War with a Silver Lining: Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899-1902 9780773577114

Table of contents :
Contents
Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1 TO ARMS
2 FOR JUSTICE
3 FOR THE NATION
4 FOR THE EMPIRE
5 FOR MISSIONS
CONCLUSION
Notes
Bibliography
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y
Z

Citation preview

a wa r w i t h a s i lv e r l i n i n g

mcgill-queen’s studies in the history of religion Volumes in this series have been supported by the Jackman Foundation of Toronto. series two In memory of George Rawlyk Donald Harman Akenson, Editor 1 Marguerite Bourgeoys and Montreal, 1640–1665 Patricia Simpson 2 Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience Edited by G.A. Rawlyk 3 Infinity, Faith, and Time Christian Humanism and Renaissance Literature John Spencer Hill 4 The Contribution of Presbyterianism to the Maritime Provinces of Canada Edited by Charles H.H. Scobie and G.A. Rawlyk 5 Labour, Love, and Prayer Female Piety in Ulster Religious Literature, 1850–1914 Andrea Ebel Brozyna 6 The Waning of the Green Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887–1922 Mark G. McGowan 7 Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867–1900 John-Paul Himka

8 Good Citizens British Missionaries and Imperial States, 1870–1918 James G. Greenlee and Charles M. Johnston 9 The Theology of the Oral Torah Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner 10 Gentle Eminence A Life of Cardinal Flahiff P. Wallace Platt 11 Culture, Religion, and Demographic Behaviour Catholics and Lutherans in Alsace, 1750–1870 Kevin McQuillan 12 Between Damnation and Starvation Priests and Merchants in Newfoundland Politics, 1745–1855 John P. Greene 13 Martin Luther, German Saviour German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917–1933 James M. Stayer 14 Modernity and the Dilemma of North American Anglican Identities, 1880–1950 William H. Katerberg

15 The Methodist Church on the Prairies, 1896–1914 George Emery 16 Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel Paul Charles Merkley 17 A Social History of the Cloister Daily Life in the Teaching Monasteries of the Old Regime Elizabeth Rapley 18 Households of Faith Family, Gender, and Community in Canada, 1760–1969 Edited by Nancy Christie 19 Blood Ground Colonialism, Missions, and the Contest for Christianity in the Cape Colony and Britain, 1799–1853 Elizabeth Elbourne 20 A History of Canadian Catholics Gallicanism, Romanism, and Canadianism Terence J. Fay 21 The View from Rome Archbishop Stagni’s 1915 Reports on the Ontario Bilingual Schools Question Edited and translated by John Zucchi 22 The Founding Moment Church, Society, and the Construction of Trinity College William Westfall 23 The Holocaust, Israel, and Canadian Protestant Churches Haim Genizi

24 Governing Charities Church and State in Toronto’s Catholic Archdiocese, 1850–1950 Paula Maurutto 25 Anglicans and the Atlantic World High Churchmen, Evangelicals, and the Quebec Connection Richard W. Vaudry 26 Evangelicals and the Continental Divide The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the United States Sam Reimer 27 Christians in a Secular World The Canadian Experience Kurt Bowen 28 Anatomy of a Seance A History of Spirit Communication in Central Canada Stan McMullin 29 With Skilful Hand The Story of King David David T. Barnard 30 Faithful Intellect Samuel S. Nelles and Victoria University Neil Semple 31 W. Stanford Reid An Evangelical Calvinist in the Academy Donald MacLeod 32 A Long Eclipse The Liberal Protestant Establishment and the Canadian University, 1920–1970 Catherine Gidney

33 Forkhill Protestants and Forkhill Catholics, 1787–1858 Kyla Madden 34 For Canada’s Sake Public Religion, Centennial Celebrations, and the Re-making of Canada in the 1960s Gary R. Miedema 35 Revival in the City The Impact of American Evangelists in Canada, 1884–1914 Eric R. Crouse 36 The Lord for the Body Religion, Medicine, and Protestant Faith Healing in Canada, 1880–1930 James Opp 37 Six Hundred Years of Reform Bishops and the French Church, 1190–1789 J. Michael Hayden and Malcolm R. Greenshields

42 Marguerite Bourgeoys and the Congregation of Notre Dame, 1665–1700 Patricia Simpson 43 To Heal a Fractured World The Ethics of Responsibility Jonathan Sacks 44 Revivalists Marketing the Gospel in English Canada, 1884–1957 Kevin Kee 45 The Churches and Social Order in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Canada Edited by Michael Gauvreau and Ollivier Hubert 46 Political Ecumenism Catholics, Jews, and Protestants in De Gaulle’s Free France, 1940–1945 Geoffrey Adams

38 The Missionary Oblate Sisters Vision and Mission Rosa Bruno-Jofré

47 From Quaker to Upper Canadian Faith and Community Among Yonge Street Friends, 1801–1850 Robynne Rogers Healey

39 Religion, Family, and Community in Victorian Canada The Colbys of Carrollcroft Marguerite Van Die

48 The Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power, 1693–1796 Colleen Gray

40 Michael Power The Struggle to Build the Catholic Church on the Canadian Frontier Mark G. McGowan

49 Canadian Pentecostalism Transition and Transformation Edited by Michael Wilkinson

41 The Catholic Origins of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution, 1931–1970 Michael Gauvreau

50 A War with a Silver Lining Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899–1902 Gordon L. Heath

series one: G.A. Rawlyk, Editor 1 Small Differences Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815–1922 An International Perspective Donald Harman Akenson 2 Two Worlds The Protestant Culture of Nineteenth-Century Ontario William Westfall 3 An Evangelical Mind Nathanael Burwash and the Methodist Tradition in Canada, 1839–1918 Marguerite Van Die 4 The Dévotes Women and Church in Seventeenth-Century France Elizabeth Rapley 5 The Evangelical Century College and Creed in English Canada from the Great Revival to the Great Depression Michael Gauvreau 6 The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods James M. Stayer 7 A World Mission Canadian Protestantism and the Quest for a New International Order, 1918–1939 Robert Wright 8 Serving the Present Age Revivalism, Progressivism, and the Methodist Tradition in Canada Phyllis D. Airhart

9

A Sensitive Independence Canadian Methodist Women Missionaries in Canada and the Orient, 1881–1925 Rosemary R. Gagan

10 God’s Peoples Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster Donald Harman Akenson 11 Creed and Culture The Place of English-Speaking Catholics in Canadian Society, 1750–1930 Edited by Terrence Murphy and Gerald Stortz 12 Piety and Nationalism Lay Voluntary Associations and the Creation of an Irish-Catholic Community in Toronto, 1850–1895 Brian P. Clarke 13 Amazing Grace Studies in Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States Edited by George Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll 14 Children of Peace W. John McIntyre 15 A Solitary Pillar Montreal’s Anglican Church and the Quiet Revolution Joan Marshall

16 Padres in No Man’s Land Canadian Chaplains and the Great War Duff Crerar

21 The Lord’s Dominion The History of Canadian Methodism Neil Semple

17 Christian Ethics and Political Economy in North America A Critical Analysis of U.S. and Canadian Approaches P. Travis Kroeker

22 A Full-Orbed Christianity The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900–1940 Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau

18 Pilgrims in Lotus Land Conservative Protestantism in British Columbia, 1917–1981 Robert K. Burkinshaw

23 Evangelism and Apostasy The Evolution and Impact of Evangelicals in Modern Mexico Kurt Bowen

19 Through Sunshine and Shadow The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Evangelicalism, and Reform in Ontario, 1874–1930 Sharon Cook

24 The Chignecto Covenanters A Regional History of Reformed Presbyterianism in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1827–1905 Eldon Hay

20 Church, College, and Clergy A History of Theological Education at Knox College, Toronto, 1844–1994 Brian J. Fraser

25 Methodists and Women’s Education in Ontario, 1836–1925 Johanne Selles 26 Puritanism and Historical Controversy William Lamont

A War with a Silver Lining Canadian Protestant Churches and the South African War, 1899–1902 gordon l. heath

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston London Ithaca G

G

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2009 isbn 978-0-7735-3480-3 Legal deposit first quarter 2009 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Divinity College at McMaster University. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (bpidp) for our publishing activities. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Heath, Gordon L. A war with a silver lining : Canadian protestant churches and the South African War, 1899–1902 / Gordon L. Heath. (McGill-Queen’s studies in the history of religion. Series two 50) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-7735-3480-3 1. South African War, 1899–1902 – Religious aspects – Protestant churches. 2. Protestant churches – Canada – History – 20th century. 3. Protestants – Canada – Attitudes – History. 4. South African War, 1899–1902 – Canada. 5. Imperialism – History – 20th century. 6. Canada – Church history – 20th century. I. Title. II. Series. dt1918.r44h42 2009

280'.4097109034

c2008-905368-0

Typeset by Jay Tee Graphics Ltd. in 10/13 New Baskerville

Contents

Illustrations xi Acknowledgments Introduction xv 1 to arms

xiii

3

2 for justice

21

3 for the nation

50

4 for the empire

88

5 for missions

118

conclusion

139

Notes 145 Bibliography Index 205

189

This page intentionally left blank

Illustrations

Wartime sermon

19

Actions of the British defended

40

Portrayal of concentration camps as enjoyable places Announcement of peace in the Canadian Baptist Monsoon Tea advertisement “Our Beloved Queen”

90

103

In Memoriam: On the Queen’s death, 1901 “The Empire’s Message”

112

F.J. Livingston’s My Escape from the Boers

135

104

48

41

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

The publication of this book ends a project that began in the year 2000 when I started researching my doctoral dissertation. Over the course of many years a variety of people and organizations helped behind the scenes to make the project a success. The archivists at the Anglican General Synod Archives (Toronto), the United Church Archives at Victoria University in the University of Toronto, the Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College (Hamilton), and the Baptist Archives at Acadia University were all immensily helpful throughout the years of my research. A special thank-you to the Acadia Center for Baptist and Anabaptist Studies (acbas) for funding and lodging for my trip to the Acadia archives. McMaster Divinity College’s emphasis on, and support for, research has created an environment where faculty research can flourish. The college has also made a subvention possible. Nikola Caric, my ta at McMaster, has earned a word of thanks for his painstaking attention to detail as he pored over the manuscript, weeding out split infinitives, useless repetitions, and other such evils. A few scholars need mentioning. Phyllis Airhart at Emmanuel College in Toronto provided a formative influence in my development as a historian (of course, the failings in this book are all my fault). Carman Miller at McGill was a source of encouragement and insight as I entered into an area of his expertise. To both these accomplished scholars I owe a debt of gratitude. The referees and editors at McGill-Queen’s have been outstanding to work with throughout the entire process. Kyla Madden’s patience and assistance throughout the ups and downs of the subvention process was particularly appreciated.

xiv

Acknowledgments

A word of thanks goes to the Journal of the Canadian Society of Church History for allowing me to reproduce portions of two articles: “Sin in the Camp” and “Forming Sound Public Opinion.” The final word of thanks goes to my wife Virginia and our two children, Joshua and Natasha. They have encouraged me throughout the many years of the writing of this book. They have also provided me with much-needed perspective: while writing a book is a worthwhile venture, family, friends, and being a good husband and father are much more important. And it is to my family that I dedicate this book. Gordon L. Heath June 2008

Introduction

Noting obvious parallels between the British Empire at the peak of its power and the United States today, Niall Ferguson provocatively states, “In truth, there is only one power capable of playing an imperial role in the modern world, and that is the United States. Indeed, to some degree it is already playing that role.”1 Such parallels are thought provoking, but the call for America to take up the mantle of imperial power for the benefit of the world is highly provocative and contentious. The disestablishment of the church and an increasingly postChristian zeitgeist in the West have led many to question the assumptions that undergirded the old religious establishment. The postwar breakup of European empires, once deemed to be providentially established to civilize and Christianize the world, also has led to an outpouring of criticism of Western imperialism and even the idea of empire itself.2 Consequently, any call to empire sounds completely out of touch with twenty-first century sensibilities. However, the sensibilities of one generation are not necessarily those of a previous one. A century ago, calls for the projection of Western imperial power around the globe were common, and they were hardly controversial. Of course, the global superpower then was the British Empire; and in order to understand the Canadian churches’ response to the South African War, one has to travel back to a Canada that extolled the virtues of imperialism in general and the British Empire in particular. For instance, during the fall semester of 1899 at Wesley College in Winnipeg, a student named Thomas Brown delivered a prize-winning speech on the war that was raging in South Africa. While in his speech Brown suspended judgment on the cause of the conflict, he did express his conviction that the war could be beneficial: “Taking

xvi

Introduction

matters as I find them, I propose to show in the short time left at my disposal that the cloud of devastation now bursting upon the Transvaal has yet a silver lining, and that over the area where desolation is now rampant great good will come as a result of this war.”3 The “great good” to which Brown referred was the benefits he believed would come to the “natives” of South Africa, to the Boers themselves, to the empire, and to the work of Protestant missions in South Africa. While there may have been a few who did not hold such convictions, the majority of English Protestants in Canada would have agreed with Brown’s assessment. The attitude of the Canadian churches towards the impending conflict in South Africa was not inconsequential, for at the turn of the century the churches wielded significant influence in the formation of public morals, religious beliefs, and political sentiments. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Protestant churches had an influence on English Canadian society unlike any other institution. In French Canada it was the Roman Catholic Church that held power, with 2,229,600 members, whereas in English Canada the “big four” Protestant denominations dominated the religious landscape. Neck and neck in the race for the title of the largest Canadian Protestant denomination were the Methodists and Presbyterians. In 1901 there were 916,886 Methodists, comprising 17.1 percent of the population, and 842,442 Presbyterians, accounting for 15.7 percent. In third place was the Anglican Church, with 680,620 members and 12.7 percent of the population. The Baptists came a distant fourth place with 318,666 adherents, representing 5.9 percent. Together, these four denominations constituted 51.4 percent of the Canadian population. The Roman Catholic Church made up 41.5 percent. The remaining less than 10 percent consisted of a variety of smaller (mainly Protestant) groups.4 Although the Protestant churches seem to have played no significant role in the formation of the nation in 1867, they acknowledged their need to unite nationally in the years following Confederation. In addition, they recognized the opportunity to shape the new nation into “His Dominion,” a Christian nation. As Phyllis Airhart notes, “Protestant leaders in many communities led the search for a national identity in the decades following Confederation.”5 Through services, sermons, organizations, and literature, the churches were active in shaping the opinions of the newborn nation. Canada was to be a Christian nation, and despite the reality that 40 percent of the population

Introduction

xvii

was Roman Catholic, the country was most often portrayed by Protestants as a Protestant nation. At the end of the nineteenth century there was a great deal of optimism in Canada, fuelled by a booming economy, the discovery of gold in the Klondike, and the arrival of waves of new settlers. This growing sense of optimism was shared by the Protestant churches, and they were confident that they could overcome their obstacles and continue the transformation of Canada into a Christian nation. As already noted, the churches’ nationalism must be understood in the larger context of popular imperial sentiment. For most Protestant leaders, any discussion of a Christian nation presupposed that this nation was part of the larger Christian British Empire to which Canada and the other dominions providentially belonged. Canadian nationalism reflected much of the imperial sentiment that Carl Berger spoke of in The Sense of Power, and consequently, the churches’ nationalism was inseparably intertwined with imperial sentiment.6 On 11 October 1899, Britain was officially at war in South Africa against the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State.7 While the war was thousands of kilometres from the shores of Canada, and Canada’s contribution of over seven thousand troops to the imperial cause was relatively small, the war is considered to be one of the critical events in the nation-building process of the young dominion. Its participation in the South African War affected the development of Canada’s foreign policy and international reputation, the growth of Canadian nationalism, and also the domestic divisions between French and English Canada. From the onset of the conflict between Britain and the Boers in 1899 to the final peace settlement in 1902, one cannot find an antiwar statement pronounced by any of the four largest Canadian Protestant denominations. In fact, all of the official publications and statements of these denominations consistently defended Britain’s cause in the war and supported the sending of Canadian soldiers to fight alongside British and colonial troops. While there were a few Canadian clergy who were vocal in their anti-war sentiment, they were the exception and quickly found that they did not represent the position of their denomination as a whole. Those who had expected the church to take the side of pacifism were disappointed to find that the clergy were “largely on the side of the big guns.”8 The fact that the churches supported a war is not surprising, for churches have supported various wars throughout history. One of the

xviii

Introduction

factors that makes their endorsement of this one so significant is the virtual uniformity of their enthusiasm for the war effort (something usually associated with the churches’ reaction to the First World War); in the very first week of the conflict all of their publications officially sided with the government and used similar arguments to defend the actions of the empire. Despite trends towards some type of official union among the churches, these four denominations still differed fairly substantially in doctrine, history, and practice, yet they held in common assumptions that shaped their perspective on the war. This is noteworthy considering the extensive criticism elsewhere. There were churches as well as Christians in both Britain and the United States that were vocal in their opposition to the war, claiming that Britain’s motive was greed and its method of warfare unchristian.9 There were also loud voices on the domestic political front that were critical of the war effort, especially Canada’s participation in it. As the war progressed, the international community’s criticism of Britain’s motives and methods also grew increasingly loud and more hostile. But while there was scattered dissent in English Canada,10 one must not make the mistake of taking these critics as representative of the churches as a whole or even, in this case, as a significant percentage of church opinion. Despite the theological diversity of the churches and the extent of the opposition to the war elsewhere, the Canadian English Protestant churches stood firm in their position on the war. Their official statements and literature reflect nothing but complete and essentially unanimous support for the imperial cause. However, it should also be noted that the war exacerbated denominational tensions that had a long history in Canada (and were supposed to have been dealt with decades earlier) and revealed that the general Protestant consensus had problems that could quickly become serious issues if the situation warranted. While the English Protestant churches often spoke as though all Canadians agreed with them, French Canadian Roman Catholic opinion on the war (and on Britain) was of a radically different and often opposing nature. Led by vocal and popular politicians, including Henri Bourassa, French Roman Catholic Canadians tended to be wary and unsupportive of becoming involved in what they considered to be Britain’s imperial wars. Recognizing the extensive cultural, linguistic, historical, political, and religious differences between the two dominant founding European cultures in Canada, this study will confine itself to why there was such widespread support of the war effort by

Introduction

xix

English Protestant churches.11 The challenge for future historians is to explore how the war affected the smaller and oftentimes ethnically isolated Protestant communities.12 The most recent and authoritative work on Canada’s involvement in the war is Carman Miller’s Painting the Map Red. While it acknowledges the important role of the churches in forming attitudes towards the war and claims that they were generally supportive, Miller’s work focuses primarily on the experiences of the Canadian troops who went to South Africa. He pays relatively little attention to the reasons for the churches’ position on the conflict. In the preface to Painting the Map Red, Miller offers a challenge. The centennial anniversary of the war and the republishing of his book was “an opportunity to remind Canadian historians that the South African War remains an underdeveloped subject of Canadian historiography. Quite apart from the need to challenge my construction of events, many aspects of Canada’s participation in this conflict remain virtually untouched by scholars.”13 No extensive, sustained research has been published on the Canadian English Protestant churches’ attitude to the war; it is one of those areas Miller refers to as “virtually untouched.” The intention of this work is, in a sense, to take up the challenge by researching the role that the Canadian English Protestant churches played in the war. The most important work in the area of Canadian imperialism is Carl Berger’s The Sense of Power. Berger explores many facets of imperialism in Canadian culture at the turn of the century. He understands the imperial impulse in Canada during the war to be a form of Canadian nationalism. It was this type of nationalism, he argues, that explains Canada’s enthusiastic participation in an imperial war.14 But, like Miller, he does not focus on the reasons for the churches’ support of the war. Historians of Christianity in Canada have not paid any significant attention to the matter either. However, the imperial sentiment at the turn of the century has been identified briefly by historians such as John Webster Grant, Brian Clarke, and John Moir.15 The national sentiment of the churches has also been noted. For example, William H. Magney, Neil Semple, and Phyllis Airhart have explored the nationalistic impulse in the Methodist Church before and after the turn of the century.16 But there has been no attempt to explore the type of nationalism within the churches, and no attempt to understand how the national sentiment is related to the imperial sentiment. Historians of Christianity in Canada also tend to make the mistake of applying

xx

Introduction

contemporary understandings of what it means to be Canadian to those of a century ago, assuming that the type of nation being envisioned and built by the churches at the end of the nineteenth century corresponds with contemporary images. As David A. Nock notes, “there has been a marked tendency for scholars to be affected in their interpretations of Canadian evolution by their own particular notions of Canadian identity.”17 As a result, the nation-building theme so “central to the historical analysis of the Protestant experience in Canada between Confederation and the First World War”18 is in need of some revision, for the churches’ nationalism has rarely been placed within the larger imperial context. This is no small matter, for as this work will indicate, the churches could not have conceived of a Canada or Canadian nationalism outside the British Empire. Most of the works dealing with Canada’s role in the war can generally be placed within the rubric of political histories. These works on foreign policy are helpful for their placing of Canadian attitudes and defence policy decisions in the context of imperial and international pressures and responsibilities.19 Not necessarily fitting within the category of political histories are the numerous studies that deal with the FrenchEnglish social tensions in Canada, the specific histories of Canadian military units or organizations, and the numerous biographies of veterans.20 These works are helpful in understanding the imperial sentiment that was at fever pitch during the war, the national and international pressures that helped shape attitudes to the war, and the domestic problems caused by the war. Still, they leave unanswered the question of why the churches wholeheartedly supported the war effort. This work will show that the support expressed in the Canadian Protestant churches was rooted in the conviction that the war (to use the words of Thomas Brown) had a “silver lining.” War was lamented by all denominations. But this war was seen as one that would ultimately bring blessings for all involved. A British victory, it was felt, would lead ultimately to a furthering of the churches’ aims. Central to the ministry of the churches was a concern for justice, nation, empire, and missions. The application of justice, the development of the new nation Canada, the unifying and strengthening of the empire, and the spreading of missions were all connected in some way to the war effort, and a British victory in South Africa would help further all four of these aims at once. These four aims had been pursued by the churches before the war began, but the war brought them into sharper focus and provided a unique context for their expression. Underlying this

Introduction

xxi

support for the British cause was the belief that the empire had been providentially established to spread civilization and Christianity. Consequently, concomitant with these four aims was the idea that a British victory would benefit all involved; it would be good for Canadians, good for Britons, good for the empire, good for the entire world, and even good for the Boers. How could one not support the imperial effort when with the interests of church and missions, nation and empire, the secular and the sacred were so intertwined? It was indeed a war with a “silver lining.” The first chapter illustrates how the four denominations under consideration supported the call to arms and the sending of troops on the outbreak of war in October 1899. The next four chapters explain why they did so. Chapter 2 deals with how the churches framed the war within the traditional “just war” paradigm. It shows how assumptions about race and empire, as well as the social gospel impulse within the churches, coloured their view of what was just and how to attain justice. Chapter 3 outlines how the churches’ nation-building passion dovetailed with the rising patriotism and call to arms within the new nation. It illustrates some of the ways in which the nation-building churches participated in the war effort and shaped public attitudes about the war. It also shows how the war exacerbated long-standing tensions between some of the denominations. Undergirding much of the concern for the nation-building churches was the idea of precedent. The war was the first for the new nation, and the churches wanted to make sure that proper precedents regarding Canadian participation in wars and the churches’ participation in the sending and support of troops were established for any future conflicts. Chapter 4 explores the imperial sentiment in the churches. More specifically, it looks at how the threat to empire was considered to be a threat to Canada, as well as to an empire that was considered to be God’s providential tool to spread Christianity and civilization around the globe. Chapter 5 shows how the churches were convinced that the spread of British rule would advance the cause of missionary work, since British rule was considered to be more benevolent than Boer rule. This examination of the churches and the war draws on the conclusions of historians regarding late-nineteenth-century Canadian nationalism and imperialism, as well as on the works of historians of Christianity in Canada. In doing so, it contributes to the growing discussion of the role of religion in shaping Canadian culture, politics, and nationhood. These churches actively participated in the nation-

xxii

Introduction

building process that was permeated with imperial ideals, and so it also contributes to the post-colonial dialogue about the complicity of the Western churches in imperialism. While this study does not rely solely on one particular theory for its understanding of the dynamics surrounding the nation-building efforts of the churches, there are various works on nation building that have been particularly helpful in trying to understand the churches’ enthusiasm for the war effort. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger’s concept of invented traditions was one such work.21 Whether it was the idea of a Christian (Protestant) Canada with a providential mission within (and only within) the British Empire, the vision of a racially homogenous (Anglo-Saxon) Canada, or the concept of a Canada radically distinct from the United States, the churches were active participants in inventing traditions of what the past had been and what the future held for Canada. Of course, they assumed that such traditions would solidify the present and future aims of the church. Another such work is H.V. Nelles’s The Art of Nation-Building. Nelles points out that in order to form a national consciousness, nations need occasions to bring people together. He also argues that the instruments of nation building are items such as flags, anthems, idols, and monuments.22 In this regard, services, sermons, and other activities in and outside the churches connected with the war effort were acts of selfinvention of a national consciousness.23 Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities also sheds some light on the need for nations to have an imagined sense of community and identity. He writes, “In fact, all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.”24 The imperial idea united Anglo-Canadians into an imagined community that not only extended from west to east coasts but also extended across the oceans to distant parts of the empire. The churches’ sense that this global community was providentially established for a purpose simply increased the power of the appeal of this vision. Related to Anderson’s conclusion is Daniel Francis’s claim that a nation is “a group of people who share the same illusions about themselves.” Stated more positively, each nation has its own “civic ideology, a framework of ideas and aspirations that expresses itself in allegiance to certain public policies and institutions,” which has to be continually “recreated and reinforced.”25 The churches had a great deal invested in the belief that the empire was just and benevolent. If it

Introduction

xxiii

was not (as its war critics claimed), what did that say about the identity of Canada? Consequently, what was at stake was the civic ideology of Britain and its empire, as well as Canadian identity. However, the conclusion of Jonathan F. Vance must also be kept in mind. Vance argues that the meaning found in the First World War and in the decades that followed it was not something that was “concocted by elites.”26 While Vance is referring to post–First World War memory or myth, his point also applies to the events of the South African War. From the very first shots of the South African War, there were certain “myths” surrounding the memory and meaning of the war’s events. As the war progressed, the churches were often at the forefront of the interpretation of its meaning. Nevertheless, neither the churches as a whole nor individual members had the memory forced on them by “elites.” Church leaders may have invented traditions and memories, but both they and individual members owned their understanding of the events and also contributed to the ongoing memory and meaning of the war. Why? Because, as Vance argues in relation to the First World War, those alive during the South African War found the myths provided meaning in the war, as well as in a world that seemed to be filled with threats and uncertainty. Related to the formation of national identity and imperial ideology is the issue of race. Referring to the period being studied, Myra Rutherdale declares that it was “an age of classification” and the “discourse of difference” was an everyday occurrence.27 The terms “race,” “breed,” “stock,” “native,” and the like were common and, for most, were considered inoffensive. For instance, even a socially progressive leader such as J.S. Woodsworth used such racial categories.28 Rutherdale’s work indicates that the terms were an everyday part of the Canadian missionary’s experience in the Canadian West. This study shows that it was an everyday part of the churches’ language of nation building and empire. Andrew Ross notes that by the end of the nineteenth century the idea of trusteeship had become very influential among British missionaries, and it shaped attitudes towards race.29 What this research indicates is that the idea of trusteeship so influential among British missionaries was shared by Canadian missionary enthusiasts. Of course, this view of race should come as no surprise to those well versed in post-colonial writings. Edward Said (along with others after him) has shown how the West constructed images of nonEuropeans during this period.30 He argues that the construction of the “other” (in a paternalistic and negative way) justified exploitation

xxiv

Introduction

and empire. While this emphasis on what they referred to as race, or stock, was common in the churches’ language and literature, what people meant by such terms is often unclear (for the terms are generally used with no definition given, since the reader or hearer is assumed to know what was meant).31 The basic assumption behind using such words was that the European was superior to the non-European and that the Anglo-Saxon was superior to all others.32 Out of a desire to present the views of a century ago as they were used then, this work will use the same terms but will place the commonly used term “natives” in quotation marks. When used in reference to South Africa, “natives” always referred to the non-white, non-European population in Africa. One last note about race needs to be made. While in the African context the superiority expressed in Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” was most often in relation to indigenous Africans, this was not always the case. During the South African War, the white man’s burden was directed at other whites, for the one being constructed as the “other” was actually the Boer – a white South African of Dutch descendent. Despite this strange twist on the white man’s burden, however, the construction of the Boer (as will be seen below) served the same purpose as the construction of other “lesser” peoples: the growth and spread of empire. Over the past number of decades a considerable amount of energy has been expended exploring the relationship between missions and imperialism, a relationship most often explained in terms of power. While certainly power is an important part of the analysis of missionary attitudes and actions, Jane Samson argues convincingly that a more nuanced approach to power and motives is called for.33 Andrew Porter’s recent book on the history of British Protestant missionaries is an example of such an approach.34 It shows that the relationship between British missionaries and empire was more complex and ambiguous than previously thought, and this complexity is something that needs to be further explored among Canadian missionaries and their zealous supporters. Phillip Buckner notes that hundreds of English-language newspapers were virtually unanimous in their support of the war.35 The Protestant religious press was no different in this regard. The primary way in which this research has been carried out has been through a study of the wartime denominational newspapers and other official literature. In a time before radio, television, and the Internet, news was

Introduction

xxv

communicated primarily by the printed press. The religious press of the day provided a broad range of local, national, and international denominational news, articles, and editorials on international affairs, as well as letters to the editor, along with poetry, hymns, prayers, and stories.36 Merrill Distad claims that the “largest single genre [in Canada] was the religious press which accounted for at least one-fifth of all non-government imprints.”37 The number of weekly, biweekly, and monthly regional and national publications was impressive: the Anglican Church had over fifteen, the Baptists over ten, the Methodists over twenty, and the Prebyterians close to ten. The publications were widely read by members of their respective denominations. The Presbyterian Record, for example, had a weekly circulation of more than 46,000 readers, the Christian Guardian more than 20,000, and Pleasant Hours more than 50,000. These were significant numbers, considering that the Toronto Globe had a daily circulation of approximately 43,000 and the Toronto Evening Telegram’s daily circulation was around 25,000.38 While the development of the secular press in Canada has been the focus of some historical research, the existence and role of these late-Victorian church publications has been relatively neglected by historians of Christianity in Canada.39 Even many of the histories of the development of the press in Canada mention the religious press only briefly.40 The ignoring of the denominational press by many historians is surprising in view of the importance of newspapers in the shaping of public opinion in the late-Victorian period,41 as well as their value as a primary source for historians.42 Whatever the reasons for this neglect, the late-Victorian Protestant denominational press needs to be seen as an important factor in the development of not only religious convictions but also political values and opinions. William H. Magney notes just how important the study of denominational literature can be for determining the national sentiments of Canadians. He writes that “historians of national sentiment in Canada who ignore the writings of Church journals, and the declarations of the institutional churches, do so at their own peril, for they overlook one of the most fertile sources of nationalistic writings in existence.”43 This work will follow his lead and study the denominational literature, for indeed it is filled with national and imperial sentiments. Along with the denominational press, this research looks at the denominational resolutions made in support of the war at synod, conference, presbytery, and other church meetings. Reflecting the wishes of the majority of those in attendance, these resolutions shed light on

xxvi

Introduction

sentiments about the war. Public statements and sermons of the churches’ leaders, church activities in support of the soldiers, and wartime liturgies are also examined in order to broaden a sense of the churches’ attitudes to the conflict. Together, they made it clear to the soldiers, politicians, clergy, and laity that the churches were firmly on the side of the government. One gets glimpses of popular support through the hundreds of proempire poems submitted by the laity, through letters to the editor, or by examining the attendance at meetings or support for troops in other practical ways, such as giving to the Patriotic Fund. But just how much do the official church statements or comments by clergy reflect the opinions of church members? The limitations of using denominational publications, official statements, and sermons are obvious: perhaps the editor (usually a clergyman) who put together the newspaper or the clergyman who preached the sermon, held such views, but did the people in the pew? Consequently, the reliance on official accounts limits the claims that this research can make about popular support for the war. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of pro-war commentary and its unanimity in the newspapers (and in official statements) suggests that there was a considerable amount of agreement with the views expressed in print. With regard to newspapers, Glenn Wilkinson notes that the late-Victorian newspapers are an exceptional source of information for cultural and social historians. Because a newspaper needs to connect immediately with its readership, there is a “form of two-way communication” between the paper and its readers, reflecting in its pages the immediate events and perceptions of the period. Wilkinson writes, “Images in newspapers had to conform to the perception of war that readers already held. In this regard, newspapers had little or no thought for posterity or future reputations of their creators, and they needed to create and foster an immediate connection with their reader audiences.”44 He goes on to say that “this makes the newspapers a form of two-way communication, with readers more than ‘blank slates’ awaiting to be etched with how to think about the world by the press.” Of course, there are pitfalls to using newspapers as primary sources. Peter Hennessy has noted that one of the most significant issues related to the use of newspapers as primary sources is editorial bias. He writes that the “value of any report or piece of commentary has to be judged in the light of a paper’s editorial predilections as well as the writer’s own bias. The fair-mindedness which ought

Introduction

xxvii

to characterize the historian’s work cannot be assumed to govern that of journalists.”45 As noted above, Niall Ferguson points out obvious parallels between the British Empire at the peak of its power and the United States today. Such parallels are interesting and provocative, and remind the reader that the issue of imperialism is not merely a matter for the history books but is one that must be faced today. It is my hope that the study of Canada’s Protestant churches and their support for the South African War will aid contemporary churches to think carefully and make wise choices about supporting contemporary imperial military conflicts.

