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

Imperialism and Nationalism were both very powerful motives in the early 19th century. Countries felt the need to be great in the eyes of others, and thus Europeans went out into the world and grabbed whatever land, territory, or nation seemed convenient to overtake. In 1833, the British government was faced with three different courses of action in Sudan: Not to partake in any hostile action against the Egyptians or the Sudanians, attempt to conquer Sudan using General Gordan, or rescue Gordan and have him pull out. Geographically, Egypt is directly above the nation of Sudan. The Nile, Egypts main source of commerce extends down from the Mediterranean Sea down to were it diverges into the White and Blue Nile in the nation of Sudan. Among the William Gladstone government of England, they had a policy of recognizing Sudan as part of the nation of Egypt. Members of both the House of the Lords and the House of the Commons both recognized that war and conquest in the Sudan would not benefit England. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, a member of the House of Commons brought it to the general attention that Europeans simply weren't wanted in Africa and threatened that war was near.

Another member of the House of Commons, Sir George Campbell, thought that it would turn into a war of Christianity against Islam, much as it had been thousands of years in the past. If it came to be a religious issue, the entire population of Africa would rise up to take out their Christian oppressors, and that would have horrible consequences. On January 18, 1884, General Gordan left for Egypt. He was deployed to occupy the town of Khartoum, Sudan a key commerce town that was at the point where the Nile diverged into two separate rivers. His occupation symbolized the first step of effective occupation, which was necessary due to the Conference of Berlin. Yet, to the extreme humiliation of the British government, he was besieged at the town of Khartoum by the Mahdi, a religious leader of Islam. Nationalism was still very important to the British and British honor had been offended, people wanted to have Gordan stay until he could break the siege or have an expedition to rescue him and then from there physically take the Sudan from the Egyptians.

Politicians also used propaganda such as political cartoons depicting that General Gordan, a war hero, captured by the Madhi and his fate held in the hands of non-European fanatics. The entire conservative house was also divided, some wanted to save him, the others called for his abandonment. Sir Michael Hicks, a member of the House of Commons, believed that an "intolerable stain" would be left on English honor and he called for Gordan's freedom so that he could stem religious fanaticism and take over the Sudan. The people that called for the rescue and retreat of General Gordan were mainly followers of Prime Minister Gladstone. Prime Minister Gladstone. said occupation would have destructive consequences. "It would be a war of conquest against a people struggling to be free." He used numerous arguments from the difficulty of sending supplies to uses of moral issues. He even tried to console Queen Victoria herself by saying the conquest of Sudan was a lost cause.

The religious crisis in Sudan was similar to the Dryfus affair of France, yet on a much smaller scale. The conquest of Sudan was against the moral values of the west such as Liberty and Independence. Yet, it was a "stain" on the honor of the most powerful empire in the world since one of its generals had been captured by the hands of Africans using out-dated weapons of war. Both moral and political implications caused the House of Lords and the House of Commons to be split into two and it would be some time before the issue was fully resolved.