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 3 was a speech in parliament. If Chamberlain went out right and said that ‘I want to get involved in the Boer war because I want to secure the gold mines and make us rich’, people in parliament wouldn’t vote for him. So by ‘sugar coating’ what he is saying, he is trying to gain the majority of the votes . So Source 3 has a degree of unreliability.
Source 1 is an extract from the Manchester Guardian, in March 1901. Source 1 suggests that the mining bosses (people investing in gold mines, etc Miler , Rhodes and Bates) were pressuring the government to help them as they were being oppressed by the Boers. It also suggests that the policy in South Africa was rigged by people with aristocratic links (business owners); “successfully rigged”. Source 1 also suggests that the Boer war was brutal, and it was a quest for conquest and expansion and involved the ideology of capitalism instead of helping British subjects. From the provenance, the extraction is from the Manchester Guardian in 1901. This is very important, as the Manchester Guardian was not as censored by the government as it was not near London. Newspapers like The Sun or The Times had more censorship because they were based in London by the government. The Manchester Guardian could display what really went on, however, this could be more critical as this source was in 1901, unlike source 2 and 3 which were in 1899. In 1901, the public thought the Boer war was too harsh due to the scorched earth policy and the established concentration camps. Source 1 does not agree with source 3, because source 1 states “not in the real interests of the Empire” while Chamberlain persists to say: “protect British subjects”. This makes source 3, fairly unreliable as Chamberlain had an ulterior motive. Source 1 does agree with source 2, to an extent, source 1 states that the Boer war was a pursuit of capitalists rather than protecting British subjects. Source 1 takes on an anti-war view, but this is in retrospect, after the events of the Boer war horrified the British public.