This page intentionally left blank

a wa r w i t h a s i lv e r l i n i n g

This page intentionally left blank

1 To Arms [The] only possible answer to such a demand, consonant with self-respect and dignity, was an acceptance of the challenge. Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899

At the end of the nineteenth century Canada belonged to the British Empire, the largest and most powerful European empire. As one historian has noted, these “last years of Queen Victoria’s reign have been called the ‘braggart years,’ and indeed the British had never before so preened themselves: never before, nor since, had Britons swelled with such an intensity of imperial pride.”1 Since the 1870s, European nations had rapidly expanded their overseas empires. In the “scramble for Africa,” almost the entire continent of Africa had fallen under the sway of a European power. The country to gain the most territory around the world, and especially in Africa, was Britain. If an empire was cause for bragging, then Britain had much to brag about. In this “scramble for Africa,” more than 70 million Africans were added to the empire between 1882 and 1898 “at a cost of some 15p each.”2 The Canadian Methodist publication Canadian Epworth Era joined in this bragging when it noted proudly that the empire had increased from 115 million in 1800 to 390 million in 1900 and over the past century had grown to be more than ninety-seven times the size of the British Isles, at the rate of two acres per second.3 By 1899, with an empire where the “sun never set,” Britain was unique among the world powers and was the “world’s greatest imperial power, at least in terms of territory and population.”4 In 1897 Britain had the opportunity to celebrate its greatness. Between 19 and 24 June the empire was fixated on celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne. Tributes to the Queen flowed from friend and foe around the world, including from Canada. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Canada’s prime minister,

4

A War with a Silver Lining

represented Canada during the festivities. The highlight of the Jubilee celebrations was on 22 June, when the royal procession, with 50,000 troops from the various regions of the empire, made its way from Buckingham Palace to St Paul’s Cathedral. The Times remarked: “History may be searched, and searched in vain, to discover so wonderful an exhibition of allegiance and brotherhood among so many myriads of men ... The mightiest and most beneficial Empire ever known in the annals of mankind.”5 Poems, hymns, sermons, newspapers, and new publications all extolled the virtues of the empire. Despite its apparent strength, however, there was a growing sense that all was not well and that Britain was vulnerable. The increasing economic and military growth and strength (and perceived threat) of other nations made Britain’s supremacy seem increasingly precarious. These external threats, combined with worry over domestic social ills, had eroded national confidence by the end of the century. Thus, Dennis Judd has concluded that the jingoism of the day was partly due to the feelings of insecurity felt by Victorians.6 The one colony that could not be lost was India. India was considered Britain’s jewel and the key to the empire: lose India and the empire would be lost. South Africa was seen as a critical link between Britain and this prized possession; therefore any threat to British paramountcy in South Africa was a perceived threat to the empire at large. The major problem facing the imperial authorities in 1899 in South Africa was what to do with the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State – the two Boer republics bordering their Cape and Natal colonies. Ever since the British annexation of the Boer territory during the Napoleonic Wars in 1806 there had been tensions between the Dutch settlers and the British authorities. In 1837 there began a Boer movement northward out of the reach of British rule in a migration known as the Great Trek. In 1852 Britain recognized the newly formed Transvaal Republic in the Sand River Convention and in 1854 the Orange Free State in the Bloemfontein Convention. Peace was not to last, however, for in its desire to unite all of South Africa under the Union Jack, Britain annexed the Transvaal in 1877. More conflict followed, with the Transvaalers rebelling against British rule in 1880. Called the First Boer War by some, this conflict included the Majuba Hill defeat of British troops. Celebrated by the Boers and bemoaned by the British, Majuba Hill was an embarrassing defeat for the British.7 The effects of the war in general, and Majuba Hill in particular, were far reaching. As Carman Miller notes,

To Arms

5

this short war (only four months) left a resentment and desire for revenge among Britons and an inflated martial confidence among the Boers.8 The Pretoria Convention of August 1881 ended the immediate hostilities. This arrangement gave the Transvaalers complete selfgovernment, subject to suzerainty of Queen Victoria. The Convention of London in 1884 was a revised version of the Pretoria Convention, with one important difference: it did not include any reference to British suzerainty. This omission would lead to conflict in the years to come, for it was interpreted differently by the British and the Boers. The discovery of diamonds in 1867 and then of gold in the Transvaal in 1887 complicated the already fragile relations between Britain and the two republics. Paul Kruger, president of the Transvaal during the South African War, claimed that the “first and principal cause” of the conflict was the discovery of the goldfields.9 One of the greatest complications was the flood of foreigners into the republic after the discovery of the gold. These Outlanders, or Uitlanders (“outsiders”), many of whom were British citizens, did not enjoy the same rights as the Boers. On 31 December 1895, claiming the Outlanders’ grievances against the Transvaal government as just cause, Cecil Rhodes, prime minister of the Cape Colony, initiated a raid led by Dr Leander Starr Jameson into the Transvaal Republic with the aim of encouraging a revolt against the Transvaal authorities. The Jameson Raid was a dismal failure, and the five hundred or so raiders surrendered on 2 January 1896. One immediate result was a heightened sense of distrust between the two republics and the British.10 Despite the efforts of many to find a way around the impasse between Briton and Boer, by the summer of 1899 it appeared that another war was imminent.11 Eager to impress the Boers (and any European power that might have been entertaining ideas of supporting the Boers) with the strength of a united British Empire, Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain sought a show of Canadian support for the British cause. On 31 July 1899 the Canadian House of Commons partially satisfied him when it unanimously supported the cause of the British in South Africa. Chamberlain, however, wanted more than just a diplomatic nod in Britain’s direction. He wanted a commitment of Canadian troops. Faced with Laurier’s objections to the sending of troops, Chamberlain, along with Lord Minto, governor general of Canada, and General Edward Hutton, the British commander in charge of the Canadian military, put private and public pressure on Laurier to commit to

6

A War with a Silver Lining

sending them. The calls for Laurier to commit became louder as the summer moved into autumn and the prospect of war in South Africa seemed more likely with each passing day. Throughout the summer and autumn of 1899, many Canadian Protestant publications reported the growing tensions between the British government and the two Boer republics. In July 1899 the Anglican Church’s flagship publication, the Canadian Churchman, sought to “make clear to [its] readers” the issues at stake in South Africa.12 Its editorial on South Africa, while recognizing that the area had a complicated history, made it plain that the Boers were considered to be the ones in the wrong. The critical issue for the editor was the Boer treatment of the Outlanders. The Boers had behaved “tyrannically” towards the Outlanders, and the British government’s demands were perfectly understandable and just in light of such treatment. Interfering with an independent state did present problems for the way in which the British government could bring pressure to bear on the Transvaal government, but since conditions in South Africa were “simply becoming intolerable,” the British government had to act. Underlying the editor’s discussion of the struggle in South Africa was an unquestioned faith in the goodness of the British government as well as in the power of the empire. While tensions were rising and the rhetoric was becoming more warlike, the editor assured his readers, “We are safe in the hands of Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain. It is quite certain that, on the one hand, nothing will be done impulsively or unjustly; and, on the other that no half-measures will be adopted.” If war was to be declared, he went on, it would not be the fault of the British government. War, if it did occur, would be “forced upon them,” for the British demands had been marked by “moderation and patience.” If events did lead to war, however, there could only be one result – a British victory: “We cannot imagine that President Kruger and his advisors will be so insane as to try conclusions in this fashion [war]. But there can be but one end, however it may be reached.” No puny republic was considered able to stand up to the mighty British Empire. This confidence of an easy victory was eroded over the next few months. That October, in a Canadian Churchman editorial entitled “Peace or War,” it was argued that such a war would be more far-reaching than originally supposed and would bring “disaster” to both sides.13 The words of Canon Scott-Hullard were quoted as best describing the feelings of those within the Empire:

To Arms

7

Pray that England may be spared a war, which, even if the miserable necessity be forced upon her by the stubborn refusal of reasonable terms, must nevertheless be ignominious by its very conditions – a war in which the inevitable and inglorious victory cannot but bring in its train consequences so disastrous and dishonouring. But if there must be war, while we continue praying that it may please God to give all nations unity, peace and concord, we, as loyal subjects to the Queen, may and ought to join with the Church in the prayer “that it may please God to be her defender and keeper, giving her the victory over all her enemies.” While the reality of the strategic and military situation had eroded confidence in the ability of Britain to win an easy victory – as well as tempering jingoism – the sense that justice was still on the side of Britain remained. It was this sense of justice that gave them confidence in approaching God for assistance in battle. The Anglican student paper, Trinity University Review, also editorialized on the looming conflict. In October it claimed that “all eyes [were] turned in the direction of South Africa” and that “no hope” seemed to be left for a peaceful settlement.14 Like the Churchman, it blamed the Boers for the situation, and claimed that the conflict was primarily due to Boer aggressiveness. Not all Canadian Anglican publications commented on the looming crisis. The Canadian Church Magazine and Missionary News published an article entitled “Easter Day Up-Country in South Africa” in August 1899.15 The article provided information on the services, liturgy, leadership, and opportunities for the church in South Africa, but made no mention of the growing political tensions in the area. Other publications made no mention of South Africa at all. Baptists in Ontario and Quebec could read about the looming war in the Canadian Baptist, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec’s official weekly publication. In the 5 October 1899 edition, British and Canadian war preparations were briefly outlined.16 In the following week’s edition, when war seemed inevitable, the front-page editorial lamented what might have been.17 Doubt was expressed about whether or not the Boers in the British Cape Colony would be loyal to the Queen if war broke out. The editorial also decried the emigration of millions of “English, Scotch and Irish” to the United States. If these people who were loyal to the Queen and Britain had instead gone to South Africa, it argued, there would have been far more loyal

8

A War with a Silver Lining

British citizens to offset the large number of Boers in British territory. Despite these failures of British emigration policy and the obvious war preparations on both sides, a “slight chance” for peace was still considered a possibility because of the efforts of a “strong party” in England working for peace. The Religious Intelligencer of New Brunswick also monitored the brewing crisis in South Africa. Like its Baptist counterpart in Upper Canada, the Intelligencer defended the British cause and clearly and passionately placed the blame for the conflict on the Boers. The sympathy for the Boers because of their alleged religious character, which has existed in some quarters is really without foundation. They are not the religious people some suppose them. It is shown that they left the Cape because they would not acquiesce in the abolition of slavery. They slaughtered the Zulus of Natal, and as they crossed Vaal they actually exterminated the natives. Their brethren accepted British civilization. The Orange Free State has no difficulty and gets along well with the British. But when an obstinate people stand directly in the way of civilization, plunder the miners and refuse every offer for fair treatment, they can have very little sympathy. The Boers are plundering and oppressing the miners because they happen to be in territory they claim, over which Great Britain, however, claims suzerainty. War with them will be greatly regretted, because it would be at great cost of life and treasure, but the course of the Boers may make war inevitable.18 The Messenger and Visitor, another Maritime Baptist publication, also followed the course of events in South Africa closely, and throughout the summer and early fall it reported regularly on the growing crisis.19 The publication initially expressed some sympathy for the Boers and their conflict with Britain;20 however, by October, when war seemed inevitable, the Messenger and Visitor had become convinced that the Boers had conducted their negotiations in a “shifty and impractical” way.21 Consequently, while its conduct was not impeccable, Great Britain was “not to blame” for the tensions.22 The many and varied Methodist publications also followed the rising tensions in South Africa. In October the Christian Guardian noted the growing war preparations as well as the strategic situation.23 In July the Methodist Magazine and Review raised the issue of the status of the Outlanders.24 While claiming that Britain would not stand for the

To Arms

9

Boer treatment of the Outlanders and that the outcome of any struggle with Britain would be clear, it nevertheless decried the use of force to settle the issue and advised that the matter be submitted to the “Supreme Court of Peace” for settlement. That way they could “secure the triumphs of right without the horrors of war.” In the same spirit, one month later the mobilizing of British troops was lamented.25 The Maritime Methodist magazine, the Wesleyan, admitted that appraising events in South Africa was difficult because of “contradictory despatches.”26 Nevertheless, one thing was determined to be clear: the cause of the war could be placed at the feet of the Boers. Events in South Africa had been followed regularly in this magazine.27 In the months preceding October, the Boer attitude (especially that of Transvaal President Paul Kruger) was portrayed as a major cause of the conflict. For instance, Kruger’s stubbornness was considered “stupidity” and a “danger” for the Boers.28 In direct contrast to his attitude was the British “conciliatory spirit” demonstrated in all of Britain’s dealings with the Boers. But Britain’s gracious spirit was not to be interpreted as weakness: “Certainly Britain is showing extraordinary patience, and a willingness to put up with much rather than go to war. But, certainly also, she means business, and her very quietness is ominous unless her reasonable demands are complied with.” Another cause for the looming war, it was claimed, was that of suzerainty: the “crux in the whole affair” was that the Boers sought to be free from British suzerainty, and the British refused to relinquish it.29 It was believed that Britain could not give up its claim for two reasons. First, the Boers had shown their “utter incapacity” to deal with their own internal affairs, especially in regard to the “native races.” Second, it would be “suicidal” for Britain to surrender its rights over the Transvaal Republic. Since neither the Boers nor the British were backing off from their positions, the 11 October issue of the Wesleyan concluded that an outbreak of hostilities was “only a question of time.”30 On 9 September 1899 the Presbyterian Witness published “When England Ruled the Transvaal” in order to place the looming conflict in context.31 In the same issue, Samuel E. Moffett proposed a solution: for the Transvaal Republic to cede the mining areas to the Outlanders and for the British to cede agricultural territory in other areas. Since the Boers were thought to be an “agricultural people” and the Outlanders were “after gold,” this division was considered ideal in that it would allow the Boers to “expand in their own way” and the Outlanders to “dig, blast and speculate” in theirs.32

10

A War with a Silver Lining

Just before war was officially declared, an article in the Presbyterian Witness placed the conflict within the rubric of Britain’s global “mission” to bring civilization and Christianity to the world.33 The “future of civilization” was presumed to be “mainly in the hands of the AngloSaxon race,” and part of this great advance was the removal of slavery: “It must be owned that Great Britain has been the grand agent in upraising the lower races of manhood. This holds true in every continent and island. Even in South Africa one of the causes of bitter strife between Great Britain and the Dutch has been the British determination to protect the native races.” This identification of the British cause with the plight of the “natives” under Boer rule was to become a major plank in the pro-war platform throughout the war. The inexorable march of British civilization and Christianity would advance despite opposition. Placing its stamp of approval on conflict that expanded British paramountcy in Africa, the author wrote, “South Africa must be put in shape in spite of Africaner antagonism.” In early July the Westminster, another Presbyterian publication, noted the difficulties surrounding the “Transvaal Situation.” At this juncture, the Westminster counselled a hands-off approach for Canadians while recognizing that they had “no small interest” in what was happening, since the events had the potential to plunge the empire (and thus Canada) into war.34 Nevertheless, because of Canada’s unique history and its similarity to South Africa’s, Canadians should understand the need to stay out of the affair: “South Africa is proverbially a land of difficult problems. Most mercifully we Canadians settled many years ago some of the questions which still vex the land of gold and diamonds ... Our own resentment of foreign criticism based upon uninformed or misinformed criticism by outsiders should make us chary of committing ourselves to one side or the other in the controversy.”35 Having counselled Canada to refrain from choosing sides in one article, the Westminster ignored its own advice in another, reprinting Sir Alfred Milner’s conclusions on the Boers’ responsibility for the situation.36 Milner was Britain’s official representative on the scene, and utmost confidence was placed in his ability to guide events to their proper end. Consequently, Canadians and Britons were advised to “regard his conclusions as final and to back him up.”37 One month later, after the Canadian Parliament’s resolution of support for the British cause in South Africa (which the Westminster had supported), the Westminster again went against its own advice to stay

To Arms

11

out the conflict and argued that Canada’s unique history gave it a special “right to proffer ... advice.”38 After noting the close relationship between Britain and Canada, as well as pointing out the strategic significance of South Africa, the Westminster noted: “Our past has been unquiet, but we have come into the haven of equal rights for both of the great races which inhabit our land. The problem upon our continent was more difficult in its original elements than that in South Africa; yet it has been solved. We can well be advocates of the policy which has done so much for us, and which can do so much on other continents.”39 Canada was held up as a shining example of where British rule (and thus, a British victory over the Boers) could lead: “French and English live in amity here; Dutch and English should be able to live in amity there.”40 In the weeks that followed, as the Westminster reported on the rising tensions in South Africa, it spoke with increasing confidence in the justice of the British cause.41 Queen’s Quarterly printed divergent views on the pending conflict. Principal George Monro Grant, a Presbyterian clergyman and noted Imperial Federation proponent, argued for the cause of the Boers in the July issue. Providing a history of the Boers from the perspective of a Boer burgher, Grant argued that Britain’s actions towards them had been unjust from the start, especially after gold was found. While sympathetic, he saw their aspirations as anachronistic: “Their political views and ideals are those of the seventeenth while we are living in the nineteenth century, and therefore they are attempting the impossible.”42 Nevertheless, in Grant’s view, justice was on the side of the Boers, and thus Britain should back off in its demands. Grant questioned the actions and motives of Rhodes, Milner and Chamberlain.43 Three months later, however, when tensions between the British and the Boers were at breaking point, Queen’s Quarterly offered a different perspective. Its “Current Events” section, authored by James Cappon, defended Chamberlain and praised him for precipitating the crisis.44 By this time, Cappon was convinced that the situation was the fault of the Boers and their hatred of civilization. After defending Britian’s right to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Transvaal by claiming that the republic’s very existence was a result of Britain’s assistance at various times in the past, Cappon pressed the Boers to accept the inevitability of change and the inexorable advance of British civilization. After all, the Boers would ultimately be better off, once they had got over their loss:

12

A War with a Silver Lining

The change which threatens the Transvaal Boers is an economic one, and not one created by the intervention of the soldier or diplomatist. Economic changes of this kind are so evidently irresistible, wherever Western civilisation has established itself, that it is reasonable to think President Kruger’s determined opposition has a graver meaning than merely to preserve ten or twenty years longer the rude isolation of the Transvaal Boer. If that were all, the Scotch skippers of 40 years ago, whose little brigs and brigantines used to ply a thriving trade between the Baltic ports and the east coast of Scotland, might as well have taken up arms and posted themselves in the Sound of Elsinore to keep the new steamships that ruined their trade out of the Dantzic and Pernau. Their small traffic was inevitably destroyed, and with it their independent status as a class of shipowners; but from another point of view they, or their sons, were merely transformed into smart captains of s.s. with gold lace on their caps, and occasionally r.n.r. after their names, and in some cases even into opulent line owners. So, we hope, will it be with the Boers. There is always, of course, something to regret in such changes, but they are, as Oom Paul must by this time know, the law of the times in which we live.45 Once again, the advance of the British Empire was not the problem; rather, the problem was with those who opposed its advance. One common theme in the churches’ literature in the opening weeks of the war was the conviction that it had been forced on Britain. The two Boer republics had issued an ultimatum on 10 October 1899 demanding that Britain remove its troops from the border region, return the troops in South Africa that had recently arrived, and call back any troop transports that were en route to South Africa.46 “Britain’s reply to the ultimatum was the only reply which, under the circumstances, was possible,” proclaimed the Wesleyan.47 “After a marvellous exhibition of patience by the British statesmen, the war has been forced upon them,” declared the Guardian.48 The Canadian Churchman used the same type of language, stating that the war had “been forced upon the Imperial Government through the truculent action” of the Boers.49 The Canadian Baptist argued that the Boers had “cut short the negotiations for a peaceful settlement” by “an ultimatum flung in the face” of Britain.50 The Boers were the ones who had “thrown defiance in the face of a great power”51 and had given Britain “no alternative.”52 The Trinity University Review

To Arms

13

claimed that Britain had done all that it could to bring some type of peaceful reconciliation to the situation.53 The Westminster placed the cause of the war at the feet of Kruger and his advisers.54 In the same way, the Presbyterian Witness bluntly stated that it was the Transvaal that had “chosen war,” not Britain.55 The church publications all found the Boers’ ultimatum unacceptable. The Canadian Baptist printed both the ultimatum and Chamberlain’s rejection of it.56 The Presbyterian Witness described it as “singularly foolish, singularly insolent” and noted that “no self-respecting power” could ever submit to such humiliation.57 Britain was a world power and the Boer republics were, by comparison, small and relatively insignificant. Consequently, Britain could not succumb to the Boer demands. The Westminster agreed: The ultimatum which Dr. Reitz despatched on Tuesday is an amazing state paper. It is addressed by a petty state to a great power; that state is composed of former subjects of the power which it defies and is not in possession of full and complete independence, and yet it addresses its huge protagonist in an extraordinarily swaggering vein and peremptorily ordered it, not merely to withdraw its troops from the border, but to remove all in excess of a certain number from South Africa. It even goes further and commands Great Britain not to land in any port of South Africa any of the reinforcements now upon the ocean. The little republic orders the big empire to submit to a humiliation which would ruin her standing in the world and stamp her as a second China, inviting attack from every quarter.58 Other church publications echoed this sense of amazement that the Boers would address the mighty British Empire in such a manner. Acceptance of the ultimatum would have been an act of “national degradation,”59 and the “only possible answer to such a demand, consonant with self-respect and dignity, was an acceptance of the challenge.”60 In the Religious Intelligencer’s opinion, there could “be only one reply to such absurd and insolent demands, namely, that Great Britain would not even discuss them.”61 The Messenger and Visitor, once somewhat sympathetic to the Boer cause, concluded that no country with “self-respect” could “entertain them for one moment.”62 Upon the declaration of war, the church press was quick to support the sending of troops.63 The Anglican Church’s publications praised

14

A War with a Silver Lining

those who volunteered for Canada’s first contingent and offered prayers for their safety and success. The prayers of all denominations of Christians throughout the Dominion will go forth for the brave band of volunteers, who are rapidly enlisting in aid of the forces of the Crown, for the protection of the Queen’s subjects, that it may please Almighty God, the God of battles, to defend them in the midst of the bodily dangers which must beset them in that distant land, and to give them a speedy victory, and a glorious return. And for such as shall not be permitted, in His providence, to return home, we can commend their souls into His safe keeping.64 T. Bedford-Jones, the archdeacon of Ontario and Commissary, quickly formulated a prayer for the soldiers and the war effort, and circulated it among his diocese’s parishes for use during the war.65 The Evangelical Churchman expressed its desire for the Canadian government to do its “duty” and rally behind the empire.66 The Parish and Home expressed disappointment over the fact that more volunteers from “this part” were not accepted, and the Trinity University Review proudly noted that some of its past students would be a part of the contingent.67 Initially, the Canadian Churchman was disappointed at what it considered a slow reaction from the Canadian government. Because of the domestic deliberations and debates over Canada’s sending of troops, the Churchman felt that Canada had been lagging behind other parts of the empire.68 This slowness was a blow to Canadian pride and to its claim to be the greatest of all the colonies.69 Unlike such politicians as Israël Tarte, an anti-war French Canadian member of Laurier’s cabinet, ordinary Canadians were not “disloyal.” Speaking as if opposition to Canadian involvement in an imperial war was due solely to the political agitation of people like Tarte, the Churchman proclaimed that the “people are sound at heart, have been chafing under the delay, and now that the word has been given, are crowding to the standard.”70 The paper urged Tarte to be a faithful British subject and warned that if he did not learn his lesson quickly, Laurier would “find him a burden too heavy to bear” and would drop him, or else they would both “sink together.”71 The celebrations surrounding the departure of Canadian troops from Toronto on 25 October 1899 were cause for the Churchman to applaud the loyalty and patriotism that had been missing up to that

To Arms

15

point. Conjuring up romantic visions of the past, it noted the significance of the date: It was the Feast of St. Crispin, on which the Battle of Agincourt was won by Henry V. It was the anniversary of the celebrated Balaklava charges – of the heavy and light brigades. But it was something upon which we can look with greater satisfaction than upon these great exploits, marvellous as they were ... The men who went forth from the City of Toronto on St. Crispin’s Day were not mere instruments obedient to the call of duty ... They offered themselves for a cause which they understood. They volunteered for a cause with which they had complete sympathy.72 It was, claimed the Churchman, a day that no Torontonian had ever seen before in the “Queen City.” The fact that the special intercessory prayer service at St James’ Cathedral, led by Rev. Forbes Winslow, was “well attended” by soldiers and civilians was praised as confirmation of the Christian nature of the nation, the army, and the enterprise.73 The Canadian Baptist likewise reported on the calls for a Canadian contingent to be sent to South Africa.74 It also approved of the action of various colonies in sending troops.75 The Messenger and Visitor defended the British cause, arguing that “no intelligent and loyal Canadian” would blame Britain for the war.76 It, too, endorsed the sending of Canada’s first contingent.77 The Westminster printed a brief report on the preparations for the Canadian contingent. A week earlier it had stated its support for the sending of troops and had expressed regret that the preparations had not been started earlier.78 When the debate surrounding the contingent seemed to delay its formation and departure, it expressed concern.79 The Presbyterian Record voiced another reason for criticizing the debate on the issue: it was a form of “pollution.” It stated, “It is pitiable beyond expression that amid the departure of brave men to the field of strife, the bleeding of home hearts after sore farewells, the tidings of death in battle to friend and foe and of widow and orphan mourning, there should be anywhere depravity and degradation whose measure of scenes tender, pathetic, heroic, and sublime, is the amount of political capital that can be made out of them, and that dares to pollute such scenes with its unholy touch.”80 Apparently, the “polluting” did not stop immediately, for the Record printed essentially the same article a month later.81

16

A War with a Silver Lining

The Christian Guardian immediately came out in favour of sending Canadian troops.82 It agreed with the home government’s request to have the expenses of enlisting, equipping, and conveying the contingent to South Africa paid for by Canada, and the expenses of the contingent in South Africa to be covered by the British government. In addition, it expressed its pleasure with the decision to keep the Canadians serving together in one regiment under the leadership of a Canadian, Colonel William D. Otter.83 Although the Christian Guardian backed the sending of troops, it made at least one attempt to present both sides of the question, unlike other denominational publications. In the 1 November 1899 issue it printed two articles from the American Methodist magazine, the Outlook, under the larger heading, “The War in South Africa.”84 The purpose of the two articles, “The Case for the British” and “The Case for the Boers,” authored by Rev. James Stewart and Geo. W. Van Sicien, respectively, was to provide American readers with arguments from both sides of the issue. Such an even-handed approach reflects how highly contested the war was south of the Canadian border. The Guardian gave no immediate commentary on the two articles; it simply printed them side by side and let them speak for themselves. Printing American material for Canadian publications was a common occurrence at this time. Did the editor decide to print these articles because he knew there was sympathy among Canadian Methodists for the Boer cause? (Certainly, the issue was a contentious one for the Outlook’s readers in the United States.) Was this an example of Methodist reluctance to go to war? Whatever the motive, one thing is clear: for the next two and a half years of war, the Guardian was firmly on the side of the British. Except for this rare effort at neutrality, the Guardian presented material that was meant to convince its readers that the imperial cause in South Africa was worthy of their support. Of course, not all English Canadians supported the war (nor were all French Canadians against it). A few did oppose it and said so. Nevertheless, on the whole, the war captured the imagination and “intensified the imperial fervour of English Canadians.”85 Carman Miller has noted how this concern for the war translated into the everyday lives of Canadians and was satiated through coverage in books, newspapers, periodicals, popular entertainment, and the arts.86 The religious press reflected this interest and immediately printed material to meet the demand for news about the war. Within the first few weeks, maps were published to equip readers with the location of places, borders, and

To Arms

17

battles; histories of the events leading up to the conflict were offered so that readers could place the contemporary struggle within the larger context; prayers were issued, and poems were published extolling the virtues of the cause.87 Magazines condemning Britain’s role were criticized, domestic preparations and events were followed, and the events that were unfolding in Britain, and especially on the battlefield, were detailed.88 There was even some discussion regarding postwar South Africa.89 A Toronto daily newspaper noted with pleasure the support for the war shown by local clergy. Summarizing the previous day’s sermons from some of Toronto’s pastors, the Globe reported on their pro-war sentiments. The first clergyman noted was Rev. Armstrong Black, pastor of St Andrew’s Church and chaplain of the 48th Highlanders regiment. On the afternoon of Sunday, 15 October, the 48th Highlanders paraded down Queen, Yonge, and King streets to the church. Black’s sermon during this special service included the message that despite Britain’s mistakes in the months leading up to the war, the possibility of British rule over the Boers made the fighting worthwhile: “Britain’s rule is the most beneficial rule that this world has ever known. There is not an intelligent man to-day but knows, and who, if he speaks the language of his heart of hearts, would not say that it would be a good thing for the rights of every man and woman and child, for the rights of the foreigner and the native born, if the word of British law were heard across the whole Transvaal.”90 Black’s absolute faith in the goodness of the British government and the Queen caused him to believe that Britain could not be blamed for the tensions that had led to war. The challenge for the troops in such a dangerously armed world, he asserted, was to ensure that no “selfish motive or interest” would enter into their actions and that they would be mature Christian soldiers by showing “self-restraint” and “humility.”91 The Globe mentioned that a number of Methodist ministers referred to the war in their services. Rev. C.O. Johnston of Queen Street Methodist Church, Rev. Elliott S. Rowe of Euclid Avenue Methodist Church, Rev. W.H. Hincks of Central Methodist Church, and Rev. G.R. Turk of Carlton Street Methodist Church were all noted as “thoroughly in sympathy with the position taken by the British Government.”92 Rev. Charles A. Eaton, pastor of Bloor Street Baptist Church, was not as convinced of the cause as many of his colleagues. He questioned how a Christian could go to war and take another human life. He was also critical of the recent role of religious newspapers in the recruiting

18

A War with a Silver Lining

of soldiers. Yet, surprisingly, the Globe did not consider this an antiwar sermon; it explained that his remark “was a mere passing thought” and noted that he had made no comment “as to the right or wrong of the affair.”93 On Sunday, 29 October 1899, the day before the troops were to depart for South Africa, the churches had the opportunity to show their support for the cause. They did not disappoint. In Quebec City prominent politicians and church figures gathered for this purpose. As Miller notes, the service at Quebec’s Anglican Cathedral of the Holy Trinity was the focus of public attention.94 The following week the Canadian Churchman reported on the service.95 Rev. Lenox Smith led in prayer, Rev. G.H. Parker, of Compton, read the scripture lessons, and the Very Reverend Dean Williams led in Communion. The hymns (“Onward, Christian Soldiers,” “Stand Up, Stand Up, for Jesus,” “Fight the Good Fight,” and “Oh, God, Our Help in Ages Past”), the national anthem, Psalm 144, and the prayers all confirmed the churches’ belief in the justice of the cause, as well as the promise of God’s assistance in the battle. Rev. Frederick G. Scott, rector of Quebec’s St Matthew’s parish, delivered a sermon based on Deuteronomy 23:27. Mixing ancient crusading images, modern nationalism and Victorian morality, Scott exhorted the soldiers to be true soldiers of Christ and reminded them of their moral and religious obligations even in the midst of war: Then, like the knights of old consecrate to-day your hearts and swords to God’s service, and you who are communicants draw near to the altar of God and receive the strength which comes from the Body and Blood of Christ. You are not a wild horde let loose in savage warfare, but Christian men armed for a great cause. Keep, then, your lives pure – pure as the memories of your Canadian home. Be sober, as men who can face danger without artificial courage. Let the talk at mess and in camp be clean, and above all, remember to pay regularly the daily homage of prayer to your Heavenly Father. Do not be ashamed to confess Christ before men. Go forth, then, under the protection of the Triune God, in the consciousness of fight, in the strength of manhood, in the pride of patriotism, in the certainty of victory. The eyes of the world are upon you. Your honour will be our honour, your welfare cause for our ceaseless solicitation at the Eternal throne, and your blood, if

To Arms

19

Wartime sermons were frequently published in the press. This sermon was printed in the Anglican Mitre one month after it was delivered to the departing troops in Quebec.

