principles established at the Berlin Conference. However, the British government's plans were soon thwarted when Gordon found himself besieged by the Mahdi, a prominent Islamic leader.

This predicament raised questions of national honor and responsibility. The British public was invested in Gordon's fate, and the idea of abandoning a war hero became a contentious issue. Politicians leveraged propaganda, including political cartoons that depicted Gordon as a valiant figure ensnared by non-European forces, to rally public sentiment for his rescue. The British government was divided, with some advocating for a military expedition to save Gordon, while others argued for a withdrawal to avoid further entanglement in Sudanese affairs.

Political Divisions and Moral Implications

The discussions in Parliament reflected deep political divisions. Sir Michael Hicks, also a member of the House of Commons, contended that failing to rescue Gordon would leave an "intolerable stain" on British honor. He believed that Gordon's liberation was essential to countering religious fanaticism and solidifying British control in Sudan.

Conversely, Prime Minister Gladstone cautioned against the dangers of conquest. He warned that military intervention would constitute a war of aggression against a population striving for freedom. Gladstone's arguments encompassed logistical challenges, moral considerations, and the potential for a protracted conflict that could undermine British interests in the region. He even sought to persuade Queen Victoria of the futility of the conquest, framing it as a lost cause.

Comparative Analysis: The Dreyfus Affair

The crisis surrounding General Gordon's situation in Sudan can be likened to the Dreyfus Affair in France, albeit on a smaller scale. Both events underscored the tension between national honor and moral values. The British government faced a dilemma: should it prioritize its imperial ambitions or uphold its commitment to principles such as liberty and independence? The capture of Gordon by African forces wielding outdated weaponry served as a stark reminder of the complexities of imperialism.

Conclusion: The Legacy of Political Motives

The political motives driving European actions during the 19th century were multifaceted, encompassing nationalism, economic interests, and moral considerations. The British involvement in Sudan exemplified the tensions inherent in imperialism, as the desire for national prestige clashed with ethical dilemmas. Ultimately, the divisions within Parliament regarding Gordon's fate reflected the broader challenges facing European powers as they navigated the complexities of empire-building. The legacy of these political motives continues to shape our understanding of colonialism and its enduring impact on global relations.

References

• Hobsbawm, Eric J. "The Age of Empire: 1875-1914." Vintage, 1989.
• Gann, L. H., and Peter Duignan. "Colonialism in Africa: Volume 1: The Structure of Colonial Rule." Cambridge University Press, 1969.
• Bayly, C. A. "The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons." Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
• Osterhammel, Jürgen. "Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview." Princeton University Press, 1997.