Word: african
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1890-1899
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...South African Republic did not force this war unjustly, for England already had her hands at the throat of the Transvaal...
...sixth consecutive time Harvard defeated Princeton in the annual debate in Sanders Theatre last night, on the question: "Resolved, That the English claims in the controversy with the South African Republic are justifiable." Harvard supported the affirmative and Princeton the negative. The presiding officer was the Hon. Samuel J. Elder...
...interference was necessary in the Transvaal and that it was England's right to interfere. The affirmative believed that the best method to settle the so-called grievances was the grant of an adequate franchise to the Uitlanders. Such a franchise meant security, strength and prosperity for the South African Republic itself. The grievances of the Uitlanders might well be summed up in the phrase "in equality of rights." Examples of this subversion of all interests in favor of the Boers were that only Boer children were allowed in the schools and that all trials were controlled solely by Boers...
...that a continuation of the subtle hatred among the peoples of the Transvaal would threaten English interests in all South Africa; and that the only way to secure the desired harmony between the Dutch and the English was to grant to the Uitlanders full rights in the South African republic...
...gave England the right to interfere for the protection of her subjects and even of the natives--a right promised by the Boers in the negotiations regarding the conventions. But conventions aside, England had the general right to protect her citizens, and Princeton did not deny this. The South African troubles had to be faced by England, but, in facing them, she did not demand government control. Wherever English subjects were maltreated, there harmony could never exist