20

A War with a Silver Lining

God calls upon you to shed it, will be our glory from generation to generation.96 After a sermon like this, there could be no doubt in the minds of the soldiers that the church (and, it would seem, God) was solidly behind the war effort. Clearly, the churches approved of the Canadian government’s decision to support Britain in the conflict in South Africa. In the months before the war and in the months immediately following the declaration of war, the actions of the churches and the comments in its literature indicate almost universal support for the imperial cause. Embedded within the churches’ reaction were four rationales: going to war on the side of Britain would advance the cause of justice, the growth of the Canadian nation, the security of the British Empire, and the spread of missions. The following four chapters will explore each of these rationales.

2 For Justice We rejoice that tyranny has been dethroned, that the vast conspiracy to “drive the English into the sea” has met its necessary Nemesis in leaving the worthier power mistress of the veldt. The whole world will be the better for this triumph of right, and the passing away of a corrupt and intolerant oligarchy, and in time will acknowledge it. Onward, 5 July 1902

When Canada’s first contingent of 1,039 troops prepared to board the 425-foot Sardinian in Quebec City on Monday, 30 October 1899, Laurier made it clear that he considered the cause to be one of justice. In the presence of the governor general, the premier of the province of Quebec, other civil and religious leaders, and fifty thousand exuberant spectators, Laurier declared, “The cause for which you men of Canada are going to fight is the cause of justice, the cause of humanity, of civil rights and religious liberty. This is not a war of conquest ... The object is not to crush out the Dutch population, but to establish in that land ... British sovereign law, to assure to all men of that country an equal share of liberty.”1 No doubt, as Robert Page has noted, this message of rights and liberties would be “the most convincing for his Quebec compatriots,” who were not at all supportive of imperial conquests.2 Despite the varied motives of many who either wanted to send the troops or to sign up as one of them, it was also a message that the English Protestant churches passionately proclaimed and avidly defended throughout the entire conflict. Ever since St Ambrose and St Augustine of the fourth and fifth centuries, the Christian Church had argued that any particular conflict must be fought for a just cause (jus ad bellum) and with just means (jus in bello). For a war to be considered just (supported by the church and thus one in which Christians could participate), it had to meet these two general guidelines. Within these two general guidelines there

22

A War with a Silver Lining

were other particulars designed to guide the conduct of nations. While expressed in a variety of ways, they generally were considered to be just cause, just intent, last resort, lawful declaration, immunity of noncombatants, limited objectives, and limited means.3 Over the centuries these specifics had been applied to particular conflicts.4 Of course, having these critieria does not guarantee that they will be objectively applied or thoughtfully considered. In fact, whether or not the church applied them properly has often been questioned. Others have debated the legitimacy of war in any circumstances. What needs to be noted, however, is that by identifying the Boer War’s cause as just and the means by which it was fought as just, the churches saw themselves as acting within a long-standing Christian tradition. While none of the churches publicly declared, “We are applying the just war criteria to the conflict and it seems to be a just war,” they intentionally, unintentionally, or intuitively (perhaps a bit of all three) applied many of these conditions to the war. For instance, the fact that the war seemed to be one of self-defence made the cause just, and the alleged Boer mistreatment of noncombatants was considered to be against the rules of war. In other words, just war criteria were used many times without any mention of just war theory. Nevertheless, the churches considered it important to establish both the cause and the means as just. Without this sense of justice, they would have been acting against a deeply rooted tradition about the use of force. It is with this background in mind that one begins to understand the efforts in the Protestant press in the opening weeks of the war to declare the cause “just.” All four denominations made it clear that they accepted the basic just war paradigm and rejected absolute pacifism. Even the Methodists, often considered the most pacifist of the four, argued in favour of there being such a thing as a just war. John Grant has observed that the Canadian Methodists were active in the recruiting of soldiers and ardent in their support for the “holy war” in the First World War.5 One theory about why the Methodist Church sought to make the war against Germany a holy war was that it lacked a “clearly defined tradition of the proper roles of church and state” and that its position on war “had always been ambiguous.”6 The Methodist response to the South African War challenges this thesis, for it indicates that the First World War was not the first time the Methodist Church had grappled with this issue. In fact, its reaction to the South African War was far from ambivalent,7 for the Methodist Church was passionately supportive and was active in defending the cause and means of the war.8

For Justice

23

During the First World War the Methodist reaction was simply a replay (on a much larger scale) of its response to the war in South Africa. The Methodist Church had a clear sense of what it believed about Christian participation (or non-participation) in warfare, for throughout the conflict in South Africa a defence of the traditional just war position was presented. The arguments formulated did not deal with pacific objections; rather, they addressed the growing hostility of those who proclaimed that Britain’s cause was unjust. War in general was certainly lamentable and no one wanted war in South Africa, but as the Parish and Home argued, there were things worse than war: “Tyranny is worse, the false peace which breeds oppression, wrong, and robbery is worse, the spirit of cowardice which begets a nation of slaves is worse. To go to war for mere conquest is wrong, but a war of self-defence is always right, and to fight for liberty, civilisation and humanity is an imperative duty. The famous dictum of Southey is well to the point: ‘When necessity is clear, it becomes a crime to shrink from war.’”9 Seeking to defend the use of war to bring about justice, one preacher urged his listeners to “let the beauty of war, its heroism, and its wonderful virtues, balance the pain and horror.”10 The Religious Intelligencer went so far as to claim that “war may be of God, and peace may be of the devil.”11 Wars such as the American Civil War were considered to have illustrated this principle, for although it was horrific in terms of bloodshed and suffering, it eventually brought about a greater good: the abolition of slavery.12 Elsewhere, the Augustinian imagery of a doctor’s scalpel being used on a diseased person was applied to defend certain wars.13 The reality of evil in the world meant that coercive force would be necessary, at least until the “reign of righteousness” of Christ was a reality.14 The Canadian Churchman printed a poem by William Armagh, primate of Ireland, that asked, “Is ‘War the Only Thing That Has No Good In It’?” The answer in the poem is a resounding no. They say that “war is hell,” the “great accursed,” The sin impossible to be forgiven – Yet I can look beyond it at its worst, And still find blue in Heaven. And as I note how nobly natures form Under the war’s red rain, I deem it true That He who made the earthquake and the storm Perchance makes battles, too!15

24

A War with a Silver Lining

The character, or “noble nature,” that was formed in the soldiers was a beneficial by-product of war. Using the language often associated with social Darwinism, war was understood to be a necessary evil that would strengthen nation and race. It was a chastisement from God, a “call to be serious” about a nation’s responsibilities,16 and it led to a “more finely tempered steel of enthusiasm for national and imperial honour.”17 Wars of conquest for mere power and grandeur were considered sinful and an erosion of the morals of a nation. Yet Britain’s and Canada’s responsibilities in the world were understood within a providential framework. Not only did nations have a moral responsibility to fight just wars; Britain had a divine mandate to wage war in defence of justice and liberty for the oppressed. While war was lamented, it was, in some circumstances, a nation’s calling. The churches’ emphasis on justice needs to be understood in the context of the social gospel, a movement concerned, among other things, with justice for the oppressed. Consequently, a war that promised to alleviate suffering and lead to liberty dovetailed nicely with the social gospel agenda. Grant has noted how the churches’ response to the First World War was, in part, a reflection of the social gospel concern for justice in the churches. In fact, a victory for the Entente Powers was considered to be critical for the future peace and justice of the nations.18 The reaction of the churches to the South African War indicates that the link between war and the social gospel agenda was made more than a decade before the First World War. During the South African War, the churches were firmly convinced that this was a war for liberty that required the marshalling of resources on a national scale. And like the promises expressed during the later and larger conflict against Germany and the Central Powers, a successful conclusion to the war was presumed to lead to a new and brighter future for all involved. The churches were all aware that the war was being criticized both at home and abroad, and in the first year serious questions were raised regarding the justice of the cause. While the war itself was widely supported in Britain, there was organized opposition to the war effort.19 The Church of England in Britain was virtually unanimous in its endorsement of the war effort,20 but there was division among the nonconformists.21 Critics in continental Europe were numerous, and their scathing comments drew the ire of many in Britain and the empire. Negative reactions to the war also came from the United States.22 This international criticism was perplexing for the churches. As one writer to the Westminster asked, “Why Are We Disliked?”23 It was difficult for the

For Justice

25

churches to understand why people (especially Anglo- Saxons) would criticize what they believed to be such a benevolent empire and a war that was so clearly fought for the sake of the oppressed. In Canada the war had been contentious right from the beginning. Laurier had had to deal with a divided cabinet and a divided nation. In general, French Canadians opposed sending Canadian troops, while English Canadians supported the move.24 In the months following the outbreak of war, criticism continued in French Canada and among a small group of English critics.25 Confronted with domestic as well as foreign opposition to the war, the church publications did all they could to ensure that their readers remained loyal supporters of the imperial cause in South Africa. This support, however, was not offered without the firm conviction that the evidence showed that the Boers were guilty. The Westminster’s editorial explanation of its pro-war stance is indicative of its deliberative process as it considered the evidence: When the war broke out The Westminster was caught, like the average observer everywhere, unprepared to pronounce with confidence an opinion on the merits of the issue so sharply raised by the Boer ultimatum. To us, as to almost everyone else, that famous blow from the “mailed fist” came like a “bolt out of the blue.” The number of persons anywhere over the wide world who believed that the diplomatic negotiations would be abruptly terminated by a Boer declaration of war was extremely small, and we were not among them. Believing that, as usual, there were faults on both sides, we were in no hurry to pronounce judgment, and for the most part contented ourselves with recording passing phases of the struggle. As time went on, however, more light was shed on the political as well as the military situation, and it became reasonably clear to us that the British were substantially right and the Boers substantially wrong. Aside altogether from national sympathy, then, it became part of The Westminster’s duty to declare itself with necessary reservations on the side of our own country. The justification for doing so was surely not lessened by the virulent and unjust attacks made on her by foreigners in European America.26 Where the Westminster differed from some of the other major publications was in its reticence in declaring the justice of the cause. The Canadian Churchman and the Canadian Baptist, for instance, did not

26

A War with a Silver Lining

express any real “necessary reservations.” All of the publications stated that their support for the war was based on the evidence, and as the Christian Guardian stated, the truth of the matter need not be feared: “We wish to face the whole truth frankly. There has been, with some of our people, an undercurrent of misgiving relative to the righteousness of the war.”27 The Christian Guardian and others were convinced that a study of the history of the region, the Boer declaration of war, and the Boer treatment of the Outlanders and “natives” made it obvious that the war was a just one. Those who were critical of Britain and the war were identified and in turn criticized by the press. Readers of Onward were encouraged in the article “Carping Criticism” not to read material that was against the war.28 Anti-war activists in Britain, France, and on the continent were scathingly rebuked, and W.T. Stead and others like him were condemned. What really upset the religious press was American criticism of the war effort, particularly that published by their corresponding denomination in the United States or in Britain.29 Such denunciations not only revealed a lack of appreciation for British support of the United States’ war with Spain only a few months earlier, but also undermined the unity of the Anglo-Saxon peoples – an important element in the understanding of the “white man’s burden.” When this occurred, the rebuttals were often harsh.30 The converse was also true. When publications from its own or another denomination, or even from the secular press, printed articles in defence of the war effort, the denominational press was quick to print them. One can imagine editors poring over the pages of other publications looking for hostile articles to rebuke and friendly articles to reprint. These pro-active attempts to defend the war reflect developments in the Canadian religious press similar to what some have noted about the role of the British secular press. In the late nineteenth century the press was a major factor in the formation of public opinion. The “new journalism” was linked to the “new imperialism.” John A. Hobson, one of the most prominent late-Victorian opponents of imperialism, was concerned about the power of the press in creating imperial sentiment.31 Judd and other contemporary historians also have noted how influential the press was in swaying public opinion.32 Paula Krebs argues that the press actually created the spontaneous outburst of imperial fervour during the war. In other words, “the system ends up constructing the very subject whose existence it thinks it is acknowledging.”33

For Justice

27

It is too simplistic to conclude that the press in general and the Canadian religious press in particular created the imperial sentiment. The imperial sentiment found in the pages of the denominational press was expressed before, during, and after the war in many other ways. This is not to say, however, that the press was not instrumental in the development of imperial sentiment in the war; in fact, the denominational publications felt a responsibility to act as shapers of public opinion.34 As the Westminster noted, it was their “duty.” Part of the need to defend the cause was their stated conviction that this was a war fought for the right reasons and that people should know those reasons. Yet the extent of their attempt to convince readers indicates that they saw themselves as having a critical role to play in the formation of the public sentiment necessary to conduct the war effectively. In this regard, the churches, like other non-governmental agencies in Britain,35 primarily through their various publications, took on the role of active propagandists for the imperial government. But how objective were the churches in their interpretation of what they considered to be the facts? They claimed to base their conviction that the cause was just on the evidence, but how much were they influenced by their obvious bias towards the British? The London origins of most news reports no doubt played a part in the papers being decidedly pro-British.36 It would seem, however, that despite their best intentions, their pro-British bias also influenced their interpretation of the events. Sanford W. Evans, author of The Canadian Contingents and Canadian Imperialism: A Story and a Study, concluded in 1901 that there were not enough facts to make a firm decision about the justice of the cause. Instead, he argued that while French Canadians were not as quick to trust the imperial government, English Canadian assurance came from a high degree of confidence in British statesmen and British policy.37 This trust in the British was evident in the churches’ interpretation of the facts. There is one other element to consider in relation to the churches’ pro-war attitude. Daniel Francis defines a nation as “a group of people who share the same illusions about themselves.” Stated more positively, each nation has its own “civic ideology, a framework of ideas and aspirations that expresses itself in allegiance to certain public policies and institutions,” which has to be continually “recreated and reinforced.”38 In the case of the war in South Africa, the churches were firmly convinced of the superiority of the British race, and its institutions. While limited criticism was levelled at people such as Cecil

28

A War with a Silver Lining

Rhodes, what was never in doubt was the essential goodness and godly calling of the empire, as well as its pure motives in the conflict. However, it seemed to the churches that criticism of the justice of the cause led to questioning the “civic ideology” of Britain and its empire. Since Canadian identity was so closely identified with Britain and the empire, to admit that the war was not just was to raise serious questions about the very essence of Canadian identity. This was no small consideration, since the nation was still in its infancy. Perhaps that is why, out of all the English-speaking churches in North America and Britain, Canadian churches were the most united in their defence of the justice of the cause. Contributing to their interpretation of the evidence regarding war guilt, this need to reinforce the civic ideology remained when the focus of criticism of Britain shifted from questioning the justice of the cause to a condemnation of Britain’s means to win the war. The arguments used to defend the cause as just were not necessarily unique to the churches; they were commonly used by many supporters of the war effort in Britain, the empire, the United States, and elsewhere in Canada. Often the editors of the religious press simply chose to reprint foreign articles in support of Britain. At other times, arguments by Canadians were printed. The denominational press was remarkably up to date in its commentary on the war and was very much aware of the current political and military issues. Through their reactions and attempts to defend the war, one can find in their pages virtually every significant criticism of the war effort. There were two main aspects of the churches’ conviction that this was a just war. The first was that the Boers had been the ones to declare war first and therefore were the ones to blame. The second was that the war was a battle for the rights of the Outlanders and for the “natives” of South Africa; in other words, it was a humanitarian intervention for liberty, not a war of conquest. Each of these elements can be found in the churches’ rationale for supporting the war effort in the early weeks of the war. As the weeks turned into months, and months into years, these arguments, although elaborated on and expanded, remained essentially the same.

just cause The fact that the Boers declared war on Britain made all the difference for George Monro Grant, the well-known principal of Queen’s University. Preaching at Convocation Hall in Kingston on 17 December

For Justice

29

1899, Grant declared that he was firmly on the side of the war effort. In the months preceding the war he had counselled patience and diplomacy. He had also sought to look at the Boer-British conflict through the “standpoint of the dwellers in the land.”39 In doing so, he had disapproved of any policy or action that would have led to war. In fact, he had seen how much the hostile situation was the result of British actions. He had believed that the Boers and British were “essentially one in race and religion” and that an amalgamation between them was not only natural but necessary in a land “where ignorant and easily deluded blacks outnumbered the whites by four or five to one.” For Grant, the Canadian experience of two peoples coming together to make one nation was possible in South Africa. When the Boers declared war, however, everything changed, and Grant wholeheartedly supported the war effort.40 Grant was not the only one for whom the argument “The Boers declared war first” was critical in determining which side was “just.” Elmore Harris, a prominent Toronto Baptist pastor, published an article entitled “The Boer War as Canadians See It” in the Chicago Standard, and it was excerpted in the Canadian Baptist.41 His aim in writing in the Standard was to address the criticisms of the war in the United States and to argue the justice of the British cause.42 Like Grant, he indicated that Britain was not completely faultless in the months preceding the war. But also like Grant, Harris contended that the war had been forced on Britain and the empire by the Boer ultimatum; consequently, the British and Canadian cause was considered just. A similar conviction was expressed in various church meetings. For instance, in the opening address at the Forty-First Annual Synod of the Diocese of Montreal in January 1900, the bishop portrayed the war as one that had been “forced upon” Britain and the empire.43 In its addresses to both Queen Victoria and Governor General Lord Minto, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada in 1900 declared its loyalty to the authorities and its wholehearted support of the war effort. The demands of the Boers were an “insult,” and it was a Boer “invasion” that was being stopped by Britain and Canada; consequently, “the Empire is not responsible for the war in South Africa.”44 The Dominion Presbyterian noted that Rev. Charles Phillips, an English Congregational minister, had published an article in the Outlook that dealt with the question of the justice of the war. In that article, Phillips stated that ministers in the Wesleyan Conference, the Presbyterian Assembly, the Congregational Union, the Episcopalian Synod, and the

30

A War with a Silver Lining

Free Church Council in Natal had all passed unanimous resolutions that the war on “England’s part was righteous and unavoidable,” and he concluded that such “strong language” in favour of the justness of the British cause “ought to carry weight.”45 The Wesleyan published a letter from ministers in besieged Kimberley in Cape Colony, which was reprinted from the London Methodist Times. The first point the ministers made was that the war had been initiated by the Boers: “Allow us to remind your readers that it was the Boer Government and not the British who declared war; that it was the Boers who invaded British territory, not the British who carried war into the Transvaal.”46 Besides, if one had lived in South Africa in the days leading up to the war one would have seen that the Boers were intent on hostilities. Onward echoed these sentiments when it printed the resolutions of the City Ministerial Alliance of Brantford, Ontario.47 Onward spared no effort in publishing the resolutions of churches, as well as the opinions of ministers and politicians, regarding the justice of the British cause. The Congregational Union of the Colony of Natal’s opinion that the war was premeditated by the Boers was reprinted from the American Outlook, along with a letter from the ministers in the besieged town of Kimberley that likewise blamed the Boers.48 Methodist opinion in South Africa was considered valuable in the battle to win over critics of the war. The arguments of Natal ministers, the Capetown Wesleyan Synod, a Methodist chaplain in South Africa, the bishop of London, Rev. William Patterson, and Rev. E.P. Lowry were all used to bolster the case of the British cause and Boer guilt.49 Conan Doyle’s The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Conduct was recommended for those wondering about such questions.50 Finally, the comments of Arthur J. Balfour, government house leader in the British House of Commons, were printed, blaming the war on the Boer desire for empire in South Africa.51 The editorials and articles in all four Protestant publications spent a great deal of energy trying to convince their readers that the Boers’ hostility and their ultimatum meant that justice was on the side of Britain. The accusation was that the Boers had negotiated in bad faith, for at the same time as they were talking with the British authorities they had “for months and perhaps years” been preparing for war.52 The discovery of vast caches of weapons and ammunition in Boer territory was considered further evidence that the Boers had planned for war long before its outbreak.53 Britain was not a nation that was grasping for territory, like the Boers. It was also not in the war for the gold.54 Rather,

For Justice

31

it took territory only when it “could not help it” or was “forced to.”55 Such a policy was perceived as a stark contrast to the Boers’ treachery and aggression. Every war is, in varying degrees, rooted in conceptions of past injustices and the need to right the wrongs, and this war was no different. The Boer declaration of war was most often referred to in the larger context of almost a century of Boer-British tensions. Histories of the conflict published in the early months of the war identified examples of Boer aggression, Boer treachery, and Boer conspiracies against the British. In other words, the Boer declaration of war was not seen as an isolated incident or an anomaly. Rather, it was symptomatic of the long-standing struggle between the Boers and Britons in South Africa. More importantly, it was considered to be inevitable because of the Boers’ strategic designs to have all of South Africa. In its editorial entitled “The War in South Africa,” the Christian Guardian sought to set the record straight regarding responsibility for the war. The need to “face the whole truth frankly,” it argued, arose because of “an undercurrent of misgiving relative to the righteousness of this war” among Methodists.56 International conspiracies, Boer military preparations on a vast scale, and the Boer dislike of liberty and freedom had characterized the years before the war. It was felt that the Boers had grand designs on the British colonies in South Africa. The Guardian actually expressed relief that the war had begun, for it preempted the Boer plans of initiating a general uprising of Dutch colonists in British territory. If the Boers had desired the same type of liberties common to those in the empire, the history of South Africa would have been very different. There was an admission that mistakes had been made. For instance, the Jameson Raid was “condemned and deplored,” for it was a “hasty, forceful, [and] wrong method of obtaining redress.”57 Nevertheless, the motives of those engaged in this conflict were pure, for it was a fight not of “greed or conquest” but for “freedom, for just and honest government.”58 A few months later, the Guardian proffered a brief summary of the diplomatic activities of Chamberlain, Milner, M.T. Steyn (president of the Orange Free State), and Kruger in the months preceding the war. Once again, the actions of the Boers were presented as hostile, and their two leaders were described as unwilling to work with Britain’s “friendly” and legal initiatives to bring reform in the two republics. During the negotiations, it was noted that the Boers had imported “great quantities” of ammunition, an obvious sign that they had been

32

A War with a Silver Lining

preparing for the conflict, stalling for time, and indeed looking forward to and initiating the outbreak of war.59 The other Methodist publications echoed these conclusions in various ways. Articles favourable to Britain that gave a historical account of the events leading up to the war were reprinted from various national and international sources. Editorials and articles spoke of the historical injustices of the Boers. The picture that was cumulatively painted was that of a tyrannical, aggressive, backward, and ungrateful people who dealt dishonestly with Britain and had ambitions to throw the British into the sea as soon as they had the opportunity. As this brief survey indicates, the churches felt strongly that the cause of justice was on the side of Britain because of the Boer declaration of war. Contemporary historians have noted, however, that the events leading up to the Boer ultimatum were not as clear as the churches then believed. Nevertheless, throughout the war, the churches remained steadfast in their conviction that Britain neither sought nor wanted a war in South Africa and only entered the conflict when forced by the Boers. The war was considered just for reasons other than the Boer initiation of it. Central to the claim that it was just was the conviction that Britain was fighting for the rights and freedoms of the Outlanders and the “natives,” who suffered under the oppressive and tyrannical rule of the Boers. Andrew Thompson argues that in Britain the “Britishness” of the Outlanders was in part fabricated by those who sought to bolster Britain’s claim in the Transvaal Republic. While the pro-war press described them as British subjects, he claims, they were far from a homogeneous people.60 Nevertheless, the cause of the allegedly British Outlanders galvinized the pro-war camp. As would be expected for churches that claimed to be concerned for justice, the reported Boer mistreatment of the Outlanders and “natives” outraged many. They denied the claim that Britain’s interests in South Africa were dominated by imperial fervour and a desire for Boer diamonds and gold. They considered the Boers to be unjust rulers, whereas rule under the Union Jack would bring lasting peace, justice, and freedom for all the oppressed in South Africa. If one was concerned with furthering the cause of justice in the world, and more specifically in South Africa, one had to support Britain’s cause. Right from the outset the Methodist publications did all that they could to convince their readers that this was a war of liberation. Great efforts were made to marshal arguments showing that the Boers were

For Justice

33

a backward and oppressive people and that the Outlanders and “natives” were being seriously mistreated. Dr F.J. Livingston’s account of the Boer mistreatment of the “natives” was presented as evidence for the case against the Boers,61 and in 1900 the Methodist press in Toronto published a 450-page book by J.P. Fitzpatrick that described the Boer mistreatment of the Outlanders in extensive detail.62 Evidence from around the world further revealed the justice of the cause. A brief survey of these articles published in the religious press indicates the incredible diversity of the arguments. However, while these sources came from a wide variety of leaders, denominations, and organizations, they all shared the conviction that Britain’s cause was that of liberty and freedom for the oppressed Outlanders, the “natives,” and even for the Boers themselves. Like the Wesleyan, Onward reprinted the statement in the Methodist Times written by the besieged ministers in Kimberley.63 Also used by the religious press to bolster the case against critics of the war were a message from Mrs Lewis, the sister of the prime minister of Cape Colony; comments from “A Boer Lady on the War”; conclusions from the Congregational Union of the Colony of Natal; Joseph Chamberlain’s speech in the British House of Commons; Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s vindication of Britain; various views of the war in Britain; the Presbyterian moderator of the Free Church of Scotland’s defence of his pro-war stance; the critique of the Boer treatment of the “natives” in a Lutheran paper; a defence of the war in an American paper; Conan Doyle’s defence of the war; the comments of a professor at the University of Perth, Australia, defending British motives; and the comments of Britain’s enemies in support of Britain’s cause.64 Methodists around the world were reported as supporting the war effort. One person considered a crucial authority on the matter was Bishop Hartzell, superintendent of the American Methodist Missions in Africa. His prewar criticisms of the Boer record of granting rights to the Outlanders were printed after the outbreak of the war.65 In the following months, his pro-British opinion was highly regarded as one that had been formed through first-hand experience with the Boers. In view of the anti-British sentiment coming from the United States, the fact that he was an American was a bonus to those seeking to counter the numerous American criticisms of the war. The Wesleyan also reprinted portions of a lecture Hartzell delivered in Chicago on 3 May 1900.66 In this lecture he blamed the war on the Boers and claimed that their treatment of the Outlanders and “natives” justified the fight

34

A War with a Silver Lining

against them. Hartzell was certain that the Boers would be better off under the rule of the British, even if they did not initially want it: “Pious, robust, and patriotic as they are, they are also narrow-minded, superstitious, and ignorant. Shut in upon their own resources, they have fallen behind their own people in Holland, and the best thing that can happen is for them to be overwhelmed by the superior numbers of the British, and be brought under the broadening influence of education and English ideas of liberty ... The triumph of British arms will be best for the world, best for England, and best for the Boers.”67 Other articles by Hartzell following the same themes were sought after and printed.68 Canadian Methodists did not need to look abroad for pro-war statements. Their own general superintendent, Rev. Dr. A.D. Carman, denied accusations by the Toronto News that he was pro-Boer by declaring that the war was just and necessary, “given our defense of Christian liberty and the highest civilization for the human race.”69 A newspaper reporter had misquoted him as blaming the war on Britain’s sins. After rebuking the “irresponsible reporter” from the News,70 the Wesleyan printed a response by Carman in order to clarify his position: A false and mischievous report from the Toronto News in the present excitement is filling the Dominion with reprehensible misrepresentation of my faithful, loyal words ... I said our reverses and losses in South Africa taught us that we are neither inaccessible to defeat nor impregnable, and therefore might well lead us to circumspection and humility. But to connect the judgment of God, or even His chastisements, with the reverses was not in any degree or form my work, but wholly and fully the work of the reporter. I have always held in this matter that Britain has a just and noble cause, the cause of Christian civilization and human liberty, and have prayed and do pray the God of armies to give her speedy success in the mighty conflict.71 Carman reiterated his support for Britain’s efforts when, as the official representative of Canadian Methodism to the British Methodist churches a few months later, he alluded to the Canadian participation in the recent defeat of the Boer general, Piet Cronje, at the Battle of Paardeberg.72 Clearly, the leader of the denomination supported Britain in the conflict for liberty and freedom.

For Justice

35

The other three denominations were just as clear in their literature that the war in South Africa was being fought for the Outlanders and the “natives.” They assumed, as did the Methodists, that Britain had a moral and legal duty to act in South Africa; it was an integral part of their “white man’s burden.” One need not look only at the churches’ weekly, biweekly, and monthly periodicals for a sense of their attitude to the war, for the various denominations made official statements concerning the war and heard addresses by church leaders at their regional or national meetings. A brief survey of these indicates that there was widespread belief that the war was a war of liberty and rights for the Outlanders and “natives.”73 The South African War was fought during a time when social Darwinism was in vogue. As Miller notes, behind “its popular façade, the imperialist movement cloaked a welter of conflicting, often self-serving motives and aspirations. It thrived on ambiguity and served as a united appeal for many of the era’s fashionable ideas, including the social gospel, nativism, social darwinism, and racialism.”74 Social Darwinism was a “rough and ready transfer of Darwin’s principles from the world of plants and animals to that of men” which suggested that “certain races were better fitted to survive and flourish than others.”75 As for the British race, many assumed that it had shown over the past few centuries its superiority. As the prominent Canadian imperialist George R. Parkin argued, one aspect of this superiority was the British ability to govern: a “special capacity for political organization may, without race vanity, be fairly claimed for Anglo-Saxon people.”76 Geography contributed to the making of a superior race, for the cold northern climate brought about a process of natural selection. Consequently, the “northern races” (which included Britain, and especially Canada) were superior to the “southern races” and had a responsibility to assist the weaker ones.77 The language of the “Song of the Saxon” reveals the racial superiority (as well as gender bias) underlying much of the sense of Britain’s heritage of greatness, justice, and progress. The Saxon thinks and toils, Toiling and thinking aye, Whilst other peoples envy and rage, The Saxon works, and his work is sage, And makes of their night his day.

36

A War with a Silver Lining

The Saxon’s empire stands, Stately and steadfast sure, For the Saxon honours himself and God, Nor spares from evil his weighty rod, But the good he makes endures. Then hail to the Saxon, hail! And honour the work he’s done; Bless Saxon heart and Saxon brain, Whose every deed is the whole world’s gain, Saxon and manhood are one. This is the song of the Saxon, Of the race that rules the earth; This is the song of countless kings. This is the song the conqueror sings, The song of Saxon worth.78 Often the sense of superiority felt by English Protestants in Canada was expressed when they compared themselves to non-white people. In the case of the war, the same sense of moral superiority was evident, and it was in part at the root of the conviction that the cause was just. However, the sense of superiority was now in relation to the white Protestant Boers. The war brought with it an interest in the Boers. Canadians wanted to know about this people with whom they were at war, and the press was quick to provide its readers with articles on Boer history, beliefs, and culture, as well as on their conduct in the war. A few of these articles were even-handed, or at least neutral in their discussion of Boer culture versus British culture. The overwhelming majority, however, provided a damning indictment of the Boers as a people, as soldiers, and even as Christians. As previously noted, Edward Said and post-colonial scholars have drawn attention to the way in which the subjects of empire have been constructed by the Western imperial powers partly to justify their empire and exploitation. The images of the Boers in these articles are striking, for some of the worst excesses of creating an “other” that justified subjection were, in this case, directed towards fellow white Europeans.

For Justice

37

Onward had numerous negative images of the Boers. It claimed that they were an “arrested civilization” that had been cut off from the rest of the world since the seventeenth century.79 The Boers were “incorrigibly ignorant” in their attack on the British Empire, “incurably perfidious” in diplomacy, “mercilessly cruel” to “natives,” and “treacherous foes” because of their violations of the rules of warfare.80 In language that expressed well the typical sentiment of Onward, a person who had lived with the Boers portrayed them as the “craftiest, most hypocritical, most dishonest, most untruthful, cruelest, most ignorant, most overbearing, most immoral, and stupidest race of white people in the world.”81 Other publications echoed these sentiments. The Boers were depicted as “simple in some ways, complex in others ... a study in underdevelopment.”82 Boer culture was considered inferior and would be changed after a British victory to a more “complex civilization.”83 The Boer soldier was “ignorant and bigoted.”84 The fact that Boer women wore men’s clothing in the trenches and fought alongside men against the British was a violation “of the decencies of civilized war” for which there was “no excuse.”85 This provided evidence “of that belated barbarism which [was] so characteristic of Kruger’s regime.”86 The Boer lack of knowledge of the larger world would have been “amusing if it were not so pitiful.”87 Contributing to the negative images of the Boers were accounts of their atrocities. In the opening months of the war there were many accounts of Boer brutality on the battlefield. The religious press accepted these stories at face value, and from the outset invested considerable energy in spreading them among its readership. The deeds described were numerous and varied, and the headlines underscored their brutality. One entitled “Boer Atrocities” described Boers “stripping and robbing” fugitives and “stripping” women.88 Another, entitled the “Treachery and Cruelty of the Boers,” written by U.S. war correspondent Julian Ralph, claimed that the Boers killed the wounded, armed the “natives,” abused the white flag, used Red Cross ambulances to carry weapons, fired at ambulances, and looted. Furthermore, the Boers “had fouled the walls of the homes of defenseless women with obscene writings. They never knew the value of an oath or promise, and have not learned it since the war began.”89 There were accusations that Boer women were dropped off in front of the British to hinder them in battle.90 These accounts of savagery were published throughout the war, with the criticism after 1900

38

A War with a Silver Lining

noting a shift in Boer tactics to an unorthodox guerrilla campaign against British occupation. The brutality of the Boers was considered even more glaring when compared with what was held to be the Christian conduct of the British soldiers. That the Boers were primarily Dutch Calvinist Christians was problematic to some. Why was one Christian nation going to war against another? On the other hand, the reported war crimes, as well as the negative images of the Boers in the press, led many to question the type of Christianity that the Boers claimed. At best, their Christianity was a “tribal” religion.91 At worst, it was a “farce.”92 The end result was that, for many, the truly Christian soldiers were those in the British army. Eager to convince the nation and the world that the criticisms of the British were groundless, the reports invoked the idea of a “good soldier” and “good Christian” that dated back to the Crimean War, while emphasizing the Christian character of the British troops.93 In an article “The Soldier and the Gospel,” the Canadian Churchman recorded the bishop’s words as British troops left St Paul’s Cathedral for South Africa: “We English folk have inherited a place and a destiny in the world. Our work must be done seriously and diligently, for we recognize it as God’s purpose for our race. Now the call has come to you. You rise and go. You rise above your ordinary selves, above the claims of every day; you go bearing England’s honour with you.”94 As participants in God’s plan for Britain, the religious commitment of Britain’s soldiers was important. Analogies were made between the good soldiers of Jesus Christ and good soldiers of the Queen.95 And according to the churches’ press, the soldiers lived up to the high expectations. Not only was the British soldiers’ conduct deemed more righteous than that of the Boers, but the British military leaders were depicted as models of virtue and integrity. As one chaplain noted, in no way would British soldiers act like the Boers: “In contradistinction to the action of the Boers was the conduct of our side towards the Boer ambulances ... We had better lose a hundred men, and our pains be doubled, than that we stain our national honour ... and forego [sic] our national chivalry, by firing on the servants of the fallen.”96 Naturally, such comparisons between the barbarism of the Boers and the chivalry of brave Britons further contributed to the formation of a certain stereotypical image of the Boers, one that justified the conflict.97 The cumulative effect of accounts of the Boers’ backwardness, the Boers’ atrocities, and the Boers’ inferior (or false) Christianity, especially when contrasted with the impeccable character of Britain’s

For Justice

39

Christian soldiers, would have made it difficult for anyone influenced by the religious press to disapprove of Britain’s attempt to put an end to the Boer regime in South Africa. It seemed obvious that the Boer race was inferior to the religiously, culturally, ethically, and technologically superior British. Add to the argument the fact that the Boers were the ones who had first declared war and that their treatment of the Outlanders and the “natives” was documented as pathetic, and many were convinced the war was fully justified.

just means In the fall of 1900 the war seemed to be over. The capital cities of the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State had been captured, the significant towns and industrial areas had been occupied, and the Boer armies had been beaten decisively. War correspondents began to return home, troops were sent home, local South African units disbanded, and British generals such as Sir Redvers Buller and Lord Roberts departed for England. Britons celebrated what looked like another imperial victory. The Boers, however, had not given up hope of ultimately defeating the British. They began to send out feelers to enlist aid from other nations and, more importantly, they shifted their tactics. No longer would a Boer army attempt to engage the British army in a traditional set-piece battle. The new tactic would be to wage a war of attrition, a guerrilla war that maximized the Boer knowledge of the terrain and minimized the Boer disadvantage in numbers and military hardware. The inevitable shift of British tactics to meet this new threat transformed the controversy over the war from a debate concerning the justice of the cause to one of the justice of the means. One way that the British dealt with the guerrilla tactics was to burn Boer farms and take the livestock in order to eliminate any means of support for the wandering and elusive Boer soldiers. Despite their reservations, Canadian soldiers were called on to carry out these orders.98 By the end of the war, the total number of homes destroyed was about thirty thousand.99 Of course, once having burned the farms and left women, children, and the elderly without shelter or food, the British felt the need to take care of the refugees. The solution, devised in December 1900 by Lord Kitchener (who had just succeeded Lord Roberts as commander-inchief), was to place these people in camps. The supposed benefit of

The actions of the British were passionately defended in words and pictures, in this case by pointing out how the Germans were far more brutal in battle. (Methodist Magazine and Review, 1902, with permission from the United Church of Canada/Victoria University Archives [ucc/vua])

these “concentration camps” was to take care of the refugees as well as to eliminate any possible support for the Boers left in the field. The widespread rounding-up of Boers began in earnest after a failed meeting between Kitchener and General Louis Botha to discuss peace terms on 28 February 1901. By the end of the war, around 120,000 Boers, mainly women and children, were inmates of fifty camps.100 Camps were also created for Bantu and Coloureds, but these camps were not the focus of critics’ attention.101 The fact that the British targeted women and children for internment was bad enough, in certain critics’ opinion, but their treatment

For Justice

41

Allegations of the mistreatment of Boers in the concentration camps were denied. This picture portrayed the camps as an enjoyable place to live in. (From the children’s publication Pleasant Hours, 1902, ucc/vua)

made the internment all the more appalling. The death rate was what was most shocking, for it was noticeably high. While the British military authorities argued for the necessity of the camps and the humane treatment of the Boers within them, opponents of the camps claimed that they were unjust and barbaric. Through the publicity of published eyewitness accounts such as Emily Hobhouse’s, the camps caused a political furor back in Britain and around the Western world.102 The fact that the churches felt the need to address the criticism indicates that they were well aware of the concerns being raised about the internment of the Boers. The churches in Canada unanimously defended the British use of the camps. From the first criticism to the final victory, they were active in asserting that the means used by the British to pacify the Boers were just. The first inkling that something was wrong in the way the war was going was in the closing months of 1900. Both the Christian Guardian and the Westminster commented on the changing pattern of warfare, and both gave their unconditional approval of the new British methods of dealing with the guerrilla war. In October the Westminster offered its solution to a conflict that seemed to be dragging on: a harsher British response was needed. The Westminster stated, “A few

42

A War with a Silver Lining

executions for murder, and a few heavy sentences for derailing trains would be the most effective way of intimating to the Boers that they must keep the Queen’s peace.”103 A few months later the Westminster printed an article entitled “Barn-Burning in War.”104 Chamberlain’s speech outlining British policy in South Africa was noted, and the burning of buildings used for military purposes defended. The Christian Guardian’s response to the reports of British measures being too harsh was similar. In September it had quoted Lord Roberts’s defence of his methods.105 A few months later, in an incredible display of trust in the self-restraint of British forces, the Guardian’s editorial defended the actions of Britain, stating that while Kitchener’s campaign was likely to be marked by “severe measures,” the “end would justify the means.”106 Two weeks later the Guardian reaffirmed its position by noting Chamberlain’s speech in the British parliament.107 Chamberlain argued that Roberts had sanctioned the burning of farms only in response to complicity in rebellion or damage caused to railways and that the war was being fought more humanely than any previous war. He was sure that the result of the conflict would be liberty and equality for all. As the British use of camps became more common – and more criticized – the church publications of all four denominations sought to convince their readers that the criticisms were unfounded and the actions of the British impeccable, and that the Boers were to blame for any misfortune that did occur. In this regard, they contributed to the debate carried on in such secular publications as Conan Doyle’s The War in South Africa: Its Cause and Conduct and George Herbert Perris’s Blood and Gold in South Africa: An Answer to Dr. Conan Doyle: Being an Examination of His Account of the “Cause and Conduct” of the SouthAfrican War. The Canadian Churchman was outraged by some of the anti-British sentiments expressed in Europe and was firm in its approval of the means used to bring the war to an end. In fact, Britain’s treatment of the Boers in the camps was considered a shining example of just how fair and humane the British actually were.108 The 1902 Anglican synod meeting in Toronto echoed these sentiments when it affirmed Britain’s place at the forefront of the civilized nations in their treatment of the Boers: Resolved, That this Synod of Toronto humbly address His Majesty the King, setting forth the loyalty of the Members to his person and

For Justice

43

Throne, and their joy that such auspicious circumstances attend his Coronation; and further their satisfaction that His Majesty”s Government has in the conduct of the war again placed our Empire in the forefront of civilization, especially in the matter of caring for the Boer wives and families while the men were still fighting – And the Synod asks the Bishop, with the Chancellor and Secretaries of the synod, to draft and have such address suitably prepared.109 Baptist publications were just as certain that the conduct of the British was irreproachable. The Canadian Baptist was well aware of Hobhouse’s report, and in August 1901 it responded to her assessment of the camps.110 The hardships of life in them were acknowledged but were dismissed as being “similar to those of ordinary Boer life where sanitary arrangements are not understood.” To confine Boers in camps was more humane than leaving them to suffer without food and clothing or to face the outrage of the “Kaffirs.” Besides, what about the suffering of the loyal people of South Africa? A few weeks later, the Canadian Baptist acknowledged that there were more than a hundred thousand people in the camps but consoled itself with the belief that a camp at Klerksdorp was a “model institution” and that the people there were well looked after as “if in their own homes.”111 The Canadian Baptist was upset by the fact that the “miseries of the Britishborn” inhabitants of South Africa had been ignored in the various criticisms. They too deserved pity, for they lived in poverty, faced death, and had been uprooted. These loyal residents had been treated more poorly than the Boers. In any case, it was necessary to round up the Boer women, for every Boer woman was considered to be a spy.112 The Religious Intelligencer found compelling evidence of Britain’s innocence in the London Times, which had printed letters from two anti-British women saying how well off the Boers were in the camps. If these anti-British women could hold such a view, the Intelligencer concluded, the U.S. criticism of the camps must be unfounded.113 The Canadian Baptist received further confirmation from an article in the New York Weekly Post that was favourably disposed towards the British cause. Rejecting American opinion that the war was unjust, it reminded Americans who criticized Britain in South Africa that Britain could turn around and declare the United States’ policy in the Philippines unjust.114 It was best to leave Britain alone in South Africa so that the United States could be left alone in the Philippines.

44

A War with a Silver Lining

The Presbyterian press was just as adamant that the atrocity stories were groundless. Kitchener’s policy of denuding the country of people and food seemed to be working and was praised for its effectiveness.115 Still, there was concern for those in the camps. Referring to the British government’s appointment of six women to a ladies’ committee to investigate the camps, the Westminster predicted in July 1901 that they would find conditions greatly improved. Any problems that had occurred were most likely due to a combination of the war situation and the Boers’ unsanitary lifestyle.116 If any problems remained, they were the fault of Boer men, who refused to stop a “hopeless struggle to the inevitable discomfort of their own wives and children.”117 After all, Britain would do nothing that was not humane. Attacking those in the United States who criticized Britain’s conduct in the war, the paper noted that it surpassed that of the Americans in their civil war a half- century earlier: “It is quite certain that the British authorities have given no grounds for complaint so far as they could avoid doing so. Policy, to say nothing of humanity, would dictate a line of treatment of non-combatants fundamentally different from that officially adopted by the United States war department forty years ago, toward the families of Southern soldiers.” 118 Contrary to what its critics claimed, Britain was not engaged in a war of extermination, and its government was doing its best to ensure that the camps were safe and humane.119 At the end of 1901, during the peak period of concentration camp deaths,120 the Westminster published the statistics for the camps.121 In October, out of a camp population of 111,879, there were 2,633 children’s deaths out of a total death toll of 3,156. In November, out of a population of 118,879, there were 2,271 children’s deaths out of a total of 2,807. The response to these grim statistics was twofold. On the one hand, the camps were considered to be a necessity, and the casualties were said to be partly the Boers’ fault. On the other hand, the casualties were lamented. The deaths, especially among the children, were “heart-sickening.” The Westminster also mused about whether or not part of the blame was the government’s: “No doubt much of it [the high death rate] is due to insanitary habits and the foolish conduct of the Boer women towards their children; but the fact that at length steps are being taken to break up the worst of the camps and to form new ones in healthier localities, suggests that something might have been done earlier if the authorities had grasped the seriousness of the situation.” Such a willingness even to entertain the idea

For Justice

45

that Britain may have been culpable in the death of so many Boer children in the camps was rare in the denominational press. A month later the Westminster noted that plans were underway to provide pure water for the camps, since the chief cause of mortality had been the water supply.122 The water supply was, of course, the responsibility of the British authorities (a rare admission of British guilt). In March 1902 the Westminster reported the conclusions of both the American Methodist Bishop Hartzell and the ladies’ committee from Britain in support of its stance.123 With such authorities on its side, it is not surprising that the Westminster remained convinced of the justice and necessity of the camps. The Presbyterian Record cited a different source to confirm its approval of the camps. “A Visit to a Boer Concentration Camp,” written by South African Rev. R.L. Rogers, defended the camps as a necessity.124 Rogers maintained that they were not as bad as some made them out to be, for they had amenities such as hospitals and free medical care.125 The Methodist press was no less adamant in its support. The words of Bishop Hartzell, published in Pleasant Hours at the end of the war, summarize well the Methodist response: “England has given to the world, in these Boer concentration camps, an illustration of paternal and philanthropic purpose, regardless of expense, in effort or money, unparalleled in the history of wars; and for this great and Christian purpose the world and history will in the end commend her, whatever may be the few incidental mistakes in administration.”126 In the same article, Hartzell argued that those living in the camps had comforts which they had never “known or dreamed of.” From the opening criticisms to the peace settlement, there was nothing but unqualified support for the British methods in the Methodist press. There was certainly an awareness that the camps were an issue. During the peak period of deaths in them, the Christian Guardian noted, “On no other matter connected with the conduct of the war has the British policy and method been so fiercely and bitterly assailed.”127 However, like its Methodist colleagues, the Guardian assured its readers that the British had done everything possible to ensure the health and safety of the Boers. The Guardian argued that there had been “obstacles” such as the poor health and unhygienic practices of the Boers, combined with the problem of supply (which the Boer tactics exacerbated). While it “deeply” regretted the agony of the war, it would “not accept” accusations that the British government or military had “ever acted in wantonness or cruelty.”

46

A War with a Silver Lining

Other Methodist publications echoed these sentiments. Expert testimony was sought to explain and defend the British methods and motivation.128 Critics such as Stead were refuted.129 Other articles highlighted the advantages of living under British rule and the benefits of living in the camps.130 One such article argued that Britain’s care of the Boer women and children was an example of a nation exercising the “Gospel revenge” as no nation had ever done before.131 Even cartoons and illustrations were used to defend the British camps and conduct.132 While the concentration camps generated the most criticism, the prisoner-of-war camps were also condemned. The reason they did not create such a public outcry as the concentration camps was that, in general, the approximately thirty thousand prisoners were better off than the noncombatants. At first the Boer prisoners were kept in South Africa (either on ships or on shore), but as the numbers increased and the security of the prisoners became a growing concern, they were sent overseas to camps in British possessions. The first camp was established on St Helena in April 1900, and others followed – in Ceylon, India, and Bermuda. The treatment of the Boers was humane, and the death rate in the camps was low. For example, of the 6,619 prisoners in Bermuda, only 35 died (all but one from natural causes).133 Despite the relatively good conditions of the camps, however, Boer prisoners dreaded being separated from their families and homeland. While the criticisms of the prisoner-of-war camps did not receive the same attention as the concentration camps, the support for them was similar. Onward took pains to reprint some American articles that agreed with British claims that the camps were humane.134 Like its Methodist counterpart, the Westminster tried to convince its readers that the criticisms of the camps were unfounded. Kitchener was judged “valiant and honorable,” as was his treatment of the prisoners.135 The Westminster claimed that the British government had done all that it could to care for the prisoners, and it hoped that on their release they would return to South Africa without hard feelings towards the British: From several different quarters there has been a good deal of light shed recently on the life of the Boer prisoners of war in Bermuda, St. Helena, Ceylon and Cape Colony. It is safe to say that they are better treated than prisoners ever were before, and that the discipline they have undergone will leave them free from animosity against the British other than racial and political. The latter is

For Justice

47

doubtless in many individual cases ineradicable, but as a younger generation grows up without political or social grievances, the question of Briton against Boer will rapidly die out.136 With a British victory seemingly a sure thing by 1902, the establishment of an amicable relationship between Britons and Boers in South Africa was no longer a distant possibility that needed to be planned for; it was a soon-expected reality.

conclusion The end of the war came on Saturday, 31 May 1902. By the next day the news had reached Canada, and some churches announced it from the pulpit, followed by prayers of thanksgiving. The war had dragged on longer than anyone in Canada (or Britain) had anticipated. Nevertheless, the result was what almost everyone in the empire had foreseen: Britain had vanquished its foe. In the following weeks, various synods and presbyteries passed motions or listened to bishops commenting on support for the cause, as well as expressing thankfulness for the termination of the war.137 The Canadian Baptist announced the end of the war by publishing a large map of South Africa on its first page.138 Entitled “New British South Africa,” the map featured the Union Jack planted in Pretoria framed with the words “Peace,” “Liberty,” and “Equality.” The paper expressed hope for a “new Africa” in which a “new colony welded to the Empire by the bonds of true brotherhood, and by mutual interchange of trade and hospitality” would arise from the ashes of the devastated land.139 There was no doubt in the minds of many that the war had been fought justly and for a just cause. It was also clear that, despite the wish of some, there was no willingness for the Boers to regain their prewar status. Rather, the two republics were to become part of the empire. These sentiments of the justice of the cause and means, as well as the hope for a new South Africa in the shade of the Union Jack, were shared by Baptists across Canada as well as by members of other denominations. Even in its terms of peace, Britain was seen to have confounded critics and shown its benevolence: “Another treaty of peace has proved Britain’s strength, Britain’s fairness, Britain’s generosity, and Britain’s unbending determination.”140 The future looked full of promise. A war fought under the banner of justice and liberty for the Outlanders, the “natives,” and even the

48

A War with a Silver Lining

This caption “Peace. Liberty. Equality” in the Canadian Baptist expresses well the conviction that the British victory would be a blessing to South Africa. (Canadian Baptist Archives, Hamilton)

Boers themselves, had been won. Under the flag of Britain, South Africa could rise to the heights of Canada or Australia.141 While the Boers would not have agreed with this assessment of the benefits of their defeat, the Canadian churches were unanimous in their conviction that the Boers were better off now that the Union Jack flew over all of South Africa. But the supposed blessings did not end in South Africa. In words that expressed well the “white man’s burden” of the imperialism of the period, as well as the late-nineteenth century “scramble for Africa,” Onward had this to say about the future of South Africa and the entire African continent:

For Justice

49

Now there will be one great Dominion of South Africa as there is one Dominion of Canada and another in Australia. It will extend north beyond the Zambesi to Lake Tanganyika. It will embrace pretty nearly all of Africa in which white people can comfortably dwell ... In a few years the railroad will follow the telegraph from Cairo to the Cape, and while France rules Algeria and Sahara, Great Britain will be the predominant partner in the rule of Africa. Cecil Rhodes has not lived to see the fruit of his patriotic labours. But the names of Rhodes and Roberts and Kitchener and Milner and Chamberlain and Salisbury will be linked in honourable fellowship when the history is written of the union of the States of South Africa in one grand British Dominion. We believe that the result is better for the Dutch themselves than would have been their success, just as in our own country those who wore the gray rejoice that we are one nation, and that slavery in destroyed. We know that the African natives rejoice, because they will be under a juster and more merciful rule than that of the so-called republics. The brotherhood of nations will rejoice that the long series of wars has come to a lasting end; for the greatest power for peace is that which consolidates, with separate ambitions and interests, into a single nation. We expect no long bitterness, but within a generation harmony and loyalty.142 A week later Onward extended to the world the blessings of the British victory: “We rejoice that tyranny has been dethroned, that the vast conspiracy to ‘drive the English into the sea’ has been met its necessary Nemesis in leaving the worthier power mistress of the veldt. The whole world will be the better for this triumph of right, and the passing away of a corrupt and intolerant oligarchy, and in time will acknowledge it.”143 Such hope for the efficacy of war predates the optimism surrounding the end of the Great War in 1918, and the language is no less optimistic that the victory would bring lasting peace and the spreading of justice.144 With such lofty expectations for the future, the churches felt confident that their support for the war had been justified. The critics had been wrong; they simply had to wait and see.

3 For the Nation Canada has for many national purposes taken her place in this closing year of the century among the nations of the world. Westminster, 7 April 1900

While the attitude of the churches towards Confederation was ambivalent, by the turn of the century the English Protestant churches had captured a vision of the new dominion and had taken it upon themselves to be nation builders. As Airhart notes, this nation-building ethos was widespread among the leaders and far-reaching in its application.1 One practical expression of it, which was not noted by Airhart, was the way in which the churches supported Canada’s war efforts. In the South African War, their active support was derived partly from their desire to be nation builders. Robert A. Wright has noted how the churches’ participation in the war effort in the First World War was “total.”2 The precedent had been established in the South African War when, as described in the previous chapters, the churches were firmly convinced of the righteousness of the cause. This chapter will illustrate how Canada’s involvement in the war was understood to contribute to the building of the nation. From the sending of Canadian troops, to the victorious battle of Paardeberg, to the announcement of the Boers’ defeat, Canada’s participation in the war provided a grand opportunity to show that it had begun to “grow up” and act as a nation on the world stage. The churches also saw participation in the war as having the beneficial effect of helping to shape the nation. In the early months of the war, when the British experienced serious military defeats, they believed that God had brought these defeats on Britain (and Canada) because of various national sins. If the nation could learn from this lesson, the war could act as a purifying event, ultimately creating a more righteous nation and empire.

For the Nation

51

The following six sections will illustrate the many ways in which the churches’ nation-building ethos affected the way in which they responded to the war. Besides moral and spiritual exhortations, the churches took on the task of serving the war effort in very practical ways: with sermons and articles, war prayers and war poems, contingent chaplains for the soldiers and fundraising for widows, troop sendoffs and troop welcomes.

optimism and concern The future for Canada looked promising at the end of the nineteenth century. Since 1896, the country had experienced a revival of world trade, growing prosperity, a surge in new immigrants, and the settlement of the West. The future looked bright enough for Prime Minister Laurier to proclaim that “the twentieth century will be the century of Canada.”3 This optimism can be seen in the churches’ publications. The Westminster expressed the hopes of many when it surmised that there could be seventy or eighty million Canadians by the end of the new century.4 The Christian Guardian’s estimate was a little more conservative at fifty million.5 In the summer of 1900 the Canadian Epworth Era listed the many reasons for pride in Canada: development of natural resources, population increases, cultivated prairies, prosperity, and loyal bonds with Britain. With all of these exciting developments, it concluded, “May we not reasonably expect this Dominion to become one of the greatest countries in the world? Let us seek to do all we can to make it so.”6 It was in this climate of great optimism that the churches launched their Twentieth Century Fund campaigns for outreach in Canada and overseas.7 The war did not dampen this sense of enthusiasm. On the contrary, Canada’s participation in the conflict, and especially its success on the battlefield, directly contributed to outbursts of patriotic sentiment, which the churches observed with delight. One example of the new patriotism and national confidence can been seen in the debate over who was going to pay for the Canadian contingent’s expenses. Both Onward and the Westminster published articles that commented on Laurier’s speech in Parliament in favour of paying the full expenses of the Canadian contingent. Onward approvingly quoted the part where Laurier asked, “Was there a man whose bosom did not swell with

52

A War with a Silver Lining

pride, that noblest of all pride, that pride of pure patriotism, the pride of the consciousness of our rising strength, the pride of the consciousness that that day it had been revealed to the world that a new power had been born in the west.”8 Referring to the same speech, the Westminster concluded that the war had led to a new nation on the international scene: “Canada has for many national purposes taken her place in this closing year of the century among the nations of the world.”9 By the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a very real sense that Canada had taken its first steps towards “manhood.” The sending of Canada’s first contingent was marked by public enthusiasm in English Canada, and the progress of the troops was followed in the press from the moment they boarded the troopship Sardinian. The poem “To Canada and Her Contingents” expressed this enthusiasm: “Then, here’s to our snow-covered country, / The land of the gallant and free! / And, here’s to our noble contingents! / God keep them where’er they may be.”10 By participating in the struggle, Canada had proved that it belonged to the grown-up family of nations. One contemporary historian describes Canada’s participation as an “initiation rite” that would give the nation an increased role in the empire’s councils.11 As “Lift Up Your Banners, Canada” indicates, the world could now look to Canada for leadership: “Within your borders, Canada, the world will look to see, / The sterling worth of man and state that sanctions liberty.”12 Rev. Armstrong Black stated these same sentiments when he claimed that the birth of Canada was due to the war.13 Key battles and certain holidays led to expressions of patriotism within the churches and provided an opportunity for commentary on how the “national sentiment” was advantageous for the nation. Expressions of patriotism on Empire Day and Dominion Day were the fruit of successes on the battlefield. Empire Day, celebrated in May of every year, was a day when the public schools were instructed in the necessary details of the vast and powerful British Empire. Dominion Day was celebrated on 1 July. Referring to the recent celebrations over defeats of the Boers in the weeks preceding Dominion Day, the Westminster noted with great pleasure that Canadian patriotism had markedly improved: “There has been during the past months an outburst of national enthusiasm, in which for many years we, as Canadians, were sadly lacking. Our country is feeling the thrill and throb of a new national spirit. And it is not only in the great commercial centers of the country but in the most remote rural hamlet that this spirit is being felt.”14

For the Nation

53

While battlefield successes did bring with them a rise in Canadian patriotism (a positive effect of the war), patriotism could easily become a form of jingoism or militarism. In the very early months of the war the Canadian Epworth Era cautioned its readers to avoid the militarism that was “running mad” in Canada.15 In the euphoria of victory in the spring and summer of 1900, when the streets were often filled with people celebrating a victory, many periodicals once again cautioned their readers about the danger of a growing militarism in Canada. The Canadian Baptist was concerned about the motives of those celebrating the empire’s victories. Our pride in the Empire, and our exaltation in the evidences of its majesty and solidarity, have gone up to fever heat, but what is the real motive of our rejoicing? Are we glad merely because Britain’s foes have been crushed, and Britain’s territory enlarged by the addition of “another patch of red” to Her Majesty’s world-circling domains? If this be all, then let it be borne in mind that our patriotism will surely ebb and flow, according as the nation’s sword is sheathed or drawn. Like the tiger of the jungle, who, having once tasted human flesh, forever afterward prefers it above all other food, we shall be content with nothing else but blood and conquest and the annexation of new territory.16 If the celebration was merely the rejoicing in another’s defeat, it concluded, then the British Empire would rise and eventually fall like all other world empires. One need not despair, however, for it was believed that the Canadian people’s motives were pure. It is clear that the rejection of militarism was important because the character of the nation was important, and the character of the nation was important, as will be shown below, because of its unique Christian identity and responsibilities. The Christian Guardian and the Westminster also commented on what they perceived as growing jingoism in Canada. In an editorial commenting on the annual meeting of the British Empire League in Ottawa, the Guardian objected to elements in the speeches that were “alarmist, jingoistic, and open to serious objection.”17 The main target of the Guardian’s criticism was Lieutenant Colonel George T. Denison, the president of the league. It felt that his “prolific imagination and gloomy foresight ran away with him” as he pondered the dangers Britain faced and the war preparations that Britain would have to

54

A War with a Silver Lining

commit to if it was to avoid destruction by its enemies. The Guardian did not want Canada to become like the armed camp of Europe, where nations were locked into an existence of burdensome war preparations and standing armies. The Guardian also took Principal Grant to task for his support of a growing militarism. A few months later, during the week of Dominion Day, the Guardian expressed its desire that Canada would be a nation “foremost in peace, in righteousness, in reverence and truth.”18 The Westminster also was concerned for the new nation. Wartime was a “formative time” for Canada and was “fraught with great possibilities for good or evil.”19 In the opening months of 1900, the Westminster was pleased to see the nation expressing “outbursts of national enthusiasm,” but it warned that the danger of a destructive patriotism was real, and had two possible responses: “The spirit of the times may develop into a wild and superficial jingoism or it may be guided so as to make for a virile nationhood.” The church and its leaders had a “great responsibility” to ensure that the nation chose the latter. In this regard, the churches sought to counter the growing trend towards the militarization of Canadian society and the schools. Carl Berger has noted that “imperialism, military preparedness, and militarism, or the admiration and exaltation of the martial virtues, were inextricably bound together.”20 Consequently, there was a strong movement in Canada to increase its military preparedness and responsibilities. As Berger notes, the “revival of American expansionism after 1898, the intensification of the European arms race, and especially the German challenge to the primacy of the British navy” lent a sense of urgency to the discussion of Canada becoming concerned with its own defence.21 Bolstering the calls for a militarized Canada was the conviction that war and soldierly qualities could reverse the corrosive influences of an increasingly materialistic society. Militarism was perceived by many to be “an antidote to the evils of contemporary social life.”22 The growing bellicose spirit in Canada was far from universal. As one contemporary supporter of an increased Canadian military lamented, “No country exhibits a greater corporate indifference to her defence than does Canada.”23 Direct opposition to the militarism and the concomitant preparations came from a variety of sources. Berger argues that the churches, especially during their send-offs to the troops, furthered the militarism of the age.24 From the vantage point of a century later, that would seem to be the case. However, the churches at that time would not have seen it as such. Certainly,

For the Nation

55

they supported the war effort with sermons and with services for the departing troops, but more likely they saw themselves as having an instrumental role in the taming of the militaristic spirit and the development of a true imperialism. The churches’ opposition to the growing jingoism of the day did not translate into opposition to the war because they distinguished between imperialism and war and even between militarism and war. That is why they could support the one and oppose the other. This tension can be seen in such articles as the Canadian Baptist’s “Lest We Forget” and the Christian Guardian’s “Good from the War.”25 Both noted the benefits of the war while expressing concern for the growing militarism. In the summer of 1901 the Christian Guardian also challenged the rising militarism: Muscular development is not a high ideal for a man, and still less is military development a high ideal for a nation. War has been much glorified, but its doom is written in perishing nations. No nation has built permanently and usefully on the sword, nor will any nation build permanently on rifle or cannon or fortress ... True patriotism is not built on the glory of war. We need to make this truth ring from the presses, platforms, and pulpits just now. The British-Boer war has stirred the spirit of militarism in the colonies generally, and in Canada particularly, and however justified we may be in considering the war sorrowfully inevitable and unjustly thrust on the British people, yet we can never be justified in thinking that any military glory comes to Britain from this war, or in allowing military ideals to get a deeper hold on our youth. Imperialism without jingoism, expansion without force, and government without despotism – these should be our ideals. Peace is our glory and not war – peace built on righteousness.26 The churches’ attempts to extinguish the growing militarism and shape the budding patriotism of the new nation reflected their conviction that they were to play a key role in the formation of the nation. Airhart and others have noted how this nation-building ethos in the churches led to temperance societies, the Lord’s Day Alliance, and ministry to non-British immigrants, all with the aim of developing a uniquely Christian Canada.27 This dynamic of “cultivating Canadian ‘character’”28 was also a part of the churches’ attempts to shape the new, vibrant, passionate expressions of patriotism.

56

A War with a Silver Lining

war news Seeking to meet the considerable demand for war news of any sort, the publications all four English Protestant denominations carried extensive coverage of domestic, international, and battlefield news. Often the war’s events were chronicled in special sections that were devoted exclusively to coverage of the war. Editorials, testimonials, essays, pictures, and maps also provided much sought-after information. While the coverage of the war diminished after the summer of 1900, partly because of apparent victory and partly because other events (such as Prohibition or the trouble in China) were making the headlines, the religious press maintained its coverage until the very end of the war. On the domestic front, the progress of the contingents was followed with pride. The first contingent’s organization, departure, battlefield performance, and return to Canada garnered the most coverage. One week after the outbreak of war, the Christian Guardian had declared where it stood: Where the interests of the Empire are at stake, the interests of every colony are at stake also. Therefore, we are glad to see that Canada is coming to the front to bear the burdens of Empire ... Our own safety is implicated. New South Wales has already sent her contingent; our government should not delay. As to the cost, the Government should have no fear that the Canadian Parliament will fail to provide the sinews of war. Canada should be represented by her troops, and she should bear her own financial burden.29 Other publications echoed these sentiments. Central to the reporting on raising the first contingent was the conviction that the threat to Canada was real, that Canada should act like a mature nation by defending itself (and the empire), and that Canada should send troops immediately (as others had done). Once the decision to send troops had been made, the preparations for the first contingent, its send-off, voyage across the Atlantic, arrival, performance in South Africa, and return to Canada were all reported on. The experiences of later contingents did not receive the same extensive coverage as the first. Calls for the raising of a second group of troops were made even before the first had left Quebec. In early November, Laurier and his cabinet decided to offer a second contingent, but it was declined by the British authorities. However, after the dismal performance of the

For the Nation

57

British army in South Africa, and especially after the events of Black Week (when the British lost three battles), Chamberlain informed Laurier on 16 December 1899 that the British would accept another Canadian contingent. Without calling for a parliamentary debate, Laurier and his cabinet promised that one would leave in January 1900. While the churches once again supported the sending of a contingent, there were voices raised in opposition to the way in which the decision had been made. The Westminster argued that sending Canadian troops in October without any parliamentary debate was understandable in view of the rapidly occurring events in South Africa.30 But it did not approve of sending a second group without the debate and approval of Parliament. It asserted that fundamental Canadian liberties were at stake and that Laurier should have recalled Parliament; instead, one of the most important legislative decisions of the century had been made by order-in-council and a dangerous precedent had been established. Although its tone was not as harsh, the Christian Guardian had similar concerns. In the first week of November, when it looked as though Canada would be called on to send another contingent, the Guardian argued that the circumstances had changed. No further action should be taken until the people had an opportunity to let their elected officials know what they thought and until Parliament had time to debate the issue.31 This was not a question of supporting the war or not; it was a “grave constitutional” matter concerning precedent: One of these questions is whether we shall commit ourselves to the policy of supporting Great Britain in wars, in the making of which we have no voice. Another question is whether we shall entangle ourselves in European politics. It is true that the gift of money and troops to the support of the Empire will not authorize the Parliament of Great Britain in demanding them of us; but such gifts are likely to form a precedent among our statesmen, from which they would find it difficult to depart. The questions involved are too important to be settled by implication; they demand the clearly expressed will of the representatives of the people acting in their constitutional capacity. If we are to send additional troops to the front, by all means let Parliament first be invoked.32 Later the Christian Guardian again urged the government to submit to Parliament the decision to send a contingent. After all, if Great Britain

58

A War with a Silver Lining

did not enter the war without a parliamentary debate, why should Canada?33 These concerns about precedent were justified when one looks at how Canadian participation in the First World War was automatic. Also, they demonstrate that the nation-building churches at times acted as defenders of liberties, a characteristic not always ascribed to them. As would be expected, regional concerns and interests made it into the pages of the press, as did local celebrations after victories. Commenting on the British victories after Paardeberg, the Toronto-based Canadian Baptist enthused that the city had not witnessed an “outburst of loyal patriotism” like that for “many a year.”34 There was no sympathy for those opposed to the war, for as the Canadian Baptist went on to say, if “there was a Boer sympathizer in the land that was a day for him to keep indoors, and be indoors, and be quiet as a spy in the enemy’s camp or the traitor at home, for loyalty ruled in every British home and hearth in the land.”35 After the capture of Pretoria and the subsequent celebrations in Canada, Onward noted with poetic flare that the “bonfires kindled in the streets were but a symbol of the patriotism glowing in every heart.”36 It was natural that churches concerned with the rising patriotism would also be concerned about the way in which enthusiastic outbursts of patriotism were expressed. In stereotypical Victorian fashion, the concern was that passions be expressed properly and in good order. A letter to the Presbyterian Witness written by a Nova Scotian who was in Toronto during victory celebrations reveals some of the traditional Maritime aversion to Toronto while expressing the desire for a seemly celebration: It is well to be jubilant when great triumphs are won by our armies contending in a righteous cause, but there ought to be some regard to the “fitness of things.” Last week when news reached Toronto of Johannesburg being in British hands, and the probable capture of Pretoria, the citizens of Toronto made more noise than was desirable. Their steam whistles were let loose, and the noise they made was not joyous but exceedingly grievous. For many minutes these whistles uttered frightful moans, heart-rending, ear-torturing shrieks; sometimes they brayed horrible discord, approaching at times a weird monotone of wailing such as Dante never heard in his worst subterrene explorations ... Many hours of the night were devoted to a diversity of strange sights and sounds, supposed to

For the Nation

59

indicate ecstatic gladness and loyalty ... If only these Toronto people would come to see sober-sided Halifax celebrating! Everybody here is enthusiastic, of course, but the enthusiasm is carefully regulated.37 Reporting on the same celebrations, the Canadian Epworth Era reported how London, Ontario, celebrated the news of victories in a way that was much more “impressive” than the “tin-pan method” of Toronto. What made London’s celebration more acceptable was the way in which the residents “quietly possessed their souls in patience” until official confirmation of the events had been made and then celebrated the “great event in a dignified and imposing way.” This was considered a better way of celebrating than in a “mob,” for it expressed and encouraged the “highest type of Christian citizenship.”38 In a similar Victorian fashion, the Christian Guardian expressed distress over the way in which girls kissed the soldiers, and the Dominion Presbyterian shared its concern over the abuse of alchohol during the festivities.39 News related to the Canadian troops overseas generated a great deal of coverage and drew reader response. The Trinity University Review proudly noted that at least seven Trinity men were in the first contingent, and the Vox Wesleyana noted that Wesley College had one student serving in South Africa.40 The Canadian Churchman reported that the life of a soldier could be “deadly dull and monotonous,” and lobbied for sending papers, magazines and novels to the troops.41 Letters from overseas were reprinted for popular consumption. Disappointment with a poor local turnout for volunteering, while rare, was noted.42 Poems extolling the troops were penned by a wide cross-section of church members. While most of Canada’s volunteers returned to “glory,” many did not. When reports of the first Canadian casualties in 1900 began to make their way into the press, there was a feeling of sadness, but also a very clear sense of pride in the way Canadian soldiers had acquitted themselves. Canadian participation in the British victory at Paardeberg (the Vimy Ridge of the South African War) in February 1900 led to a tremendous poetic outpouring of praise, as well as grief for Canada’s lost sons. “Canada’s Heroes,” “Canada’s Brave Dead,” “In Memory of Our Dead,” “Our Dead,” “Our First Dead,” “The Soldier’s Death,” “The Memory of the Dead,” “Canada, Well Done,” and “O Distinguished Dead” were just some of the many poems published in the weeks following the victory.43 Although proud of the accomplishment

60

A War with a Silver Lining

of the Canadian contingent, there was a marked note of grief over the losses, such as that found in “The Dying Soldier to His Mother”: “I’m dying far from home, mother, / O[n] Afric’s burning strand; / No more I’ll see the hilltops, / Of my Canadian land.”44 Despite grief over the loss of a child or family member, Canadians could be proud of the troops’ battlefield effort, for it was a work deemed necessary. Some publications even identified the dead as martyrs and stated that the fallen soldiers partly had given their lives in the “sacred” task of nation building. While notice was taken of Canadian casualties collectively, special attention was given to local soldiers who had fallen. The Wesleyan reported on the death of two pei Methodists, Roland Taylor and Alfred Riggs.45 The Religious Intelligencer recorded on the death of Russel C. Hubly, the son of Rev. A.M. Hubly, pastor of the Reformed Episcopal Church, in Sussex, New Brunswick.46 The Calgary Diocesan Magazine included a report from the Innisfail Mission on the death of one of its communicants, Robert Michael Milne Miller.47 St James Church in the Diocese of Huron held a memorial service for the fallen.48 The Wesleyan supported the construction of monuments to Maritime heroes in the cities of Halifax, St John, and Charlottetown; the Quebec Diocesan Gazette published a picture of a proposed monument for Quebecers who had died in the war; and the Canadian Churchman reported on how St James the Apostle’s Church had in its building a brass tablet placed in memory of members of the Victoria Rifles who had fallen during the war.49

services Another way in which the churches showed their support was through their participation in the troop send-offs, welcomes to returning troops, and special services during important events. The involvement of the churches in such public events was nothing new. Grant has noted that church participation in parades and processions was a notable feature of late-nineteenth-century Protestant Ontario culture.50 As Clarke has pointed out, in the years preceding the war, clergy were willing to take part in militia parades, even on Sundays.51 Nevertheless, the degree to which the churches promoted the war effort was new, for this was the first conflict in which Canada had officially sent troops overseas. As noted above, Wright has identified how the churches in the First World War were entirely supportive of the war effort. One

For the Nation

61

only has to look at the churches during the South African War to see where the churches in the First World War found a model for such comprehensive support. Of course, the South African War does not come close to the First World War in length, cost, or carnage. Nevertheless, it was a war behind which the churches rallied as nation builders, and in this sense it established a pattern that the churches in the First World War generally followed. The war and imperial themes penetrated into the smallest and largest of the churches’ functions: an Epworth League meeting, a gathering of young Anglican girls concerning missions, a Woman’s Baptist Missionary Union meeting, a Toronto Methodist Conference meeting.52 The following description of the seventy-first annual meeting of the Methodist sabbath schools in Montreal on New Year’s Day, 1900, provides a vivid picture of the enthusiasm for the war, the nation, and the empire. The most interesting thing in this New Year’s gathering, and the thing which will render it memorable was the enthusiastic spirit of patriotism that was displayed. The scholars came provided with small Union Jacks and made use of them heartily at different points in the service. It was truly a sight not soon to be forgotten to see five thousand children in the body and galleries of our noble Methodist Cathedral waving their small flags as they sang with joyous faces: “God bless our native land! Firm may she ever stand, Through storm and night, When the wild tempests rage, Ruler of wind and wave, Do thou our country save, By thy great might!” to the tune of the National Anthem, or as they took up the chorus: “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.” Patriotism reached fever-heat, however, when Dr. Morton suggested the sending of messages to the Queen, and to the Canadian Contingent in South Africa. The suggestion was at once taken up

62

A War with a Silver Lining

with deafening applause and frantic waving of flags. The Empire is safe for the future as it is safe in the present when the children of the colonies display such loyalty and patriotism as were manifested in St. James last New Year’s morning.53 For a more complete understanding of how these themes entered into the churches’ everyday affairs, consider a brief summary of the Dominion Presbyterian’s “Ministers and Churches” section. This section provided a digest of the events of the Presbyterian (and some other) churches. In the 1 March 1900 issue, just after Paardeberg and other victories, the following war-related events took place.54 In Cornwall, Rev. Dr. MacNish of St John’s Church defended Britain’s actions in South Africa in a Sunday sermon. In Ottawa, many of the ministers “made reference to the Canadian losses in South Africa.” Rev. Norman McLeod, in the New Edinburgh church, referred to the “deep sorrow” felt by Canadians over the recent casualties, but consoled his audience by informing them that soldiers died to send the “gospel of Christ to an unenlightened people.” The Rev. Dr. Herridge of St. Andrews informed his parishioners that the soldiers’ deaths should unite Canada. A few months later, in the heady days of more British successes, the section had the following notices.55 There was a special “patriotic service” at St Andrew’s Church in Toronto (which, according to many it would seem, went on a bit too long!). It was reported that the Anglicans in Toronto had a “patriotic service” at the cathedral and at All Saints. In Ottawa, Rev. Mr. Ramsay of Knox made use of an “excellent” illustration of the war to clarify a point. Dr. Herridge of St Andrew’s remarked on the history that was being made in South Africa, and Rev. Dr. Armstrong of St Pauls outlined the benefits of a British victory in South Africa. In eastern Ontario, the Sunday school at Greenbank had an anniversary celebration, and among the tea, speeches, and music the “patriotic sentiment largely predominated.” At a different anniversary at the Presbyterian church in Prescott, the evening service was of a “patriotic nature” and “was much appreciated by a very large congregation.” One of the most public ways in which the churches could demonstrate their support to the political and military powers, as well as to the troops themselves, was during the send-off services. The first contingent’s departure from Quebec City was a grand opportunity for the churches to show their loyalty. As Miller describes it, the churches gave their stamp of approval on the Sunday before the troops departed.56

For the Nation

63

In Quebec City, Catholics were led to the basilica by Major Oscar Pelletier, where they were addressed by their chaplain, Peter M. O’Leary. The dean of Quebec’s (Anglican) Cathedral of the Holy Trinity was asked by the military to hold a service and Communion for the departing troops, a great many of whom were Anglican. Both the Canadian Churchman and the Quebec Diocesan Gazette reported with great pleasure the events of that Anglican-dominated Sunday.57 Before the troops even departed for Quebec, many Anglican churches were involved in some sort of troop send-off. Western volunteers received a Bible from the rector in the Diocese of Calgary.58 In Fredericton, Quebec Company G was addressed by several of the local clergy,59 as were the volunteers in Toronto, before they were shipped off to Quebec.60 The departure from Toronto was a rousing affair that included a special intercessory service at St James’ Cathedral led by Rev. Forbes Winslow. The service was well attended by soldiers and civilians, and was highly praised by the Canadian Churchman.61 On the Tuesday immediately following the departure of the troops from Quebec City there was another special service in Toronto at St James’ Cathedral. The purpose of this service was to commend “to the care and protection of Almighty God the Canadian Regiment for South Africa now upon the water.”62 J.C. Persall of Holy Trinity Church in Toronto composed a hymn that was sung at the service, and the sermon was delivered by Rev. A.H. Baldwin, chaplain of the 10th Royal Grenadiers of Toronto. A week later the Evangelical Churchman published his sermon.63 The second contingent was to depart from Halifax in January 1900. On Thursday, 18 January, Brunswick Street Methodist Church in New Brunswick held a reception and farewell for the contingent sponsored by the Evangelical Alliance and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (wctu). The event, unlike most previous send-offs, was an interdenominational affair. Clergy from the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Anglican churches all gave speeches. wctu and ymca leaders joined denominational leaders in addressing the audience. The reception was attended by an impressive roster of politicians: B. Russell, mp, the Hon. Frederick Borden, minister of militia, and the Hon. William Mulock, postmaster general. The evaluation of the event was positive, and it was felt that the troops greatly enjoyed themselves.64 A special service was held the following Sunday at Sydenham Street Methodist Church, with C Battery of the second contingent in attendance. The Christian Guardian’s appraisal of the service provides

64

A War with a Silver Lining

a sense of how complete participation in the war effort was expected from all. We should pray that our national character may form, in these trying times, like Peter’s character – rock-like firmness and fidelity toward God, right and truth. It is said that the eve of battle always found Nelson upon his knees commending his cause, his country and his crew to God. These times should find all Britain’s sons and daughters much in prayer. Our generals, our soldiers, and our citizens should be united in this solemn, holy exercise that we may be God-guided, God-girded, and God-guarded.65 Once the troops had departed, the churches were encouraged to be faithful in remembering them in prayer. The Anglicans led the way in their commitment to pray for the troops. After the initial euphoria, the reality of the Boer pre-war preparations, Britain’s lack of preparation, and the Boers’ skill on the battlefield began to sink in. There was no easy victory to be found, and in fact the Boers’ offensive carried the war onto British territory in Cape Colony. When one reads that very early in the war various Anglican dioceses encouraged their clergy to offer daily prayers, one can begin to comprehend the concern for the war effort, as well as the anxiety produced by the constant Boer victories and British defeats. The Quebec Diocesan Gazette published four prayer options for the clergy as suggested by the bishop. While the first two were from the Prayer Book, the third and fourth were tailormade for the present crisis: prayers of intercession for the soldiers, the injured, and the innocent victims of war.66 The bishop of the Synod of Frederiction also quickly issued a prayer for the war.67 The growing sense of urgency felt over the British losses can also be seen in the reaction of the various churches in Toronto. The Canadian Churchman recorded that beginning in February 1900, St James’ Cathedral in Toronto was to have a daily service of intercession (Saturdays excepted). This twenty-minute service over the noon hour was slated to take place for the duration of the war.68 It was in the darkest days of the war that the idea of a nationwide day of humility and supplication began to develop.69 Concern that the defeats were punishment for the sins of the nation and the empire found many expressions. Lamenting the divisions in the church, C.H. Andras wondered if disunity was the national sin that had brought the war on the empire.70 On hearing about the first defeats of the British in

For the Nation

65

South Africa, Mrs Manley, an eighty-three-year-old widow from Kemble, Grey County, Ontario, wrote a poem that was published in the 8 February 1900 issue of the Canadian Churchman. The opening lines read: “We’ll call upon the Lord, our God, / And own His judgment now; / Confess our sins, the nation’s sins, / And low before Him bow.”71 St James Church in Vancouver heard a sermon delivered on 17 December 1899 that, in the spirit of Kipling’s “Recessional,” exhorted the members to “accept our chastisement and go forward with less self confidence to accomplish our destiny.”72 By the end of the year, others were making the same connection between sin and defeat. By January, the call for a day of humiliation and supplication was growing louder, both in England and in Canada. The 18 January 1900 issue of the Canadian Churchman published a sermon preached at St Paul’s Cathedral in London, England, by the Reverend Canon Newbolt.73 After elaborating on how God “chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth,” Newbolt applied that text to the nation. The war, Newbolt stated, was “God’s call to be serious; it is God’s judgment to make us serious.”74 England’s providential role as a “Christian Nation, whose Sovereign is anointed before the altar to almost priestly functions,” was to bless the nations. But England had begun to forget both its own task and its God, and the war was a form of discipline to bring England back to its original calling.75 The stakes were high, for the issue was more than personal salvation; the “welfare of the nation” depended on its “faithfulness.” A week later, the Canadian Churchman published a hymn composed by someone identified as A.A.T. called “A Hymn in Time of War.” It, too, made a connection between sin and defeat, as well as the divine purpose to which Britain was called.76 Much of the imagery used called to mind the Old Testament idea of “sin in the camp” and its effects on Israel’s battles. In the Old Testament it was believed that obedience led to victory in war. This theme was repeated in the many sermons and prayers during the crisis in South Africa. The British Empire was considered to be the modern-day Israel that was experiencing defeat as a result of sin. The solution for Israel in times of crisis and defeat, and for the British Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century, was repentance and humiliation. God’s favour was to be sought so that the nation could carry on with its divine mandate. In the late nineteenth century, the British considered themselves to be God’s modern-day chosen people, their soldiers part of a holy cause; and the Anglican Church in Canada, despite not being the

66

A War with a Silver Lining

established church, acted as the modern-day Levitical priests. A multitude of sins were considered to be blocking God’s blessing. By calling the nation to repentance, offering the opportunity for humble supplication through its services, and by acting as priests of the nation, the Anglican Church believed that it was truly contributing to the nationbuilding enterprise and the victory of imperial arms in South Africa. As the war continued into the early months of 1900, and the British kept experiencing reverses, the call to repentance for individual and national sins was answered. The Canadian Churchman reported in January 1900 that in the “Mother Country” and to a lesser degree in Canada, there had been discussion regarding a day of national humiliation. The idea of a national day of supplication was well established in British history during times of national crisis, but this was something novel for the new nation. Not willing at first to blame Britain’s setbacks on Britain’s sin (out of the fear that some would attribute such a confession to an admission that the war was Britain’s fault) but also not willing to disregard the defeats as a “divine call to consideration, [and] self-examination,” the Churchman hesitantly conceded the need for such a day.77 In response to the call to a national day of repentance, the archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada appointed 11 February 1900 as the Day of Humble Supplication.78 On that day, the nation was to unite in prayer to seek God’s forgiveness for past sins and His support in the present conflict. The Churchman provided background to this call to prayer. In February it reported on a conference of bishops that had recently been held in Ottawa. It printed the bishops’ letter to the “Most Reverend the Lord Archbishop of Ontario and Metropolitan,” dated 11 January 1900, requesting a day of humiliation, along with the archbishop’s response stating that churches across Canada should have such a service on 11 February 1900.79 This was the same day that England had chosen for its day of humiliation. A month later, an article in the Quebec Diocesan Gazette claimed that it was providential that the bishops in England and Canada had chosen the same date, for it said that they did not know of each other’s decision ahead of time.80 The long-awaited day arrived. The previous day, the Toronto Globe had announced that there would be “special services in the English churches to-morrow, when references will be made to our troops in South Africa and collections for the Patriotic Fund will be taken up.”81 The Quebec Diocesan Gazette provided its readers with a liturgy that its parish clergy were to follow.82 The service was to begin, if possible,

For the Nation

67

with Holy Communion, followed by a “Special Service of Humble Supplication.” Within the Litany of the special service were four prayers related to the day’s theme, including prayers from the archbishop of Canterbury and the archbishop of Cape Town. The service outline also contained two printed hymns to supplement those found in the Prayer Book. The instructions concluded with the reminder that the “Hymns may well be sung and the Prayers offered at discretion, frequently during the continuance of the war.” Echoing a long-held lament of imperialists, the prayers acknowledged a need for forgiveness because of the materialism that had blinded the church to the will of God: “O Lord God of Hosts, our only Strength, we come before Thee confessing our many sins and our forgetfulness of Thee in the time of our wealth. Pardon we beseech Thee, all these our offenses, and cleanse us from our sins.” There was a willingness to admit failure in the events leading up to the war, and a direct association of those sins with recent defeats. The plea was for God to hear them and not let their sins cry out for vengeance. Despite their willingness to confess their own faults and to seek forgiveness, there was still a sense that their cause was just. Reminding God of this fact, they prayed: “O most powerful and glorious Lord God, the Lord of Hosts, that rulest and commandest all things; Thou sittest in the Throne judging right, and therefore we make our address to Thy Divine Majesty in this our necessity, that Thou wouldest take the cause into Thine own Hand, and judge between us and our enemies.” If God did so judge, surely he would render assistance to their cause. A sermon preached at Westminster Abbey on Septuagesima Sunday by Rev. Canon Newbolt, and printed in its entirety in the 15 March 1900 Canadian Churchman, echoed the same sentiments.83 In Newbolt’s opinion, God was disciplining his people for their sins. He went on to say that to be a “godless, indifferent, unpatriotic, and frivolous” nation would be a great help to England’s enemies. However, to be a nation with a clear sense of mission, a determination to uphold truth and justice, and a love of good and a hatred of evil was to place oneself on the side of God. And as Newbolt concluded, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The next issue of the Gazette offered a very positive review of how “eagerly and how generally our people everywhere joined in the special prayers appointed” on that day “with regard to the terrible war in South Africa.” The Gazette was especially pleased with the fact that other Protestants and even Roman Catholics participated in the day of

68

A War with a Silver Lining

humiliation.84 This expression of goodwill between Roman Catholics and English-speaking Protestants is striking when one considers the anti-French rhetoric coming from English Canada at this time, as well as the anti-English sentiment in Quebec. Even with its support for the imperial cause, the Diocese of Quebec seems to have avoided the heated and often hateful racial tensions of the day. The Canadian Churchman’s report noted that the idea of a special service of humiliation had spread throughout the “Mother Country” and “all British Dominions.”85 Their “ingratitude and thoughtlessness,” it added, and the “solemn duty imposed upon us in regard to our fellow-countrymen in South Africa” combined to make the event a fitting one. The report noted that there had been “no difference of opinion on this subject,” and it concluded with the affirmation that the war was a just one and that God was indeed on their side. This last reminder of the righteousness of the war was no doubt directed at those who took the Day of Humble Supplication as an admission of war guilt. The special service on 11 February was apparently efficacious, for on the Day of Humble Supplication the war in South Africa took a radical turn for the better. A few days later the Canadian Churchman printed an account of a small town in Europe that had been relieved from a French siege in 1799 when the entire town had gone to church. In the eyes of many, the same thing had happened during the Boer sieges of British towns. Both the Canadian Churchman and the Quebec Diocesan Gazette ran articles that pointed out that Lord Roberts’s victory against the Boers had occurred on the day of the special service: “General Roberts commenced his great march, which led to the almost immediate relief of Kimberley, and, a few days later, to the unconditional surrender of the brave Boer Commander, General Cronje, on the very Day, upon which we, who had been praying no doubt as individuals and congregations from the beginning of the war, thus publicly united, in our millions as an Empire, in Humble Supplication before the throne of Grace.”86 If God responded to such supplications (and they concluded that he had), then they should “continue to place the vast issues of this momentous struggle in the history of the world in the Hands of Almighty God.”87 Church leaders did not soon forget this remarkable series of events in Canada, England, and South Africa. For instance, the bishop of the Synod of Fredericton observed on two occasions that the war seemed to turn around on the Day of Humble Supplication. His address to the

For the Nation

69

diocesan synod in 1900 noted that from “the day of intercession the tide of war turned in favour of our arms.”88 Two years later, he noted in his synod address that without foreknowledge of the English archbishop’s plans they had chosen the same day for humiliation, and on that very day the “tide of war turned.”89 Thrilled with the turn of events, the Quebec Diocesan Gazette published some instructions about what to do when there were victories: “Since we have been praying for God’s blessing on our arms, the Bishop suggests, that after each Victory we should not only sing the Te Deum at the close of our Sunday or Daily Services, but also, as opportunity may arise, that we should say or sing the Psalm or Hymn of Praise and Thanksgiving after Victory in the Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea in our Prayer Book.”90 It also published a prayer of thanksgiving authorized by the bishop that called upon God to assist them in using the victories for God’s purposes and glory. From that moment onward, the churches seemed confident of the outcome of the war. Until then, there had been no real British successes; however, after the military triumphs of February through May of 1900, a British victory seemed only a matter of time. The war dragged on for another two years as the Boers fought the occupying British by means of a guerrilla war, but never again did the churches display such a sense of urgency as they had in the first few months of the conflict. What had turned the tide? To many, the answer was that the nation and empire had humbled themselves and sought God’s assistance. The predominant role played by Anglican clergy in the services and parades during the first months of the war led to the resurrection of an old problem: the religious establishment of the Anglican Church. Between 1815 and 1840, this had been one of the “most divisive issues in colonial politics.”91 The debate between men such as the Anglican John Strachan and Methodist Egerton Ryerson supposedly ended in 1854 when the clergy reserves were sold off and the Anglican Church was officially disestablished. The matter was not completely over, however, for the war revealed some Anglican aspirations (or so it was claimed by the Methodists) as well as Methodist sensitivities that Strachan and Ryerson would have readily recognized. When it was announced that another contingent, Lord Strathcona’s Horse, would be embarking from Halifax in March 1900, a joint letter was written to the minister of militia by the Maritime ministers Rev. Thomas Fowler, on behalf of the Presbyterians, Rev. Z.L. Fash, on

70

A War with a Silver Lining

behalf of the Baptists, and Rev. Dr. Heartz, on behalf of the Methodists.92 They were concerned that the military send-offs had been dominated by Anglicans, and their letter requested that if the troops were to remain over the Sunday before their departure, they be allowed to parade with their respective churches. If this was not possible, there could (if “agreeable to the men themselves”) be a joint service at St Matthew’s Presbyterian, where the troops would be addressed by representatives of the three churches. But Minister of Militia F.W. Borden replied that since the matter was for the officer commanding the corps to decide, he did not “feel at liberty” to interfere with any arrangements that had already been (or would be) made.93 This answer did not satisfy the authors of the joint letter. What made the matter worse was that Rev. Dr. Rose of the Dominion Methodist Church requested that some of the regiment attend the service at his church. None did. Probably sensing the disappointment of his congregation, he explained the situation to them. As the Halifax Herald noted, The church parade of Strathcona’s horse attracted large crowds. About 340 men went to Christ Church Cathedral, 140 to St. Andrew’s Presbyterian, and 30 to St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic. Rev. Dr. Rose, at the Dominion Methodist church, alluding to the fact that no portion of the regiment was attending the Methodist church, said he had written Colonel Steele last Thursday, offering the hospitality of the Methodists to such of the regiment as cared to worship in his church but he had not received any reply. He could not conceive that there had been any intentional discourtesy on Col. Steele’s part, as such would be unworthy of a British officer, but he had referred to the subject to explain to his congregation that there had not been any remissness on his part.94 Upon interviewing Steele, who was commanding officer of Lord Strathcona’s Horse, the Herald’s correspondent was told that the request must have been part of a “stack of unopened correspondence.” He was also told that the plans for the church services had been made by the militia department. The editor of the Wesleyan was willing to accept Steele’s explanation and apology, but what he and others found hard to accept was the apparent contradiction between Borden’s response and Steele’s explanation. If in fact Steele was correct and the militia department did

For the Nation

71

plan the services in Halifax, why did Borden say that he had no part in the planning? And why were the Methodists “deprived of their right under the Imperial War Office regulations” to attend services in their own church, while the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic troops were allowed to do so? To the editor, it seemed clear that this was a deliberate attempt to discriminate against the non-episcopal churches. Anticipating that someone might point out that since the Presbyterians had taken part in the services, there had been no nonepiscopal discrimination, the editor noted that the Presbyterians had to be a part (unlike the Baptists and Methodists), since Lord Strathcona was a Presbyterian. Were the Methodists making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill? Not in their opinion, for the issue was critical to whether or not there was a national church in Canada. The concern was simply for what the editor called “fair play,” and this fair play was demanded from both the Department of Militia and the Government of Canada. A letter to the editor in the next issue of the Wesleyan in support of the editorial summarized the underlying concern of many Methodists. The nation was new, and the participation of the churches in troop sendoffs and services was setting a precedent for future conflicts.95 The issue did not go away. After the death of Queen Victoria in February 1901, the question of church privilege once again was raised. In March 1901 the Canadian Epworth Era printed an article that was critical of the Anglican clergy who, it said, regarded the Methodists and Presbyterians as “sects.” It accused the Anglicans of trying to act like the state church during the services surrounding the death of the Queen. The Free Baptist Banner commended the prime minister on his refusal to “drape” the Anglican cathedral in Ottawa at the taxpayer’s expense: respect for royalty should not be “confused with any act whereby a state church is recognized in Canada.”96 The Messenger and Visitor was critical of those who sought a special place in the state receptions of royalty. While it downplayed the depth of Baptist indignation over the issue, it did argue against any denomination receiving special recognition during state functions.97 A few months later the issue came up again. This time its solution to the constant struggle with those who sought to preserve the “old order of things” was to “recognize no clerical rank or office.”98 Baptists in Ontario and Quebec, as well as the Presbyterian Church in Canada, were also opposed to any hint of special preference at state functions.99 After the Canadian census of 1901, which showed the strength of Methodists in comparison

72

A War with a Silver Lining

to the Anglicans, it was argued that giving privileges to one church in Canada over another during official state functions simply did not reflect the religious composition of Canada.100 The Methodist discontent over the priority given to the Anglicans found expression in an open letter to the prime minister, as well as in a report of the 1902 Methodist General Conference. William I. Shaw, the government’s appointee on Protestant education, penned a letter to Laurier in November 1901 expressing concern with the “ecclesiastical precedence at the state functions in Canada.”101 His letter listed four issues. First, the present order of preference was a “glaring insult” to the “non-prelatical” churches. He claimed that thousands felt a deep resentment and bitterness for the special treatment the Anglican Church received from the government. Second, the order was “repugnant” to the “spirit of Canadian political institutions.” It was the “sole surviving remnant” of the religious discrimination that Ryerson had sought to abolish.102 Third, there should be some order of precedence. Fourth, the present order of precedence was not the fault of Laurier, and no doubt he would be willing to change it to meet the “views and feelings of the majority of the Canadian people.” Shaw’s proposed solution was to use the results of the most recent census to determine the relative numerical strength of each denomination in each province. This would be referred to when questions of precedence arose. For example, the order in Ontario would be Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican and Roman Catholic. It would be the responsibility of each denomination to inform the government of its chief officers. The report of the Committee on Civil Rights and Privileges presented at the Methodist General Conference of 1902 found the current arrangement unacceptable, and it made three recommendations that were similar to Shaw’s,103 except for the first – that the table of ecclesiastical precedence in state functions be completely abolished. The second, like Shaw’s, proposed that if there was to be an order, it should be based on the numerical strength of the various denominations. Third, attempts to work with other denominations towards a satisfactory resolution to the problem should be made. In all of these cases, the Methodist Church claimed to be concerned with fairness. How could its exclusion be justified, especially when the most recent census figures indicated that the Methodists were far ahead of the Anglicans? The Methodists were particularly concerned that the precedents being established would carry on into future

For the Nation

73

church-state relationships. What exacerbated the problem was the fact that out of the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic churches, the Methodists were the only ones not to have a Canadian chaplain travelling with the first contingent. The Methodist indignation over this decision will be addressed below. What needs to be noted here is that both the services and the choosing of chaplains fuelled the decades-old Canadian dilemma of church establishment. The churches were indignant about another matter too. When the first contingent was seen off to South Africa, the Methodist and Presbyterian churches had expressed concern about the alcohol made available for the soldiers. How could a Christian public send liquor (and tobacco) for the troops?104 Their concern is not too surprising, for the churches, especially the Methodists, were active in the Prohibition movement. When it was announced that the first contingent would be returning home in November 1900, there were plans to make it an alcohol-free reception.105 The first group of soldiers arrived in Halifax on 2 November 1900, and as Miller notes in his history of the war, there was a rousing reception, but it was a reception that was far from alcohol-free.106 As the various troops returned to their hometowns, they were met with similar receptions. The numbers were impressive. In Montreal fifty thousand people greeted the train. In Ottawa a civic holiday was proclaimed and two thousand people showed up on Parliament Hill to hear a welcoming address by the governor general.107 The letter from Jessie B. Archibald of Truro to the Presbyterian Witness expressed well the anger and disappointment many felt over the availability of alcohol during the return celebrations. She had approved of the welcoming ceremonies but was upset over the drinking at the barracks. Her letter was a scathing indictment: We have read many times, with intense indignation, of the treacherous “white flag” tragedies perpetrated in South Africa by the Boers, but it remained for Christian Halifax to out-do even the Boers in treachery and meanness on this occasion; where many of our returned soldiers ... were treated ... under the thin guise of hospitality. Verily, the days of “Judas and the bag” are not gone by, for were not then some mothers’ boys ensnarled, betrayed and sold? ... What a cruel blow to the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, who are weary of waiting for the arrival of the Idaho some days overdue, and in answer to the many prayers for the safe return of their darling sons and brothers, then, to have them sent home to them

74

A War with a Silver Lining

disgraced, because of yielding to temptation, on this, the very first day of their arrival in the home-land! 108 The Presbyterian Witness shared her sentiments and stated that it was a “cruel shame” that many of the soldiers were under the influence of “strong drink.”109 The following week, the Witness printed another criticism of the use of alcohol at the reception110 as well as a circular from Lord Roberts asking those who were welcoming the troops to avoid serving them alcohol.111 With the second group of soldiers from the first contingent expected to arrive in Halifax soon, the Wesleyan encouraged people to show up and welcome the troops but pleaded: “Once more – let no one offer them drink, let no one tempt them to forget their manhood. Cheer them, parade them, feast them. But keep drink away from them.”112 The poem “The Army Canteen” expressed the conviction that the availability of alcohol for the troops would give rise to a thirst for alcohol once the war was over – certainly a sore point for passionate prohibitionists: He had fought in his country’s need, And returned with a soldier’s glory; He brought home the trophies of war, But that is not all of the story: He brought, yes, he brought tho’ at first ’twas unseen, An appetite born of the Army Canteen.113 The inclusion of alcohol in what was supposed to be a welcome for Canada’s Christian soldiers was a great disappointment for churches that were trying so hard to build a Christian nation.

chaplains Military chaplains had been an integral part of the Christian church’s ministry to soldiers for centuries, so the fact that the English Protestant churches sent chaplains with the Canadian contingents is not all that striking. In Canada, chaplains had been an important component of the military for decades before the South African War.114 Government policy in the days after Confederation was not to allow official chaplains, but it permitted militia units to have volunteer chaplains. However, the unofficial nature of Canadian chaplaincy did give rise to

For the Nation

75

some discord between the churches and the government during times of crisis. The Fenian raids in 1866 and the Northwest Rebellion in 1885 were two conflicts where the churches’ aims differed from the government’s (and often from each other’s).115 Duff Crerar notes that during the Northwest Rebellion, Prime Minister John A. MacDonald realized just how politically explosive the question of Canadian chaplains could be.116 The chaplaincy issues during the South African War therefore need to be understood in the larger context of the ongoing development of Canadian chaplaincy in general and church-state struggles in particular. What is noteworthy about the participation of chaplains in the South African War was the controversy over who got to send a chaplain and when. Like the order of precedence and church parades, the issue revolve around the question of religious establishment. For the Methodists, the people who most keenly felt that their legitimate rights had been overlooked, there was a need to establish a precedent for future contingents to South Africa as well as for future wars. Chaplains were a source of pride for the denominations that sent them, for to have a chaplain overseas indicated that the denomination had a publicly recognized role to play in the war effort and in the nation-building process. Chaplains were also an important source of information on the war. There was an almost insatiable desire for news, and the chaplains’ letters published in the denominational press, as well as their lectures when they returned, helped to meet the public’s need for first-hand accounts of the events in South Africa. They also provided eyewitness evidence of what they considered to be Boer War guilt, a bonus for churches seeking to defend the actions of Britain in South Africa.117 The Methodist publications in particular made extensive use of the reports from chaplains. One chaplain who received substantial coverage was Rev. William G. Lane from Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, the Methodist chaplain in the second contingent. Lane’s selection and send-off were faithfully covered by his hometown press, as well as by the Wesleyan and the Ontario-based Christian Guardian.118 His steady stream of letters back to Canada were duly featured in the Methodist press.119 He was also a popular speaker upon his return to Canada. After a speaking engagement in Toronto in December 1900, Lane was described by the Christian Guardian as a “right manly man” who presented his experiences in South Africa so powerfully that the “march

76

A War with a Silver Lining

of men, the reveille, the ping of bullets, and the boom of guns” did not seem “far away.”120 His collection of souvenirs on display increased the “vividness” of his presentation. Sending chaplains overseas, however, did present a few problems. The first was the matter of the chaplain’s compensation. Both the Anglican chaplain in the first contingent and the Methodist chaplain in the second needed monetary support. After the last-minute Anglican success in getting Rev. John Almond of Bishop’s College, Lennoxville, as chaplain in the first contingent, there was the urgent need to fund him. In order to raise some quick cash to cover Almond’s expenses, the dean of Quebec took a $300 loan from a bank.121 By January 1900, Anglicans in Quebec had contributed $220 towards paying down the loan, and Rev. T.C. Street Macklem urged the church’s membership in Toronto to contribute the remaining $80. This appeal for money to cover what was considered an essential responsibility and right of the church was a painful embarrasment for some in the Anglican Church.122 The Methodists similarly had to appeal to their members to cover the costs of Chaplain Lane as soon as he was chosen. A Chaplain’s Fund was established in January 1900 to collect and distribute the funds.123 The positive response to an urgent appeal in April 1900 resulted in immediate funding for a horse and equipment for Lane (he was in South Africa by this time), and by the spring the appeals for money had ended.124 The second problem was considerably more serious. Both the Methodists and the Anglicans were dismayed about the selection of the chaplains for the first contingent. The Anglicans were upset because there was a Roman Catholic chaplain, Father Peter M. O’Leary of Ottawa, a Presbyterian chaplain, Rev. Mr Fullerton of Prince Edward Island, and a ymca representative, H.G. Barrie – but no Anglican chaplain until the very last moment. The Evangelical Churchman and a letter from “Anglicanus” to the Canadian Churchman provide a glimpse of some of the behind-the-scenes attempts to place an Anglican chaplain with the contingent. Church leaders and supporters had lobbied hard in the days leading up to the departure of the troops, but to no avail. Finally, on the day of departure, Laurier was sought out. The Canadian Churchman’s article indicates that the premier of Quebec, Sir H. Joly de Lotbinière, travelled 150 miles by rail to meet with the prime minister and that this last-minute meeting was successful in gaining the Laurier’s support for sending an Anglican chaplain.125 The Evangelical Churchman’s editorial concludes that the meeting

For the Nation

77

between the premier and the prime minister had been in vain.126 Both magazines did agree on the fact that the decision to have an Anglican chaplain go with the first contingent had still not been made even hours before the Sardinian was to leave Quebec. However, there must have been a sense that the government would change its mind at the last minute (or else this was a pressure tactic), for Rev. John Almond was standing on the wharf with a box of two hundred prayer books, hymn books, and personal luggage in full view of the troops and authorities waiting to be let on board. At the very last moment the church obtained permission to send him. A critical factor in the government’s change of mind was, in the opinion of many, the considerable number of Anglicans who received Holy Communion at the 29 October 1899 Sunday service preceding their departure. The “silent appeal” of this service was considered “too strong for the military authorities” to ignore.127 The number of Anglican recruits in the first contingent was quite high. It was estimated that between five and six hundred of the thousand-man contingent were Anglicans, and some three hundred of them took Holy Communion on the Sunday before they departed.128 The Canadian Churchman saw it this way: it would be “little short of a scandal” if the Anglicans, who “outnumber the Roman Catholics, by about ten to one” and outnumbered the Presbyterians as well had not been allowed the “ministrations of a priest of their own church.”129 While pleased with the decision to send Almond, many Anglicans were offended that the government had initially excluded their chaplain from the contingent. The Canadian Churchman’s editorial after the troops’ departure provides a sense of how deep and broad this feeling was: We have been well nigh deluged with letters from all parts of the Dominion, revolting against the unmerited slur cast upon the Anglican Church by the refusal of the Premier, as the mouthpiece of the Government, and persisted in till the very last moment, to send an Anglican chaplain with the contingent force to South Africa. Wisdom seems to have dawned upon the Premier at the very last moment, but the slur remains, and has still to be atoned for. It must, however, be borne in mind that our Premier is a Roman Catholic, and as such, is, of course, not permitted by his Church to admit the validity of Anglican orders, and is compelled to regard all Protestants alike as heretics; he may, therefore, be justified in his

78

A War with a Silver Lining

own mind for thinking that any Protestant minister or even a y. m.c.a. layman, is good enough to minister spiritual consolation to Anglicans. We are thankful that he was permited [sic] to learn a better lesson, even at the eleventh hour.130 Elsewhere the exclusion was called an “unjustifiable discrimination.”131 The criticism even spilled over onto the floor of the House of Commons. Led by the Ontario Orangeman Clarke Wallace, the opposition demanded an explanation from the embattled minister of militia.132 Not all of the criticism was directed at the government. Some people felt that the Anglican authorities were partly to blame. A series of letters printed in the Canadian Churchman revealed the anger over what was regarded as lack of leadership from the Anglican hierarchy. Other letters defended the leadership. All agreed on the need for continued vigilance to make sure there were Anglican chaplains in future contingents.133 The Methodists were not at all impressed with being deprived of the privilege of having a chaplain travel with the first contingent and were upset with the government’s last-minute decision to allow an Anglican chaplain. The warning that was given to the government at this early stage was “Don’t do it again,” with the hope that a second contingent (if sent) would give the minister of militia a chance to make up for this insult to the largest group of Protestants in Canada. Once the decision was made to send a second group, the Christian Guardian entered the fray. In January 1900 it stated quite unequivocally that it expected the government to appoint a Methodist chaplain to travel with the next contingent.134 To bolster its case, the Christian Guardian argued that although a chaplain had previously been appointed from the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Presbyterian churches, this was not necessary. While the Roman Catholic soldiers would need their own chaplain, a single Protestant chaplain could serve the needs of all Protestants, Anglican soldiers included. Although allowing Methodist soldiers to be ministered to by an Anglican chaplain had outraged Egerton Ryerson a few decades earlier,135 it did not seem to be a serious issue for Methodists during this war. 136 As they saw it, all the government needed to do for the second contingent was to appoint a Methodist chaplain for the Protestants and a Roman Catholic chaplain for the Catholics. Methodists continued to work behind the scenes to ensure that the second contingent had a Methodist chaplain. It was claimed, however,

For the Nation

79

that opposition to the idea came not from the government but from the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, who acted as if they should receive special treatment.137 Like the Anglicans, the Methodists believed that they were being discriminated against. They were pleased when the minister of militia promised that Lane would be appointed as chaplain, along with representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the ymca. Lane, they noted with pleasure, would be treated “precisely as the other chaplains.”138 However, exclusion of a Presbyterian chaplain from the second contingent did not please the Presbyterians, and the Baptists were not impressed with being totally excluded from both the first and the second.139 Here, as in the issue of order of precedence, the Methodists felt that they were facing Anglican (and, in this case, also Roman Catholic) pretensions. They believed that the Anglicans were trying to ensure that they received a position of superiority over the other Protestant denominations, and they denounced these pretensions as “lofty” and “groundless.”140 For Chaplain Lane, who agitated passionately for the Methodist case, the battle against Anglican pretensions was a battle against “the eddy and scum of churchism.”141 Once again, the issue for the Methodists was one of setting a precedent for future chaplains and future wars.142 It was difficult for many Methodists to accept that one of the largest Protestant denominations in Canada – and one much larger than the Anglican – had been slighted, and the inclusion of Lane was seen as a step towards ensuring that such injustices did not occur again. The resolutions made to deal with the chaplaincy issue related to the first and second Contingents did not settle every controversy between the Methodists and the Anglicans. In fact, a year after the war ended, Lane was again involved in a conflict regarding what he deemed the Anglican’s “assumed ecclesiastical preference.”143 The Methodists failed to change the “improvised nature” of the way Canadian chaplains were appointed. This would not end until the First World War.144 However, the churches’ ardent patriotism and their effort to ensure that chaplains travelled with the troops, did mean that the government took into account the churches’ particular wishes in its plans for the contingents. The churches’ active campaigning led to the permanent inclusion of a chaplain with every contingent, something that in previous decades had not been government policy.145 Although the inclusion of chaplains cannot by itself be assumed to mean that the churches supported the war effort in South Africa, the

80

A War with a Silver Lining

matter does reveal just how much the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican churches longed to be a part of the nation-building enterprise. As Crerar notes, “The high value placed on the moral and spiritual character of the new nation’s great enterprises” meant that the churches had to be involved in all national affairs; chaplaincy included.146 Especially while the nation was still in its infancy, it was important for each denomination to ensure that it had its rights respected, its value to the nation-building enterprise recognized, and its role at the front solidified for the present (and for any future) conflict.

the canadian patriotic fund There were many organizations that provided assistance to the soldiers as well as to their wives and dependants back in Canada. The Canadian Red Cross, the National Council of Women, the ymca, and the Soldiers’ Wives, as well as the Canadian government, all provided assistance. “Practically every city, town, or village that sent men to South Africa” also provided “gifts, receptions, and comforts” to the troops on their departure or return.147 The Canadian Patriotic Fund was established on 12 January 1900 by Lord Minto in order to coordinate the efforts of the wide variety of smaller funds. The intention of the Patriotic Fund was to provide for disabled soldiers and their dependants. During the course of its existence it processed approximately 1,200 applications. Miller details its 1,066 awards: “sixteen to widows, twenty-four to orphans, seventy-two to dependents, 612 to disabled soldiers, and 342 to dependents of soldiers still at the front.” The Patriotic Fund was highly successful in raising the necessary funds in order to provide such care. Within four weeks of its creation, it had raised over $70,000. By the time the fund was closed, it had raised $339,975.63. Of this amount, $312,448.00 was raised in Canada, $23,999.20 in Great Britain, $2,999.36 in the United States, and $530.05 in other countries. Many in the churches were caught up in the enthusiasm surrounding the fund. One brief report in the Dominion Presbyterian provides a glimpse of this support and notes that the sums given to the Patriotic Fund had eclipsed donations to the Century Fund (a church program for denominational growth).148 Despite the impact on such existing fundraising campaigns, however, the churches were supportive of the Patriotic Fund and encouraged their members to donate.149 A report

For the Nation

81

in the Religious Intelligencer in January 1900 provides an example of this. Rev. Dr. McLeod created a controversy at a prayer meeting for “Nations and Their Rulers” when he criticized the Fredericton Town Council for not contributing to the Patriotic Fund. He complained of the “Fenian Controls” in the government, by which he “meant that the spirit which controlled the action of the Council is not essentially different from the anti-British feeling which the Fenians everywhere are showing.”150 (McLeod was reported in the same article as having a son who was soon to depart for South Africa.) A month later, the Religious Intelligencer approvingly noted the establishment of Patriotic Funds for soldiers and their families. At the same time, it lamented that the New Brunswick contingent of soldiers still needed funding. The proposed solution reveals how the pulpit was used to raise money for the war effort: pastors and congregations were expected to come up with ways of providing the necessary funds. In doing so, they would “express practically their sympathy with the souls of Canada who represent them at the front, and by the same act declare their loyalty to the great Empire of which [they were] all proud.”151 Anglicans also backed efforts to raise money for the fund. On 4 January 1900 the Canadian Churchman had expressed concern about the overlap of donations for war sufferers and urged coordinated giving.152 Lord Minto’s announcement creating the Canadian Patriotic Fund had come one week later. Both the Canadian Churchman and the Quebec Diocesan Gazette urged their readers to give to the new fund.153 The Gazette reported the donations of the diocese’s churches in considerable detail. The March 1901 issue listed the names of eightyseven churches, along with the respective amounts given to the fund (as low as $0.31 and as high as $107.80).154 The grand total raised by the eighty-seven churches was $945.45. The following month Andrew Hunter Dunn, bishop of Quebec, printed the names of seven other churches, along with donation amounts.155 The total contribution to the Patriotic Fund, taking into account the new $46.43 from the seven churches, was $991.88. In order to place this amount in context, it is interesting to compare the amount raised by Rev. H. Gomery’s work for the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge (spck) around the same time. After two years and 222 services or meetings before thousands of people across Canada, Rev. Gomery had been able to raise a grand total of only $824.51.156 In a little over two months, donations to the Patriotic Fund in the Diocese of Quebec alone surpassed this figure.

82

A War with a Silver Lining

The various churches in the Diocese of Toronto were encouraged to take up a special offering for the fund during the Day of Humble Supplication on 11 February 1900.157 By the end of April 1900, the total donations of the churches in the Diocese of Toronto amounted to $1,956.22.158 Of this, $1,006.74 came from churches in the City of Toronto; $244.79 from those of Durham; $193.19 from Northumberland; $135.00 from West Simcoe; and the remainder from West York, East York, Peel, South Simcoe, East Simcoe, and Haliburton.

the domestic debate In Canada as well as in Britain, the war led to serious domestic debates and even to violence. As Morton has noted, the war may have been a relatively small one, but the debate and controversy it engendered was not.159 Not all Canadians were convinced that Canada should send a contingent to fight against the Boers in South Africa. In the days before, during, and after the first contingent was sent there was an acrimonious political debate over the issue, and no aspect of the South African War has received more attention from Canadian historians than this debate.160 Some have seen the controversy as a political watershed, one that “split open the cleft between English and French Canadians, launched the twentieth-century French-Canadian nationalist movement, broke Laurier’s power in Quebec, and served as a dress rehearsal for the First World War.”161 As Miller notes, the debate was not just between English and French Canada. Although the majority of English Canadians were supportive of the war and the sending of Canadian troops, some of them opposed the war.162 The English Protestant press, unlike many of its secular counterparts, was highly critical of those whose actions exacerbated tensions between francophones and anglophones. With its two founding peoples, the French and English, it was understood that Canada had the potential to be a shining example to South Africa (and the world) of how two races (at one time hostile) could work together to build a nation. In order to ensure that the new nation did not plant the seeds of future self-destruction, the press throughout the war was proactive in seeking to shape English attitudes towards French Canadians. This is not to say, however, that the press did not criticize those who opposed the war. In fact, the attitude to the war’s opponents was at times belligerent. Goldwin Smith, one of the war’s most outspoken

For the Nation

83

Canadian English-speaking critics, was often singled out.163 Similarly, Israel Tarte, Laurier’s minister of public works, was taken to task for his support for the Boer cause, as was mp Henri Bourassa for his antiwar and seemingly anti-British sentiments.164 While certain daily newspapers gave Laurier a difficult time over his alleged hesitation to support Britain, the religious press tended to defend his actions.165 Local politicians also faced censure. The Religious Intelligencer addressed charges that the governor [sic] of Prince Edward Island was a “sympathizer with the Boers” who never allowed an opportunity to pass without “showing his predilections” in the matter.166 Noting that he was a Roman Catholic, the article concluded that if he truly was pro-Boer, he should be removed from office for the good of the country. The religious press also identified publications with anti-war attitudes167 and at times discouraged their own readership from consulting them.168 In a remarkable display of fairness, however, some publications were criticized for certain pro-war attitudes. Many of those in favour of the war feared that it would be used for partisan gain. Their fears were justified, for the Conservative Party sought to turn discontent over the Liberal’s handling of the war into support for their party during the federal election in 1900. The Toronto Mail and Empire and the Hamilton Spectator were the worst examples of partisan reporting.169 The religious press, in general, sought to take a higher road.170 Mark Hampton has noted how C.P. Scott’s use of the Manchester Guardian to oppose the war in South Africa was rooted in the idea that true journalism promoted a healthy discussion of critical ideas and events.171 While the Canadian press was praised at times, many editors of the religious press thought that this was an area where the secular press had fallen short. To make “political capital” out of the war was to “pollute” the patriotism that was surging throughout the country.172 The tendency to insult, slander, or otherwise treat unfairly one’s opponent was also lamented. Both the Westminster and Queen’s Quarterly sought to address these concerns. The Westminster argued that the press was one of the “greatest blessings” and one of the “greatest curses” for “modern civilization.”173 Sadly, it concluded, there were forces in Canada that were making the “hell of the yellow journal” a reality. The freedom of the press in Canada had been abused, it said. The situation was so bad that certain publications had “earned the right of being disbelieved until their statements [were] independently verified.” This “degenerate journalism” was a “menace to the country’s

84

A War with a Silver Lining

weal.” The only solution, the Westminster concluded (aside from driving them from the industry), was for a complete transformation of the ethics of Canadian newspaper reporting. Queen’s Quarterly also judged quite harshly the actions of those who shut down debate by what it considered unfair attacks or unethical tactics.174 Canada’s treatment of dissent, it concluded (naively, for the debate in Britain was far from ideal), lagged behind the “spirit of true liberty” in the “Mother Country” and instead followed the inferior methods of the “eagle” (the United States): It is easier to scream than to practise self-criticism. Our parliament sets the pace and the National Anthem is the instrument for stopping free discussion. All honour to Archibald Campbell for keeping his seat and keeping his hat on his head, while members all round him bawled out “God Save the Queen.” The men who prostitute such a prayer would prostitute anything and anyone for party gain. Outside parliament, similar tactics are considered sure proofs of loyalty and wisdom. Such dirty and immature tactics were considered to be impossible in Great Britain, so why, it was asked, were they allowed in Canada? As noted above, one of the important concerns for all four denominations was the unity of the nation. While many secular newspapers and politicians showed restraint when it came to criticizing French Canadians for their alleged lack of patriotism during the war, some did act irresponsibly.175 Such behaviour led to growing hostility between English and French Canadians, hostility that erupted into violence on 1 March 1900, when McGill University students celebrated the relief of Ladysmith and the victory at Paardeberg.176 After the students had paraded through the streets, attacking the offices of La Presse, La Patrie, and Le Journal, they caused damage at Laval University. The next day Laval students peacefully marched to McGill University, where they were stopped by the archbishop of Montreal and the principal of McGill. The next evening the McGill students returned to Laval University, where a confrontation with police turned ugly. Eventually the militia was called to aid the beleagured police force. The riot was reported widely in Canada and around the world. For some, it was a simple prank gone bad. For others, it was the beginning of the end of French-English relationships in the new nation.

For the Nation

85

Without exception, the English denominations sought to ensure that the “race question” was not part of the debate over the war. The loyalty of French Canadians as a people was defended,177 French Canadian hesitancy to support the venture was deemed understandable,178 and a legitimate right under the freedoms present in Canadian society was noted.179 Warm sentiments towards French citizens were expressed.180 Those who sought to make political capital out of the controversy were roundly criticized, and the actions of the English students during the Montreal riots were condemned.181 Since the stressing of racial differences could encourage violence, those most guilty of inciting racial tensions were upbraided as “unscrupulous and reckless politicians” who “subordinate[d] the country’s highest interest” to their own (and/or their party’s) political gain.182 The events in South Africa were a chilling reminder of what could happen in Canada if such radicals continued to propound their message of hatred and division. Two examples of how the press dealt with these sentiments can be found in the Westminster and the Messenger and Visitor. In the earliest days of the war, the Westminster recoiled at the antiFrench invective of those upset by French Canadian antipathy to the war. The Westminster found it strange that such behaviour occurred, since the strife between Briton and Boer in South Africa was an object lesson for those who would stir up the “horrid fruits of race-hatred.” Moreover, it was dangerous, for such recklessness could lead to civil war in Canada.183 While Canada had undergone times of racial turmoil, those days, it was thought, were in the past. With remarkable naïveté it was claimed that past prejudices were dying away, making Canada a model of two peoples working together in harmony.184 The “flower of the reconciliation” was the French Canadian prime minister himself. In fact, it was noted, the Canadian example had been promulgated in the British press in the months leading up to the war. Like the Westminster, the Messenger and Visitor sought to address the domestic racial tensions.185 Once again, the similarity between South Africa’s racial problems and Canada’s were highlighted. Perpetuating the myth of Canadian unity, the Messenger and Visitor also stressed how Canada was a model to the world of how two diverse peoples could live together.186 It warned, however, that the threat of discord was an everpresent danger; it was the “one thing above all others that must give us concern,” for these racial tensions could reach the point where violence would break out in Canada. The hope was that the war in South

86

A War with a Silver Lining

Africa and, more specifically, the death of French and English Canadian soldiers, would actually serve as a catalyst for the two races to unite further, and that the blood shed in a common cause would “cement the bonds of nationality.” Despite such optimistic hopes, the war actually had the reverse effect. The tensions between French and English Canadians left lasting scars and set a pattern that would be followed in the next century’s even more tragic wars.187 Unlike in the First World War188 and unlike many publications in the secular press,189 Protestant leaders and press did not fuel the domestic situation by attacking the loyalty of French Roman Catholics. In fact, the religious press (taking its nation-building role seriously) recognized the threat to the young nation and sought to unite both peoples of Canada. While they may have been guilty of naïveté regarding the reality of the very real French-English tensions, the churches can be credited with trying to unite the nation when there were many forces at work that could have divided Canada in even more tragic ways.

conclusion The churches’ view of themselves as nation builders greatly influenced both their reasons for supporting the war and the ways in which they did so. The war was seen as an opportunity for the young nation to “come of age” and show the world that it was truly a nation to be taken seriously. Not to support the war effort would have been tantamount to admitting that Canada was not a real nation, something that no one wanted to admit. The ways in which the churches showed their support were varied. Troop send-offs and welcomes, the raising of funds, services of prayer, sermons of support, special activities, and a balanced view of patriotism and domestic debate were all very practical expressions of support for the war effort. They were also ways in which the churches tried to shape the new dominion into a Christian nation. The wartime activities of the churches also resurrected issues of church establishment, some of which continued into the years after the war. What was sought were decisions that would create precedents for the next contingent of troops and, even more importantly, for the next war. When one looks at the churches’ response to the First World War and wonders why the churches responded the way they did, one only

For the Nation

87

has to look at the actions and attitudes of the churches during the South African War. The active support of the churches, including sermons and prayers invoking God’s blessing on the battlefield, all were present in the South African War. Such precedents would be built on and expanded upon in the wars that followed.

4 For the Empire Where the interests of the Empire are at stake, the interests of every colony are at stake also. Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899

The latter part of the nineteenth century up to the First World War has been called the “Age of Imperialism”1 or the period of the “new imperialism.”2 Imperialism was a popular movement in Western Europe and North America during a period marked by the rapid expansion of already existing empires, such as Britain’s and France’s, and new ones such as Germany’s. The United States and Japan were also active in their quest for territory and empire. The country that gained the most during this race for empire was Britain. Since the 1870s, the expansion of the British Empire had been remarkable. John A. Hobson, a critic of the political and economic forces behind imperialism as well as a critic of Britain’s involvement in South Africa, outlined this growth in his well-known Imperialism: A Study. There were gains for other nations, but there was no equal to the empire upon which the “sun never set.” For instance, France, with the second-largest empire, had 55 million inhabitants in its colonial territories while Britain had 350 million in its.3 Although Canada had celebrated its dominion status in 1867 and was a young optimistic nation, it remained part of the British Empire. The empire controlled a vast number of territories, each of which had distinct relationships with the mother country. Territories such as Canada and Australia had one type of relationship, whereas places such as Egypt or a newly invested territory in central Africa or the South Pacific had another.4 Although French Canadians were relatively unenthusiastic about the British Empire and saw the world and Canada’s place within it differently from English Canadians,5 by the end of

For the Empire

89

the nineteenth century English Canadians took great pride in belonging to the largest empire that the world had ever seen.6 Imperialism “was fully in the saddle” in London when Laurier formed his government in 1896.7 Pierre Berton’s observation that the “youth of Canada breathed in the spirit of imperialism with their breakfast porridge” aptly describes the depth of imperial sentiment in Canada at the end of the century;8 as Robert Page notes, no “single topic” moved “Canadians as powerfully and as emotionally as ‘The Empire.’”9 Images of the empire were woven into the fabric of Canadian society; no school child in English Canada could avoid the flags, maps, songs, poems, and lessons that spoke of the splendour and majesty of the British Empire and the Queen,10 nor could any adult miss the imperial sentiment expressed in the newspapers, novels, poems, politics, and economics of the day.11 While this attachment to the empire may be offensive to historians who seek to discover a more distinctly Canadian nationality in the years after Confederation, as Phillip Buckner notes, the imperial experience was central to nineteenthcentury anglophone Canadians, despite what today’s historians think it should have been.12 The events of the previous decade had engendered this growing passion for the empire. International tensions and uncertainty, tariff problems with the United States (not to mention the fear of invasion), and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897 had all made closer ties with Britain seem not only natural but necessary. It was during the war in South Africa, however, that imperial sentiment was brought to a “feverish pitch.”13 Such excessive displays of imperial passion would not be seen again in Canada until the First World War.14 The Imperial Federation League was active in the promotion of the imperial cause. However, Page, Miller, and Berger all recognize that religion played a crucial role in the formation of public attitudes in late-Victorian Canada.15 The question is, of course, what was the attitude of the churches towards the empire during the war? An integral element of the churches’ support for the war effort was their concern for the empire. The churches were nation builders, but the type of nation envisioned was a nation firmly rooted within the empire. There were many different ways in which this imperial relationship was envisioned, but the unifying element in the churches’ attitude was the conviction that Canada’s future was to be realized within, not outside, the empire. Any threat to the empire, therefore, was not only a threat to

90

A War with a Silver Lining

Imperial themes made their way into the advertising in the denominational press. (Christian Guardian, 1900, ucc/vua)

peace and civilization worldwide but also a direct threat to Canada. Consequently, the churches actively supported the war effort as a means of defending the cause of peace and civilization around the world, as well as the prospects of the newly born nation.

threat to the empire The growth of the British Empire was looked upon with admiration, a great sense of accomplishment, and pride. The number of people within the empire was noted, often with comparisons to the lesser growth of other European powers.16 The Canadian Epworth Era’s brief comments provide a sense of this pride of empire.17 It noted that in 1800 the empire had 115 million people, and in 1900 it had 390 million. Its geographical growth over the same period had increased two acres per second. The empire was now ninety-seven times the size of the home country. Through other articles, such as “More Empire Building,” “How the British Empire Is Governed,” and “British Rule,” the benefits of the empire were proclaimed.18

For the Empire

91

Despite its alleged benefits, there were many outside the empire who did not love it, and the pages of the religious press were filled with lamentations over the many nations that resented Britain and its empire.19 “Why are we disliked?” (or its equivalent) was a common refrain.20 While anti-British sentiments had been noticed before the war, the South Africa War exacerbated them. Reflecting on this dislike, periodicals such as the Canadian Churchman noted that much of the animosity was based on envy.21 “the empire now at stake,” screamed the headline of the 18 December 1899 issue of the Toronto Globe.22 At the time, it seemed that Britain and its empire were in grave danger, though this was not in fact the case. Ironically, just when the empire was at its peak of power, the sense that Britain’s power had begun to ebb was eroding British confidence. The concern was for the economic and military might of Britain in view of the rise of such rivals as France and Germany.23 These fears and geopolitical worries were shared in Canada, and the churches made it clear that losing the war in South Africa would jeopardize the very existence of the empire. Because Canada’s future was understood to be within the empire, this threat was also a threat to Canada. The Christian Guardian made this point in no uncertain terms: “Where the interests of the Empire are at stake, the interests of every colony are at stake also.”24 The struggle in South Africa was considered to be a world struggle where Canada’s safety was directly implicated, and as a result Canada should send troops. A few months later, the Guardian printed an article that decreed that Christians must “either pray for the success of our arms or they must pray for the downfall of the empire.”25 The Methodist Magazine and Review echoed this concern. After printing an article entitled “The Cohesive Elements of British Imperialism” by Alleyne Ireland, the editor felt it necessary to add the following words of warning: “The British Empire is on trial before the whole world ... My own feeling is that England has never been called on to face a situation so full of dangerous possibilities, and that now is the time when the moral fibre of the British Empire is to be put to the test.”26 Elsewhere in the Methodist press it was claimed that a loss would inevitably lead to anarchy and internecine strife in South Africa, a return to a medieval form of Christianity there, and a loss of Britain’s existence as a global power.27 The Presbyterian press was no less adamant that the issues in South Africa were matters of life and death for the empire. This was far from

92

A War with a Silver Lining

a local war. Rather, it had worldwide ramifications, for what happened in South Africa would affect Britain’s relationship with France, Germany, Russia, and other powers.28 The possible outcomes of the war should cause Christians to pray for a British victory.29 Once peace had been declared and a British victory assured, the Westminster reminded its relieved readers that the ideals they had fought for had been an “absolute necessity” if the interests of the empire and the world were to be preserved.30 The Canadian Churchman recognized the strategic location of South Africa.31 It was also concerned with British prestige in the opening months of the war. To lose either would be fatal. It proclaimed that this was “England’s last chance. If she accepts her responsibilities, she can make Africa the fulcrum of her Southern Colonial Empire. If she vacillates again, she will be contemptible to Europe, and the despair of her colonies, and a mere mother-in-law to her sons and daughters, who will despise her forever.”32 Near the end of the war, it stated with confidence and relief that, in fact, Britain’s prestige had not been lost.33 Of course, prestige for its own sake was not the point; rather, it was needed if the empire and its “great beneficent influence” was to continue. The Canadian Baptist was convinced that “Britain’s title as a worldpower” was on trial in South Africa.34 The strategic situation around the world was also at stake. Trouble was brewing in China and India, and a loss of prestige would have serious ramifications for the empire.35 Consequently, the war was worth its expense and its challenge.36 Like publications of the other three major denominations, the Canadian Baptist painted a grim picture of what the world would be like if Britain lost the war: “Our only choice lay between the surrender of South Africa – which would have involved the breakup of our Colonial Empire, the setting of the sun of British rule, and the setting back of the clock of the world’s progress for perhaps a century – and the present war.”37 With such high stakes at risk, the choice to support the war was obvious.

views of empire and imperialism While there was widespread support for the empire, there was no uniform idea of what belonging to this empire meant. Imperialism in lateVictorian Canada enveloped a wide range of sentiments, and it was this ambiguity that was part of its strength.38 Carl Berger’s Sense of Power

For the Empire

93

notes this ambiguity, and it is one of the problems that confronts historians who attempt to make sense of the whole imperial movement.39 The diversity of opinion exhibited among some of the major proponents of imperialism in Canada was displayed within the churches. The remainder of this chapter will explore this diversity, identify some of the common imperial assumptions that gave the movement a remarkable degree of unity, and show how the imperial sentiment was instrumental in shaping the churches’ response to the war. Imperialism had its critics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but since the end of the Second World War and the dismantling of the European empires, it has been almost universally condemned. For many today, imperialism simply stands for western exploitation. For the churches in Canada during the South African War, the issue was not that simple. Imperialism, in its ideal form, was considered a good thing, as the case of the churches and Cecil Rhodes illustrates. If any man captured the imperialism of the age, it was Rhodes. Upon Rhodes’s death on 26 March 1902, the churches printed various eulogies and commentaries on the man and his impact. The Methodist press praised him for his commitment to the empire: “With the death of Cecil Rhodes, in his forty-ninth year, has passed away one of the great empire builders of the English-speaking race, a man who recalls the statesmen of the spacious days of Queen Elizabeth.”40 And while the Christian Guardian acknowledged that it was difficult to “rightly judge his character and his influence,” it predicted that the “verdict of history” would be a positive one.41 Baptist commentary was mixed. There were positive reviews on his life and on the scholarships established after his death,42 but there was criticism of his various schemes and motives. The Free Baptist Banner found fault with his impatience, as well as his dependence on the “military and commercial spirit.”43 The Messenger and Visitor was much more harsh, critiquing his methods, and going so far to blame him for the war: If Mr. Rhodes’ methods had been as good as his general purpose, it would have been well for his fame. His connection with the Jameson raid has left a cloud upno [sic] his reputation which history is hardly likely to lift. If that connection was what there seems to be good reason to believe it to have been, it was both an unpardonable blunder and unpardonable crime, for in that case the

94

A War with a Silver Lining

responsibility for the war which is now being fought out to its bitterest end must rest very largely on him.44 The Messenger and Visitor’s criticism was not directed at Rhodes’s imperial convictions. Rather, he was condemned because of the improper methods he used to attain his general purpose. The Canadian Churchman also sang the praises of the man. While it acknowledged that he may have been partly responsible for the war, it lamented his death as a blow to the future peace and pacification of South Africa. His unique contribution to the empire placed him in the hallowed halls of great men who had made the Anglo-Saxon people among the greatest on earth since Elizabethan days. His contribution to the empire was phenomenal, and Rhodes was even compared to Moses, the leader of the Israelites: “Moses looked over into a promised land he was not allowed to enter; so Cecil Rhodes, as he beheld his beloved continent of Africa, and the Empire he had done so much to extend and consolidate, expressed his desire to see what was, to him, a forbidden sight, the nations of Briton united in peace, and progress in a federated Empire.”45 The Presbyterian press was not as willing to draw parallels between Rhodes and Moses. In fact, the only comparison made was to Paul Kruger, the president of the Transvaal Republic and enemy of the empire. While the Presbyterian Witness gave a positive appraisal of Rhodes,46 the Westminster had little good to say about him. For years the Westminster had been critical of him and his policies in South Africa.47 Its opinion did not change at his death: “In Mr. Rhodes’ personality there was blended with a sympathetic disposition that was extremely attractive a coarseness of fibre which was very repulsive. He was not a man of high moral principle, but he was chivalrous to his friends, and not vindictive to his enemies. We shall not look upon his like again, and many good people would be just as well pleased not to do so.”48 The fact that neither Rhodes nor Kruger would be able to determine the type of peace in South Africa once the war was over was considered a good thing for the region. Both men had contributed to the outbreak of the war, but their involvement in any peace settlement was deemed to be dangerous.49 The one action of Rhodes’s that elicited praise was his establishment of a scholarship plan for sending students to Oxford University.50 The response to the death of Rhodes is indicative of how the churches understood imperialism. Most publications provided glowing

For the Empire

95

eulogies, while some were highly critical, but Rhodes’s imperial sentiment was never criticized. This is evident in the two publications that were the most critical of Rhodes. The Messenger and Visitor supported his “general purpose” but condemned his “methods.”51 Similarly, the Westminster made it clear that Rhodes was the “perfect embodiment of the spirit of materialistic exploitation.”52 But it argued in the same article that imperialism had “never been any part of his political creed.” In other words, despite what critics such as John Hobson said about the link between imperialism and capitalism, what Rhodes had done in South Africa was contrary to the spirit of imperialism. What was needed in South Africa, the Westminster concluded, was not an abandonment of imperialism but a true application of it, one not corrupted by the “heartless capitalism” and greed of men like Rhodes. Embedded within all of the responses to Rhodes’s death was the assumption that the imperial sentiment surging through the veins of Canadians was a good thing. While there were differences regarding the various conceptions of imperial federation, what was unanimous was the conviction that, despite the abuses of some, the empire was a providentially established blessing to the world.53 The Presbyterian Witness provides one example of this sentiment: Can we realize the responsibility of the position in which we are placed by the ruler of all? ... The “glory” of the new situation is not ours; whatever is great or good in our position, in commerce, in prosperous industries, in our political life, or in our religion we owe to the guidance of providence ... We add the wise words of one of our foremost statesmen, Lord Rosebery: “How marvellous our Empire is! Built not by saints and angels, but the work of men’s hands; cemented with honest men’s blood and with a world of tears, welded by the best brains of centuries past; not without the taint and imperfection incidental to all human work, but constructed on the whole with pure and splendid purpose. Human, yet not wholly human, for the most heedless and cynic must see the finger of the divine. Growing as trees grow while others slept; fed by the faults of others as well as by the character of our fathers; reaching with the ripple of a resistless tide over tracts and islands and continents until little Britain woke up to find herself the foster mother of nations and the source of unified empires. Do we not hail in this less the energy and fortune of a race than the supreme direction of the Almighty?”54

96

A War with a Silver Lining

There are many other examples that reveal the firm conviction that the empire was established by God. Onward printed articles that spoke of the “Mission of the British Race,”55 of how one must be “blind” if one could not “read God’s meaning” behind Britain’s empire,56 and of how God had placed the “keys of Empire” in Britain’s keeping.57 The Christian Guardian reprinted a speech by Rev. Dr. Carman in which he noted that “God in his providence is making our Methodism and our British Empire” a part of God’s vision for the world.58 Anglican publications spoke of how the “English folk have inherited a place and destiny in the world,” and the work that came with such a destiny was “God’s purpose” for the race;59 how the empire was providentially established60 and “God had given ... [Britain] an Imperial position.”61 God, the “Power which watches over the destiny of nations,”62 providentially provided a victory in South Africa.63 Another characteristic of the imperial sentiment in the churches was the conviction that the empire was a blessing to the world. God had not raised up Britain to exploit the nations. On the contrary, Britain had been raised up to bless all nations. The churches were not completely naïve, for they realized that Britain’s rule was far from perfect. As the critical comments directed at Rhodes reveal, some could see that there were problems in the empire. For some, the similarities between Israel and Britain extended to the realm of national sin. The Wesleyan Ian MacLaren had no problem stating that both nations had sinned, but he quickly stated that such sin did not destroy God’s “calling” upon either nation.64 Elsewhere in the religious press, it also was asserted that the abuses and excesses of the empire did not negate the ideal of imperialism; such abuses were simply not representative of “real” imperialism. The Westminster tried to make this clear in its discussion of imperialism and missions: Like many other general terms the meaning of imperialism is not very definite. It is sometimes used to denote that spirit of blatant jingoism and lust for territorial conquest that, too often, have marked the history of nations. With such imperialism the spirit of Christ can have no such kinship. There is, however, a higher and nobler application of the term to that spirit of obedience to the will of God, and political unselfishness, which, while it does not hesitate to reach out a helping hand to all who may be in distress, seeks

For the Empire

97

especially the highest good of those peoples, for whose welfare, in the providence of God, the Empire has made responsible.65 The article went on to argue that it was the confusion of aggrandizement and exploitation with imperialism that had led to the despised idea of the latter. Other articles similarly separated the ideal of imperialism from the abuses of imperialism.66 It was clear to the churches that the British Empire was a force for good in the world, despite the particular sins of imperialism and empire. This conviction was embedded in the war commentary of the publications of all four denominationals, and was stated passionately in the pulpit and the press. Such a conviction, of course, was at the root of the churches’ support. Without it, the churches would (at least in theory) have found it difficult to support the rapidly expanding empire. The Baptist press, like others, made it clear that despite the various evils of imperialism, it was convinced of the positive effects of the British Empire, and it identified the benefits of belonging to the empire.67 It also outlined the advantages of British rule in comparison with the rule of other colonizing powers, thus justifying participation in its expansion.68 Not only was the empire a force for good in the world, but abolishing or diminishing it in any way would be a catastrophe for the continent of Africa and the world in general.69 The Presbyterian press echoed these sentiments. The Westminster, so critical of the type of imperialism characterized by the actions of men such as Rhodes, still believed that the British Empire was the “greatest secular organization for the promotion of human welfare in the world to-day.”70 It observed that every government in the world that provided political freedom for its citizens was an adaptation of some way of the British system.71 In Queen’s Quarterly’s discussion of the growing German and Russian empires, the author noted that what was important in the spreading of empire was not “painting all the earth red” but the “gain to humanity” that would result.72 Clearly, nations benefited from British (and other European nations’) control, but conquest simply for the sake of empire was not what the empire was about. The Presbyterian Witness expressed the conviction that European empires benefited those within them.73 Even the Russian Empire, although a “wild and tyrannical and aggressive” power, was helping to bring “order out of disorder.” France was advancing “civilization.” However,

98

A War with a Silver Lining

the accomplishments of these nations paled when compared with what Britain had done for the peoples of the earth, for “it must be owned that Great Britain has been the grand agent in upraising the lower races of manhood. This holds true in every continent and island. Even in South Africa one of the causes of bitter strife between Great Britain and the Dutch has been the British determination to protect the native races.” Clearly, according to the Presbyterian press, British rule was advantageous to all who found themselves under it. The Anglican press was no less adamant that British rule was a boon to all. During the presentation of a Sword of Honour at City Hall in Quebec City to Lieutenant Colonel Oscar Pelletier on 20 August 1901, the bishop of the Quebec stated that no one could be blind to the fact that “this long fought struggle has done more than we can imagine to enable us to realise that we are privileged to be members of one vast and powerful Empire, acting together under our glorious Imperial Flag with a view to equal rights for all races, as well as to the advance of education and civilization, and of the general good of the whole wide world.”74 Similarly, the Evangelical Churchman insisted that the spread of British rule meant “an extension of order, civilization, and ... Christianity”75 and that Britain was fighting for the “well-being of the races” within its empire.76 The benevolent aspects and responsibilities of empire were also featured in an article in the Canadian Churchman about the American involvement in the Philippines, the assumption being that an empire was for the betterment of its subjects.77 In other words, empires did not exist for their own self-aggrandizement; they were there to serve. The speech by Dr Carman that was printed in Onward presents a clear picture of Britain’s rule as a responsibility as well as a blessing to all nations.78 The following excerpt reveals just how passionately certain Methodists felt about Britain’s mission and its benevolent rule. The speech also reveals how intertwined, in the minds of many, were social reform, Christian missions, and the empire: No man has a right to shut himself up from the claims and kindly benefactions of his fellowmen. No nation has a right, natural or acquired, to shut itself out from the common intercourse of mankind ... Go out with your constitutional government, but preserve sacred freedom. Go out with your commerce and factories; but not with injurious products or pernicious trades. Mere brute force and greed create no rights; nor will weakness and cupidity on one side

For the Empire

99

justify violence or craft on the other ... Show them what true liberty is, what justice is, what manhood is, what true Christianity is, and genuine civilization ... Let our “far flung battle line” shine on land and sea for humanity, justice and equal rights. “Gather out the stones!” Break down, dissolve and remove the old tyrannies! Sweep away the chronic evils and wrongs that have darkened the human race. Correct and ennoble public sentiment, and remove the civil, political, social and commercial obstructions to the progress of the Gospel. Away with slave trade and human slavery! Away with sutteeism and polygamy! Away with the great combinations created for gambling and Sabbath desecration! ... “Raise up a standard for the people,” the standard of the brotherhood of man, of constitutional government, of civil and religious freedom, and of the excellency and glory of the kingdom of God. Such impassioned rhetoric resonated with the many who saw British hegemony as a providentially established benevolent rule, a true blessing to the world. As Edward Kohn notes, one of the unique dynamics of late-Victorian Canadian-American relations was a growing sense of the common mission of the global Anglo-Saxon community,79 and what thrilled the hearts of those convinced of the mercy and mission of the empire was the apparent unification of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. For decades, Britain and the United States had often been at odds over international issues (and since Britain looked after Canada’s foreign affairs, this meant tensions for Canadian-American relations). In fact, since Confederation, Canadians had frequently felt threatened by American territorial ambitions.80 Now, it seemed, the two great nations of Britain and America were to unite in a common purpose. The British desire for an American ally was partly rooted in its decline as a world power. No longer could Britain function independently on the world stage; it needed a partner, and America was a natural one.81 First, Britain’s global interests were not seriously in conflict with those of the United States. Second, the shared linguistic, familial, cultural, political, historic, and legal heritage made it an obvious ally. A third reason was the conviction that the “Americans stood shoulderto-shoulder with the British people as upholders of Anglo-Saxon civilisation.”82 Chamberlain made this clear in a speech in 1887: “I refuse to think or to speak of the usa as a foreign nation. We are all of the same race and blood. I refuse to make any distinction between the

100

A War with a Silver Lining

interests of Englishmen in England, in Canada and in the United States ... Our past is theirs – their future is ours ... I urge upon you our common origin, our relationship ... We are branches of one family.”83 He said that he was proud of the title “apostle of the Anglo-Saxon race,” which he considered as “fine as any on earth.”84 The dream was that such a united race could effect change on earth like no other. Like many at that time,85 the churches were delighted that there seemed to be a coming together of the once-divided race, convinced that such a union would make for an almost invincible force for good in the world.86 While this sentiment can be found in all four denominations, the following Methodist examples will suffice to illustrate it. Throughout the pages of the Methodist press there was visible relief over the recent rapprochement with the United States and Germany.87 Britain’s assistance to America in its war with Spain was noted with approval; the joint leadership of the Anglo-Saxon races of England, the United States, Australia, and Canada in the world was celebrated; and America’s taking up of the “white man’s burden” was approved.88 Although some rivalry between the two nations still existed,89 the overwhelming feeling was that the relationship developing at the turn of the century was a godsend for the empire and the world. Onward printed an article by Bishop Hartzell, the influential American Methodist missionary from South Africa, which made this point strongly: “The greatest boon that has come to civilization in all the earth at the opening of the twentieth century ... has been the increased cordial relations between the United States and England, as representing the English-speaking Anglo-Saxon races of the world. This friendship is no menace to any nation. If persisted in, as I believe God intends it should be, it will command the peace of the world.”90 Carman was also convinced of the need for, and common sense of, a union between Britain and America. In his address to the Epworth League Convention in Indianapolis in 1899, he outlined the causes of past strife between the two nations and the case for peace and union between them.91 Ancient grudges, national pride and ambition, national sensitiveness, national policy, a party spirit, and party strife had combined to make for hostile relations. Yet there were many reasons why the two nations should cooperate peacefully. The mutual friendship and respect of their rulers, combined with their common origin, race, civilization, language, religion, national aims, and responsibilities to humanity, made for a natural alliance between them. Carman warned that war was contrary to the genius and spirit of the

For the Empire

101

Gospel and that a war between the two nations would bring God’s wrath down upon them – reason enough for the two to work together. Conversely, he expected that God would bless the two nations and the entire world if they worked together. Even a cursory reading of the comments of the day discloses a potent mix of religion, nationalism, and race. It has already been noted that the British were convinced of their superiority over the Boers, and consequently those feelings of superiority were a significant component of Britain’s defence of the justice of its actions in South Africa.92 It has also been noted how the creation of the “other,” so prevalent in the language and literature of the day, made its way into the churches’ literature and was used to justify support for a war against what was constructed as an arrested civilization. With discussions of widespread Anglo-American unity, Anglo-Saxon superiority was expanded to include supremacy over all other races in the world; there was simply no question that the Anglo-Saxon peoples were the most morally, religiously, technologically, and politically advanced peoples in the world. From their earliest years in public school, Canadians were raised to believe in what Daniel Francis calls the “myth of the master race.”93 This belief was nurtured and propounded in many places, including the churches. A quick glance at the poetry published in the denominational press reveals the racial superiority that was so deeply embedded in the imperial sentiment of the day.94 The virtues of the Anglo-Saxon race were extolled, and the union of the Anglo-Saxon peoples affirmed. Poems such as “To the Anglo-Saxon Race,” “A Marching Song for the Saxon,” “A Song of the White Men,” and “The Anglo-Saxon Race” all proclaimed that the Anglo-Saxon race was superior to all others.95 “The Song of the Saxon,” given in part in chapter 2, expresses this attitude with characteristic pride.96 The superiority over Roman Catholic nations was partly due to the Anglo-Saxon’s religion. Anglo-Saxons were Protestant, and it was the Protestant religion that had led to the rise of the Protestant nations.97 The British system of government was another reason for Anglo-Saxon superiority. England and the Anglo-Saxon people were portrayed as defenders of liberty in a world of oppressive peoples and governments. Many Canadian imperialists argued that the Anglo-Saxon people had a special capacity for political organization,98 and this conviction was expressed in church publications. For instance, the Presbyterian Witness asserted that the “future of civilization” was “mainly in the hands of the

102

A War with a Silver Lining

Anglo-Saxon race.”99 Why? Because the other colonial powers, such as Russia and France, were not as effective in “upraising the lower races of manhood” as the British were. Consequently, anything that aided in the union and spread of Anglo-Saxon peoples, along with their influence and empires, was a good thing. But what about the criticism of imperialism in general and of the war in particular? In her study of Queen Victoria, Victoria Smith argues that the Queen was an icon, and as such she “did not only carry one symbolic meaning. Rather, her importance stemmed from the way in which various groups and individuals were able to project different, and sometimes contradictory, meanings onto her.”100 For English Canadians, she argues, the Queen in life and death “embodied the racial and cultural values, and imagined familial ties which Canadian imperialists in Ontario wished to maintain.”101 However, Smith’s work overlooks the Queen’s religion and its importance for many within her realms. In this regard, the Canadian Protestant churches saw Queen Victoria as an ideal Christian monarch and an ideal mother and homemaker. For churches that were concerned about the decline of traditional morals, this was no small matter. For the Protestant churches, Victoria embodied all the religious idealism behind the establishment and maintenance of the British Empire. After a reign of nearly sixty-four years, Queen Victoria died on 22 January 1901. One need read only a few of the numerous tributes to her to get a sense of the conviction that she had been an ideal monarch and that the empire had been shaped by her character.102 As the Canadian Churchman declared, “The personality of the reigning Sovereign was one of the most influential factors in determining its [the empire’s] character.”103 During the Methodist memorial service at Metropolitan Methodist Church in Toronto on Saturday, 2 February 1901, Carman praised Victoria and her reign. The Christian Guardian printed a summary of his message, which stated in part: “Victoria was a providential Sovereign. The times needed her. God knew it, prepared her for her place, and gave her the opportunity. Thank God for such a Queen. She filled her place to the utmost demands. The court needed her, and she purified the palaces and Royal homes. The statesmen needed her, and she filled councils and parliaments with wise and gentle intimations, suggestions and decisions. Her own domains abroad needed her, and she helped them to peace and prosperity. Our Queen is a perpetual Sovereign; a Queen forever.”104 The Maritime Baptist publication Messenger and Visitor echoed these sentiments: “How much

For the Empire

103

One of the many images of the royal family in the press (Methodist Magazine and Review, 1900, ucc/vua)

the influence of that pure womanly and queenly life upon the heart and conscience of the people has had to do in making Britain great who can tell? The universal confidence felt in the goodness of her heart, her wisdom and her love of righteousness, and the increasing reverence in which she has been held not only by her own people

104

A War with a Silver Lining

The Queen’s death in 1901 was lamented in every denominational publication. This drawing shows America placing a wreath and consoling Britain. Any friendly statements or actions from the United States towards Britain provided hope for those who sought a united Anglo-Saxon people – with the concomitant global influence. (Methodist Magazine and Review, 1901, ucc/vua)

but by the world at large have represented such an influence to hold the world in peace as perhaps never before was embodied in any human being.”105 Again and again the Queen was described as the

For the Empire

105

embodiment of the empire’s Christian virtues: her Christian character had shaped the empire’s character. With this in mind, one can understand how difficult it would have been for the churches to take criticisms of Britain’s motives seriously. How could an empire led by the ideal sovereign be wrong? How could a Christian Queen, who ruled over a Christian empire, be anything but a blessing? In a tribute to Victoria, Carman stated, “Were we in the habit of deifying monarchs, we would not, in Queen Victoria, have the worst example of history for such exaltation.”106 This statement, bordering on what Ian Bradley calls “monarcholatry,”107 captures much of the popular sentiment that English Protestants in Canada felt towards Queen Victoria. Her death during the war brought grief across the country. While the world rejoiced to hear of the death of some monarchs, with Victoria this was not so, for she had done nothing but bless the empire and, through the empire, the world.108 Thus, the popular image of Queen Victoria contributed to the churches’ support for Canadian participation in the war in South Africa. In a similar way, but on a larger scale, the churches made the empire into an icon that stood for all that was good in government and empire. To use Page’s word, the empire “embodied” all these characteristics.109 As the empire expanded, so did justice, liberty, and good Christian government. If Britain won the war, everyone would gain. Conversely, if Britain were to lose, the whole world would suffer. With such an inflated (but very common) view of the empire, it was incredibly difficult to argue against the war and very hard to accept at face value any of the criticisms of it.

good from the war Initial support for the war was based, in part, on the perceived need to defend an empire at risk. If the empire was at risk, the argument went, so were its individual colonies, such as Canada. Once the war was underway, however, its benefits were emphasized: the empire would be purified, it would be united, and a purified and united empire would be a blessing to the entire world. As noted earlier, the opening months of the war brought some of its darkest days. The British army in South Africa experienced serious reverses in battle after battle. Before the successes at Paardeberg and elsewhere in February 1900, the supposedly weak Boers had humbled

106

A War with a Silver Lining

the mighty British Empire. While tactical military mistakes and poor generals could be considered partly to blame, there was another factor that explained the failure of Britain’s military: sin. The Westminster printed a poem entitled “Confessional” that expressed well this sense of sin: Lord God, whom we besought so late Thou wouldst not suffer us forget Thy name and our weak human state – Have patience, Lord, a little yet. To-day no pomp of empire fills The wintry land; amazed and awed We watch Thy slowly grinding mills Mete out to us our just reward. To-day, by foemen sore beset, Dismayed we draw our destined lot. We prayed to Thee, “Lest we forget,” And, even as we prayed, forgot. With foolish, rash, vainglorious words And sorry self-sufficiency – We boasted, girding on our swords, As those who laid their armor by. Wherefore the curse upon us lies Of warriors all unready found, Of braggarts blinded to despise, Their foe before the trumpet’s sound. Humbly we call upon Thy name, Ere sounds once more the grim assault. We do confess, O Lord, with shame, Our fault, our very grievous fault. Give back our father’s stern distain, Of idle brag and empty boast, So shall we stand erect again And face unmoved the hostile host.110

For the Empire

107

For years, the moral condition of English society had been a cause of concern. As Denis Judd notes, “there was a generalised and growing anxiety, especially after the conviction of Oscar Wilde in 1895 for homosexual activities, that the nation, the ‘race,’ was on a slippery, downward slope of decadence and decline.”111 Had the sins of the past and present finally caught up with Britain? Sin, and the concomitant judgment of God, was considered to be a primary cause of Britain’s military failure, and repentance was the obvious remedy. While the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches did not wholeheartedly participate in the Anglican-initiated Day of Humble Supplication,112 they did share its concern that the empire’s sin had brought God’s judgment upon it. By causing the nation, church, and empire to reconsider their past conduct and attitudes, the war had “purified” the empire. In the early months of 1900, all four denominations printed contributions from ministers that reinforced this idea of sin and judgment, expressing clear and compelling arguments for “sin in the camp” as the cause of the British defeats. A sermon by Rev. John Watson (whose pseudonym was Ian MacLaren) appeared in the Christian Guardian, the Methodist Magazine and Review, and the Messenger and Visitor.113 Watson identified Britain with the nation of Israel, challenging readers to see that God had providentially raised up Britain to be a modern-day Israel. A review of Britain’s history, Watson argued, would inevitably lead to the conclusion that Britain had a providentially established mission: “You say that Israel had a special mission; and is any man’s eye so blind that he cannot see the mission of England?” But just as Israel had sinned, so had the British. In pointing out his nation’s sins, Watson saw himself as one in a long line of Old Testament prophets. His message was the same as that of old: God’s covenant was not broken by the sin, but God demanded national repentance. By the early months of 1900, Watson felt that Britain had reached this point: “We sinned, and according to our sin was our punishment; we have repented, I declare it without doubt, through our churches and our homes, and individually we have laid the lessons of the Eternal to heart; we have repented, and according to our repentance shall be the blessing of God.” Among the benefits of the war, Watson concluded, was the fact that the humiliation of defeat had driven the British back to God. While war should always be lamented, he was convinced that it had purified British motives, fortified the moral fibre of the race, united the nation,

108

A War with a Silver Lining

and strengthened the army. All in all, he felt, the British had “learned humility” through the dark months of the war. Rev. James Barclay echoed many of these sentiments in a sermon he gave that was printed in the Westminster.114 War was never to be sought after, he said, but the present one had brought with it many blessings; class divisions had been overcome, the nation was more willing to sacrifice, and the numerous social sins that had beset Britain had been recognized. The nation had learned its lesson. Once again, the war was understood to have purified Britain of its many sins and errors. Anglicans were just as adamant that the war had helped purify both nation and empire. Two sermons by Canon Newbolt published in the early months of the war indicate that there were many who felt that Britain’s failings had led to God’s judgment on the empire’s efforts on the battlefield. The first sermon called for a day of supplication to repent of all such sins.115 Anglicans believed that they had a unique role to play in this regard. and they led the Day of Humble Supplication in Canada on 11 February 1900, as described earlier. The second sermon spoke of the “fruits” of the war. 116 Newbolt claimed that in the years leading up to the war, many had lamented the loss of the “public spirit and stern virtues” that had made Britain and its empire great. But the war, with its losses and defeats, changed attitudes. Now that the sins that had plagued Britain had been identified and repented of, a renewed vigour was evident. Newbolt was among those who believed that one benefit of the war was its purifying function. Robert A. Wright has identified some of the reasons for the Canadian Protestant churches’ support for the Entente Powers in the First World War. He argues that the churches hoped that the war would contribute to many of their social reform aims: the elimination of oppression, an increased spirit of sacrifice among citizens, the establishment of a more cooperative and less exploitive way of doing business, and a removal of class barriers.117 Where did they get such an idea? No doubt, it was at least partly from the perceived good resulting from the war in South Africa only a decade and a half earlier. While the Protestant churches’ support of the war effort in South Africa was not initially for these reasons, they were certain that the war had contributed to the advancement of these aims. The churches were later disillusioned by the outcome of the First World War, but in the South African War there was no such disillusionment. In the churches’ opinion, the war had brought much good from great evil.

For the Empire

109

Another alleged blessing was the uniting of the empire that occurred when its various parts rallied to defend the British cause in South Africa. The participation of the dominions – Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – warmed the hearts of those who desired a united empire. A united empire was not just considered a matter of historical interest; it was an absolute necessity. As noted above, at the turn of the century the empire feared that its military and economic power was threatened by other challengers. For many, the only way in which the British Empire could maintain its supremacy was to unite into a closer- knit imperial federation, where all parts contributed to the defence of the whole. In the years preceding the war, there had been discussions on how such an imperial federation could work, but the talks never really generated any consensus on how it was to proceed. The war changed all of that. Suddenly, the various parts of the empire willingly and enthusiastically sent troops to join in its defence. To be sure, such participation was encouraged by Chamberlain and others in backroom dealings and pressures.118 Nevertheless, the public response to the sending of troops was encouraging in English Canada and elsewhere, and it was because of the war against the Boers. That is why some claimed that a monument should be built in London in memory of Kruger, for it was his declaration of war that “solved a problem which every statesman had found unsolvable”: the uniting of the empire.119 All four denominations agreed that the war had done more than just bring about a rapprochement with the United States. Their conviction was that the war had knit together the various elements within the empire into a united empire. What this unity actually meant in terms of formal responsibilities was not always clearly defined or even agreed upon. The relationship between the various parts of the empire was described in many ways: “covenant,” “family,” “brood,” “bonds in blood,” “consolidation,” “bond,” “bind,” “knitting together,” “loyalty,” “united,” “unity,” “union,” “solidarity,” “Federation,” “welding together,” “brotherhood,” “Greater Britain,” “comradeship,” “PanBritish Union,” and “Anglo-Saxondom.” The relationship expressed was between “Mother England” and the “sons of Britain.” While these terms connoted different images of that relationship, they all indicated that the empire seemed to be drawing closer together as one family. This was one of the “many blessings,” noted a contemporary, that would “result from this war.”120

110

A War with a Silver Lining

This sentiment was expressed powerfully in war poetry and illustrations. Numerous poems extolled the reality of the recent (and ongoing) union. The “Empire’s Message” was one such poem. Above the poem was a picture of Britannia with a soldier on either side of her. One soldier’s sash read “Canada” and the other’s read “Australia.” Each soldier had his sword raised above Britannia’s head, protecting her from all threats. The poem read in part: And lo! As her blade she drew, From her Empire’s uttermost line The answering swords from their scabbards flew, And her sons cried “Mother! To dare and do Our heart and arms are thine!” And swift to her side they sprang, And a circle around her cast, And over the battlefield’s clamour and clang Her voice through the world to her enemies rang – “Ye witness my strength at last!” And the mother is proud of her own For happy, serene, and great, She knows them her flesh and her blood and her bone, Hate vainly assails her impregnable throne, For Love is stronger than Hate.121 This maternal image was common. In “England’s Promise,” one reads, “Strike for England! Strike for the mother! Strike for your kith and kin!”122 Elsewhere one reads, “Thou hast called to us by the beat of drum – Mother, we come!”123 England was also portrayed as a lion and Canada as the lion cub.124 The poems “The Federation of Australia,” “The New Australian Commonwealth,” and “Australia” celebrated the evolution and growth of another part of the empire.125 Others – such as “The Exile Briton to His Heart – Wherever He May Be the World Over,” “England’s Heroes Too,” “Who Carries the Gun?,” “The Canadian’s Prayer,” “The Volunteer,” “True Sons of Britain,” “Dominion Day,” and “British Imperialism” – spoke of the union of the British people, wherever they might be.126 One illustration entitled “Unionist Empire Team” had a soccer team with players labelled “Africa,” “Canada,” “England,” “Scotland,”

For the Empire

111

“Ireland,” “Wales,” “India,” “Australia,” and “minor possessions.”127 Another pictured a lion, with its body parts representing different parts of the empire. The caption was “If you meddle with the Mother, you must reckon with the Sons.”128 This sentiment was also expressed in many sermons and statements of church leaders. As Rev. F.G. Scott reminded the first contingent troops departing for South Africa: “The call to arms from the Motherland has sent a thrill to the four corners of the earth. The Empire, which has been knit together by community of race, by commerce, by railways, and by cables, is to be drawn now into an absolute indissoluable bond by the voluntary sacrifice of blood and life on a common battlefield ... We have taken a step – a step on the threshold of another century, which is destined in time to put an end to the distinction of colony and Motherland, and will finally give us a voice in the conduct of Empire.”129 Other sermons for the departing troops made much the same point.130 Rev. John Watson’s popular sermon, “Comfort for England,” claimed that on the battlefield a “covenant has been made between England and her colonies” that had been “sealed with blood.”131 “Today,” he went on to say, “England and the colonies are one.” Representing Canadian Methodists before the British Methodist churches, General Superintendent Carman similarly stated in no uncertain terms that the war had united the empire.132 These convictions were also expressed in official church statements. In its annual “Loyal Address” to the Queen in 1900, the Presbyterian Church stated that it was grateful that the sacrifices of the soldiers had “served to bind them more indissolubly to your Majesty’s Empire and throne.”133 The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Conference of the Methodist Church made the following resolution: “That this Conference desires to express its devout gratitude to God for the issue of this war, in the defeat of our enemies, the unification of the Empire, and the increase of patriotism throughout all parts of this worldwide kingdom.”134 Expressions of pride in a growing loyalty to and unity within the empire came from a wide variety of leaders and in offical church statements during the course of the war. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians all agreed that the war was uniting the empire as never before and were unanimous in praise for such a union. Desmond Morton has noted how the war “fostered English Canadian nationalism.”135 The way in which this rising sense of Canadian nationalism was praised within the churches was noted in the previous

112

A War with a Silver Lining

One of the many poems and images that extolled the global imperial connections and defence of “mother” England (Methodist Magazine and Review, 1900, ucc/vua)

For the Empire

113

chapter. The churches saw themselves as nation builders, and consequently they supported the war effort and sought to shape the patriotism coursing through the veins of young and old. What is noteworthy is that Canada’s strong connection to Britain and empire was not seen as being incongruous with the rising patriotism. In fact, to be a patriotic Canadian was concomitant with loyalty to Britain and the empire. Almost without exception, it was impossible to envision a loyal Canadian being disloyal to the empire, for Canada’s future as a nation was intimately tied to that of the empire. While the nation they were trying to build may not reflect today’s image of what being Canadian means, it certainly was a popular one at the end of the nineteenth century.136 That is not to say that there was always a clearly defined meaning about what this imperial sentiment actually meant with regard to the daily relationship between Great Britain and the rest of the empire. Much of the support simply reflects a genuine desire to come to the aid of “mother” Britain in her time of need. Nevertheless, attempts were made to define what the new imperial relationship would mean for the new nation. For instance, the Australian federation in 1901 led to grand visions of what the empire would look like in the future, as did the Colonial Conference a year later. The first Colonial Conference had been held in 1887 as various prime ministers from around the empire met in London to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee. The next conference was in 1894, and another was held during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The fourth took place in the summer of 1902. Imperialism was not just a movement that affected the military, for it had economic and constitutional implications. But during the war, military concerns naturally predominated. The fact that Canada had no real infrastructure for self-defence, which was usually considered essential for a nation, made the issue even more pressing.137 As Carl Berger has noted, many imperialists wished that Canada would expand its military responsibilities.138 Prominent citizens such as George Monro Grant urged Canada to increase and formalize its military responsibilities.139 It was just this type of formal relationship that Chamberlain aimed to establish in the Colonial Conference of 1902. After appealing for an advance in political and commercial relations, he made a passionate appeal for assistance in defence: “Gentlemen, we do want your aid ... the weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of its fate. We have borne the burden for many years. We think it is time that our children should assist us to support it, and whenever you

114

A War with a Silver Lining

make the request to us, be very sure that we shall hasten gladly to call you to our councils. If you are prepared at any time to take any share, any proportionate share, in the burdens of the Empire, we are prepared to meet you with any proposal for giving you a corresponding voice in the policy of the Empire.”140 While many were willing to move in the direction that Chamberlain suggested, there were others who supported Laurier’s more cautious approach to changing the relationship. The reticence of leaders such as Laurier within the empire meant that no significant decisions were reached at the conference. Laurier’s careful and ambivalent approach found support in the pages of the Westminster. From the early months of the war, the Westminster made it clear that it did not support a formal scheme of imperial federation. It argued that Canada could “not afford to accept representation in any imperial chamber of any sort.”141 The objections were twofold. First, membership would “bind her by its decisions, over which she would have little or no control.” Second, reflecting on the ongoing tensions between French and English in Canada in May 1900, it argued that forcing a formal union would sever Canada from the empire and split the dominion into different parts. The issue was not one of loyalty to the empire or even Canada’s willingness to come to the empire’s aid when needed. The issue was whether the closer union between Britain and the parts of its empire was to be formalized (and forced) through legislation, or whether the relationship should be allowed to grow and mature naturally and voluntarily. A few months later, the Westminster repeated its concern over formalizing ties with Britain. This time, the issue was the loss of Canada’s “self-governing powers.”142 By binding itself to Britain through a form of imperial federation, the paper warned that Canada’s independence and nationhood, gained by “such protracted and arduous effort,” would be at risk. Even any “fixed liability on account of defence” was to be avoided. The publication again stressed Canadian loyalty to the empire and a commitment to its defence (fearing that hesitation might be construed as disloyalty to Britain), but pointed out that any formal commitment to defence could see Canada embroiled in wars around the globe in defence of Britain “irrespective of their causes and motives.” By March 1901 the Westminster conceded that Canada would, out of “self-respect,” need to contribute a larger share to imperial defence.143 Nevertheless, in the months before the 1902 Conference it still did not want a formal or definite arrangement made

For the Empire

115

between Britain and the various parts of the empire.144 To do so, it argued, would be against the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Except for a “few minor details,” the Messenger and Visitor was satisfied with the status quo. Like the Westminster, it did not want a change in the relationship between the self-governing colonies and Britain, and it felt that the “varying conditions” of the colonies meant that there could be no “scheme of defence applicable to all.”145 The Christian Guardian presented a variety of solutions to the question of imperial federation. In the early months of 1900, it printed a lengthy summary of George Parkin’s Imperial Federation: The Problem of National Unity,146 a consideration of various schemes for Canada’s future,147 and a summary of an article in The Nineteenth Century and After that outlined a design for imperial federation.148 By September 1900, there was an openness to the idea of changing the office of Colonial Secretary, a suggestion that would recognize the growing maturity of the self-governing dominions, as well as increasing the voice of Canadians in imperial concerns.149 Of utmost importance, however, was that whatever the change in the relationship between Britain and the various parts of the empire (if a change was indeed to come), it must be natural and not a forced development.150 In the weeks leading up to the conference of 1902, the Christian Guardian repeated this view, stating that the relationship should not involve a rigid attachment to Britain and its defence. Queen’s Quarterly provided some more detailed analysis of the relationship between Britain and its empire. Its commentary shared the conviction that any new arrangement ought to be made by the Canadian people over a period long enough to allow for a natural transition.151 James Cappon’s commentary after the Colonial Conference gives a sense of the Quarterly’s concerns. Noting that many who had hoped to see a “full-blown constitution for the federation of the Empire” were disappointed with the outcome of the conference, he reminded readers that this type of relationship between Britain and its empire would take time to develop.152 Any type of political or constitutional change, he argued, needed to be built on a foundation of “economic and other relations.” These relations had been discussed at the conference. Cappon questioned Laurier’s plans for a Canadian navy, pointing out that such a plan needed to be made “in connection with the Empire.” This integrated defence plan within the empire was a

116

A War with a Silver Lining

response, in part, to the perceived threat of hostile American ambitions.153 In the end, however, Cappon recognized that there were still no “clear ideas” on how imperial federation was to be structured. These examples share a recognition that imperial federation was something that should be pursued. They also demonstrate that there was really no consensus on how to solidify and formalize the imperial bonds. As Laurier and other politicians struggled with what to do with the incredible rise of imperial sentiment during the war, the churches, too, had no clear sense of what direction the nation should take in that regard. While the churches were not sure what imperial federation would mean for relationships within the empire, they were very sure that a victory in South Africa would save an empire at risk and bring manifold blessings to South Africa and the world. As noted above, it was believed that the empire’s rule was, despite its abuses and excesses, benevolent and beneficial to all under its sway. This was a conviction held before the war, and one that was repeated incessantly during the war as a way of countering the critics. An empire purified and united by war would naturally be a tremendous blessing to a subjugated South Africa. In his address to the synod of the Diocese of Calgary in September 1900, Bishop Cyprian Pinkham declared that the “sacrifice involved for the Empire has been tremendous, but it has been made in the interests of freedom, justice, liberty and equality of civil interests for all; and not only South Africa and the British Empire; but the whole world will be the gainer, when in God’s own good time, the peace, firm and lasting, because based on these eternal principles, for which the Church is praying, comes.”154 Similarly, the Presbyterian Witness proclaimed that the struggle would “doubtless tend to the civilization and Christianization of all Africa, central as well as south.”155 Elsewhere it proclaimed that all wars in the nineteenth century had “resulted in good,” and the war in South Africa (with a British victory) would be no different.156 The Christian Guardian echoed this sentiment.157 Onward was just as convinced of the good that would result from a British victory. Numerous other articles listed the many benefits that a victory would bring. The Boers’ oppressive “mediaevalism” would be arrested by advances in equal rights, government, industry, railways, and civilization.158 In general, then, the overwhelming sentiment was that, despite the horrors of war, a victory for Britain would bring gains for the empire and a blessing for South Africa and the world.

For the Empire

117

conclusion The most significant denominational histories mention only briefly (if at all) the imperial sentiment of the churches’ leaders, literature, and laity. The omission is glaring, for the imperial vision coloured the way in which the churches sought to be nation builders. For the most part, they were simply mirroring much of the imperial sentiment of the lateVictorian period. It would have been just as hard for contemporaries of the events at the end of the nineteenth century to envision a Canada independent of the empire as it is for twenty-first-century Canadians to imagine a Canada within such an empire. The types of Canadian nationhood have varied over time, and the type of nation that the churches sought to build at the end of the nineteenth century was one firmly rooted in the British Empire. And as the churches made clear, if the empire was at risk, so was Canada. The future of the young nation was inextricably bound to that of the empire. Although the churches were critical of the abuses of empire, they still supported unconditionally the view that the British Empire was God’s benevolent, providential tool for spreading civilization and Christianity. Without such an empire, they assumed, the world would be a more dangerous place, Canada would be at greater risk, and the “natives” of such places as South Africa would be worse off. Consequently, a British victory would be a boon for the empire, for the Boers, and for the world. In other words, if Britain lost, no one gained; if Britain was victorious, everyone benefited. As already noted, his wholehearted support for the empire set a precedent for the next war. The assumptions regarding the goodness of Britain and its empire, the advancement of social justice that went with its success on the battlefield, and the providential establishment of the empire were all important ingredients in the churches’ support for the Entente Powers in the First World War. The outcome of the war in South Africa did nothing to discourage such assumptions. In fact, if anything, the war strengthened them. These assumptions only began to be questioned by the churches in the years following the First World War, when that war failed to bring about the promised peace and reform.

5 For Missions Irrespective of the merits of the war now raging in that country, we believe that the result will be favorable to missionary and religious enterprise. Dominion Presbyterian, 1 February 19001

The nineteenth century has been called the “great century of Protestant missions.”2 Until then, British Protestants were relatively unconcerned about the spiritual condition of the non-European world.3 Over the course of the nineteenth century, however, Protestant missions grew from relative obscurity to a position of prominence within the church. British Protestant denominations were at the vanguard of this missionary movement, sending 9,014 missionaries out of a total of 17,254 Protestant missionaries from all countries.4 In fact, “by the middle of the nineteenth century, the ‘missionary spirit’ was being hailed by contemporaries ... as the ‘characteristic feature’ of the religious piety for which the Victorians were rightly renowned.”5 The Protestant churches in Canada were caught up in the missionary zeal of the times. At the end of the century, the Canadian West was an important mission field. All of the four largest Protestant denominations were convinced that the “natives” and the newly arrived immigrants needed to be Christianized and have churches planted in their midst. As a result, they engaged in determined attempts to establish mission centres and churches in the West. All four also shared a vision for spreading the gospel overseas. The exploits of foreign missionaries and the call to missionary work were continually presented to members in the churches. It was in this context of missionary zeal and aspirations that the war in South Africa was declared and fought. The history of Christianity is filled with accounts of missionaries who sought to spread the gospel. The early apostles’ travel throughout the Roman Empire is recounted in the New Testament book of Acts. Following in the apostles’ footsteps were such well-known missionaries

For Missions

119

as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Patrick, and Saint Francis Xavier.6 One factor that made the nineteenth-century missionary movement unique was that it corresponded to the rapid spread of European power and the race for empire. As a result, this connection between empire and missions has since led to numerous denunciations of the missionary movement throughout former colonial territories, as well as in the West.7 The fact that missions and imperialism were connected in some way is not debated. The crucial question is, how were they were related? This chapter will show that the Canadian English Protestant churches were supportive of the war in South Africa because they were convinced that a British victory would aid the cause of the local Christian missions in South Africa. Previous chapters have shown that the churches were already convinced of the superiority of the British race and its empire. Throughout the course of the war one argument kept recurring: if the Boers won the war, Christian missions would suffer; if the British won, Christian missions would benefit. Framed in this manner, the mission-minded churches found it natural to support the imperial cause.

a great century for empire and christianity During the war the denominational press was filled with glowing accounts of the spread of missions during the past century. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians all rejoiced in the rapid and widespread growth of the church throughout the world. In the very same breath they also celebrated the expansion of the British Empire. In fact, to speak of the spread of Christianity was to speak of the spread of empire. Conversely, to speak of the spread of the empire was to speak of the spread of Christianity. Consequently, the rapid growth of the British Empire throughout the century was considered a boon to the church and its missions, for where the flag went, so did the cross. James Greenlee and Charles Johnston have noted that the Boer War and the Boxer Rebellion in China began to unsettle British missionaries, who had assumed that the link between missions and empire was beneficial for the church and its missionary work.8 These conflicts, they argue, began to reveal that the empire’s mandate and means of rule were not always sympathetic to the work of missions. In fact, in the years leading up to the First World War, many missionaries became convinced that the empire often hindered their work. As has been

120

A War with a Silver Lining

noted, among Canadian English Protestants there was a growing concern about the rising jingoism during the war and a desire that the imperialism practised be a “true” and pure one. Nevertheless, during the course of the war the overall consensus was that the spread of the empire was a blessing for the church. If the empire’s conduct during the war undermined Canadian English Protestant missionary attitudes to the empire, these reservations were expressed publicly only in the years following the war.9 In the denominational press, in public statements of church leaders, and in smaller church meetings such as women’s missionary groups, there was considerable commentary on the spread of the empire and of Christianity. Although the depth of imperial sentiment among missionaries in the field has not yet been studied, as Brouwer notes, “there is no reason to believe that they were immune to its appeal.”10 In the denominational press in Canada, one senses the depth of imperial sentiment when one realizes that, without exception, the link between the expansion of empire and of Christianity was praised. More specifically, the fact that these empires were bringing Christian rule and Christian missions to foreign lands was considered to aid and benefit the kingdom of God. Comments in the Anglican Canadian Church Magazine are illustrative of the link made between the spread of empire and the growth of the church. The church was encouraged by this development, and the twentieth century seemed to be pregnant with even greater possibilities as a result of the growth of Christian empires. One article proudly noted: We stand at the dawn of the twentieth century, and we seek to measure the strength of Christianity. Her adherents in 1800 were perhaps 200,000,000; to-day they are close upon 500,000,000. Not in numbers alone, but in vantage-ground of influence, she has grown in strength; the Christian nations now wield sovereign influence over 800,000,000 out of the 1,400,000,000 of the world’s population. Or, to put it in another way, one-third of the inhabitants of the world are Christian, and another third of the world is under the government of Christian nations, and as matters now are, it is not difficult to see how easily the whole of the habitable world may fall under the sway of the Christian peoples. Measure the Christian influence by area, and we find that for every mile of the earth’s surface governed by non-Christian peoples, four are ruled by Christian nations.11

For Missions

121

The Canadian Churchman echoed these sentiments in its summary of the growth of missions in the nineteenth century. It claimed that the church was living in a providentially arranged period when the political conditions made for the rapid spread of the church. It was likened to the period of the Pax Romana, a period during the Roman Empire when Christianity benefited from the political conditions.12 Elsewhere, the “marvellous expansion” of the British Empire and the concomitant growth of the Kingdom of God was not considered a “mere coincidence.” As Berger notes,13 it was believed that God’s providential hand was behind the unparalleled growth for both kingdoms and that the growth of missions was due to the growth of the British Empire.14 An address in 1900, by the Anglican bishop of Quebec during the celebrations surrounding the bicentenary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts included the very clear message that the growth of the empire and the growth of the Kingdom of God were inextricably linked and providentially arranged.15 The bishop’s message, delivered at various centres in Quebec, was full of details concerning the work of the society and the growth of the Anglican Church within the empire. He was certain that God was behind the growing union of English-speaking peoples and that this union, along with the growth of the British Empire, had been a blessing to the church. Part of the reason for his address was to show how the expansion of the empire “has led, and is leading” to a “most marvellous expansion of the ... Kingdom of Christ.” Elsewhere in his address, he spoke of how the growth of the “great Spiritual Kingdom” went hand in hand with the growth of the British Empire and at times extended even beyond the borders of the empire. Like many in his denomination, he was convinced that the growth of the one kingdom could not be separated from the growth of the other. In his address to various Maritime Methodist conference meetings in 1900, Rev. A.C. Courtice gave a summary of the nineteenth century and presented the possibilities of the twentieth.16 Great inventions, such as steam locomotives, undersea cables, telephones, electric power, phonographs, cinematography, and medicine, had made the nineteenth century one of the greatest in human history. It was a century marked by the rapid growth of European empires, most notably the British. The Protestant missions movement that had led to unparalleled missionary expansion was also understood to have occurred in God’s “fullness of time.” In other words, God had raised up these empires to allow the Christian nations to spread the gospel through-

122

A War with a Silver Lining

out the world. The responsibility of the nations and of the church, Courtice concluded, was to use the myriad opportunities made possible by technological advances and the spread of empire to make the twentieth century one of even greater missionary growth. Besides the assumption that providence best explained the rise of European empires in general, and the British Empire in particular, there were a few other basic assumptions underlying much of the support for the advance of missions under the flag of the empire. A common impulse among imperialists was that the purpose of empire was to better those under its influence. With regard to missions, those in the churches believed that the empire served to further the work of the church. This conviction is evident in some of the discussion surrounding Edward VII’s ascension to the throne after the death of his mother, Queen Victoria. The Presbyterian Record reprinted an article that noted Victoria’s support for missions and expressed the hope that Edward VII would have the same passion for them. The prayer was: “The King – whom may God preserve and bless! – may follow in their footsteps, and may regard the extension of the Kingdom of God, especially within the boundaries of the British Empire, as a sacred charge laid upon him, equally with his humblest subject, by Him who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.”17 Others also spoke of this sacred charge. The Algoma Missionary News stated bluntly and unapologetically that one of the reasons for the spread of the empire was to “propagate the gospel.”18 The Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News printed Archbishop Temple’s comment that God had given the empire to Britain so that it could be used to make known “our Father’s holy will, His love, [and] the doctrines that His Son had taught us.”19 Much has been written about the growth of the social gospel in the Protestant churches in the early decades of the twentieth century. What needs to be noted here is that much of the social gospel’s language commonly associated with the work of the church in Christianizing the nation was language that was directed towards the various lands under the imperial banner. It is beyond the scope of this study to trace the development of the social gospel in Canada, but it is worth asking how much this imperial vision of using secular means to transform and Christianize the far-flung areas of empire influenced the development of the social gospel in Canada. Whatever the answer, it is clear that the language so often associated with the social gospel movement was used both in connection to the nation and to the lands within (or soon to be in) the empire.

For Missions

123

Another assumption underlying the support for missions under the flag of the empire was that the alleged benefits of the empire – such as British government, education, culture, commerce, and technology – would assist the advance of missionary work and aid in the Christianizing of various peoples. The marriage of Christianity and Commerce, a phrase attributed to the famous nineteenth-century British missionary and explorer David Livingstone, was recognized and accepted almost universally in the Canadian English Protestant churches. As Stanley notes, “For most of the nineteenth century, British Christians believed that the missionary was called to propagate the imagined benefits of Western civilization alongside the Christian message.”20 As he also notes, during the time of the war in South Africa, such assumptions were still widely held.21 Repeatedly, the spread of the church, and with it the process of Christianization, was linked with the spread of Western civilization.22 The Canadian Churchman’s article entitled “Missions” is one example of this tendency:23 The present time has been characterized as “the chance of the ages,” in certain world wide movements which are absolutely unique and unprecedented ... There is the remarkable exploration of all lands and peoples ... Recent years have seen a marvellous advance in all the means of communication ... Then there is the spread of civilization, and the removal of many barriers, which formerly hindered the spread of the Gospel. The teaching and influence of Jesus have had an effect in civilizing even in countries where the Gospel has not been proclaimed ... There has also been a wonderful spread of education, and with this increase of knowledge there will be increased facilities for the spread of the Gospel, and its intelligent reception. With postmillennial optimism, the Canadian Churchman concluded the article by declaring that the great opportunities inherent in the exploration, exploitation, and education of the colonies would ultimately lead to the evangelization of all the “heathen.” A resolution passed in 1900 by the Winnipeg Presbytery was another example of the tendency to link the spread of Christianity with western civilization. Embedded within their resolution in support of the war was the statement: “There is a call to this nation: ... To undertake, with a fresh sense of responsibility, the task of securing justice and freedom

124

A War with a Silver Lining

in the various divisions of the empire, and, with respect to races subject to its dominion, of seeking their education in religion, morality and Christian civilization.”24 These sentiments in the sparsely populated Canadian West did not differ in any substantive way from those in the more densely populated areas of Ontario. As Miller notes, military metaphors “permeated hymns and promotional literature” in that era.25 What made the relationship between missionary and empire even more complicated was that these military metaphors were sometimes used to describe the work of the church, just as spiritual metaphors were used to describe the work of soldiers. In both cases, the line between the temporal and spiritual kingdoms was difficult to discern. The language of war was used to describe the advance of the Kingdom of God. The “gospel conquest” of Central Africa was praised, and it was declared that “Christianity must conquer paganism.”26 “Trained soldiers” were required for evangelism and missions, and “hand to hand combat” was required to advance the church.27 In a presentation made to the women’s auxiliary of the Anglican Church, a parallel was made between service to the Queen and service in the Kingdom of God: “‘Loyalty’ and ‘Enrollment’ seem to be the watchwords of the hour in the Service of our beloved Queen. Shall not we who are enlisted in the Army of our Heavenly King be as eager to advance the destruction of His great enemy, by being loyal ourselves to the organization which is working to spread His Kingdom, and by seeking to recruit others to its ranks?”28 The poem “Battle-Song of the Soldiers of God” is another example of the use of military imagery to describe the work of Christians.29 The sermon delivered by Rev. W.J. Armitage, rector of St Paul’s, Halifax, to the troops awaiting transport to South Africa is one more example of how military images were used to describe the work of the church.30 In this case, the text that Armitage used to draw parallels between the life of a soldier and the life of a Christian was Ephesians 6:2, a text in which the Apostle Paul used military images to describe the spiritual warfare that Christians faced. Just how much this language of war in the work of the church contributed to the link between missions and empire is difficult to determine. What is clear, however, is that these military motifs certainly did nothing to undermine the link between the spread of the church and of the empire. Soldiers of the Queen were occasionally portrayed as Christian soldiers fighting for a higher cause than merely temporal gain; they were fighting for right and for God. As has been noted before, the British Empire was often equated with the Old Testament nation of Israel.31

For Missions

125

Just as God was with the military leaders in the Old Testament, so God was with modern-day British military leaders at the beginning of the nineteenth century and those in South Africa at its end. Consequently, just as the Israelite soldiers in the Old Testament were God’s soldiers, so were Britain’s; and just as the soldiers of Israel were defending God’s established physical kingdom (Israel), so were the British defending God’s spiritual kingdom (the Kingdom of God). This providential calling of a Christian army and soldier explained why it was so important for British soldiers to be “Christian” in all their actions and affairs.32 Elsewhere, those who died in the conflict against the Boers were referred to as “martyrs,”33 a title usually reserved for those who died for the faith. The view of a Christian army defending the interests of God can also be seen in some of the poems and hymns published during the war. The poem “For Honor” was bold in its portrayal of the British army fighting to “clear the path” for a God in battle, and it depicted a God who did not hesitate to come to the aid of his army. It read in part: Britannia, armed, goes forth to war To fling aside a half-closed door. She bears the blazoned British shield, And none but her that spear can wield. Come! Who will follow, who will ride, For England’s honor, at her side? God is not mocked! His law shall run; His chariot wheels are rolling on. Who dares to stay them? Let us stand To clear the path – a steadfast band. As we have dealt, in ages past, Oh, Lord! Deal Thou with us, at last!34 Elsewhere, a poet could easily speak of the British call to arms in one stanza and in the very next speak of trusting in “Him that reigns on high.”35 The reader of such lines would have had a difficult time not connecting the British cause with that of Him who “reigns on high.” A hymn written by the sister of an officer in the first contingent also blurred the line between God’s plans, God’s people, and the soldiers fighting in South Africa. This hymn was used in some church services during the Day of Humble Supplication in early 1900.36 Another

126

A War with a Silver Lining

poem portrayed the soldiers in South Africa as medieval crusaders fighting for God.37 In all these cases, the line between the Kingdom of God and the British Empire was obscured. By using military metaphors for the work of Christians, and by identifying the British and Canadian soldiers as Christian soldiers fighting for a just and holy cause (on behalf of God), the bond between the spiritual and temporal kingdoms was strengthened. Such an attitude reinforced the conviction that the work of missionaries and the work of the empire went hand in hand. Complicating even further the connection between the spiritual and temporal kingdoms was a particular view of Canadian nationhood that tied missions to the fulfilment of God’s purpose for the young dominion. Many saw Canada as having a uniquely religious duty on the continent and around the world. Not to live up to this responsibility was to forsake God’s calling. As Berger notes, “Like Bennett, Parkin and Grant made the realization of Canadian nationhood contingent upon the acceptance of racial responsibility and fulfilment of the mission. Mission was fundamental to the manner in which they conceived of nationality. Canada, they said, could only be a nation if she acted and functioned like one, and, to them, this meant that she must assume her share of the civilizing work within the Empire and be ready to defend that agency of progress.”38 While francophone Roman Catholics did not share in the distinctly Protestant interpretation of this mission,39 many English Protestants understood missions to be an integral part of this providentially arranged calling. Sean Mills has shown how this fusion of mission responsibility and national destiny manifested itself in domestic missionary work in the Canadian West.40 Berger has demonstrated that this national destiny was intimately connected with foreign missionary work. In both cases, domestic and international, missionary work and the national purpose were inextricably bound together. Not everyone, however, was convinced that the link between missionaries and empire was good. In Britain there was criticism of missionaries and their overseas work.41 Some critics felt that missionaries contributed to rebellions against British rule. What made this criticism seem so credible was the Boxer Rebellion in China, a bloody revolt against Western imperialism that occurred during the same time as the South African War. The Canadian Protestant press attempted to deal with such criticisms.42 For example, the Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News

For Missions

127

printed an article that claimed the common “Churchmanship” of the Anglican Church within the empire had helped to strengthen the bonds of empire, and it lamented the fact that “the empire seldom recognized” how much it owed to the work of missionaries.43 Despite it being the “fashion of the hour” to criticize the work of missionaries (and there were legitimate church failings to criticize, it admitted), the church nonetheless had aided the growth and consolidation of the empire. In fact, the magazine felt that the work of the church among the “natives” in South Africa had reduced the chances of the war spreading to the various tribes. Consequently, rather than cave in under the criticism of those opposed to missionary work, the church needed to redouble its efforts in “fulfilling its Imperial mission.” A few months later, the Canadian Churchman and Mission News again defended the actions of the missionaries when it printed the annual address of Bishop Doane of the Diocese of Albany.44 In his address, Doane gave three reasons why the charges that missionaries were the cause of exploitation and war were false: “because the missionaries are the least obnoxious of the foreigners; because demands for government protection are based on citizenship and not on Christianity; and because the wars that have come from the progress of civilization are not Gospel wars, but ‘opium wars,’ and the like.” In yet another article that mentioned the practical merits of mission work, the Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News printed a portion of a speech by the bishop of Manchester.45 In his speech, the bishop expressed the hope that after the war was over, the missionaries would be able to “smooth asperities,” “mitigate hostility,” and “draw together” the two peoples who were at present alienated by war. The Presbyterian Record also defended the actions of missionaries.46 In the summer of 1900, it claimed that Western missionaries were the solution to the problem of aggression in the East, where an “armed and drilled China might bid defiance to the world, and even successfully contest pre-eminence abroad.” At the prospect of an army of “forty million” soldiers led by “heathen fanaticism,” the world should “tremble,” warned the Record. What was the solution? It was the spread of Christianity: “The only power that is mightier than the power of China is the power of Christianity. The only influence that can make China’s awakening a blessing rather than a curse to the world is Christianity. The only thing that can tame the ‘yellow terror’ is the voice that tamed the demons long ago. And Christ has bidden his followers speak that voice in all the world, to every creature.” The same principle

128

A War with a Silver Lining

applied to India. If India was to be kept for Britain, it had to be “won for Christ.” The Westminster concurred.47 If India was Christianized, it would remain loyal, and if China was Christianized, then life and property would be safe. Another strategy in defending the connection between missions and empire was to clarify what the church meant by “imperialism.” The Westminster conceded that misunderstanding of the term had led some to condemn imperialism (and the missionary work identified with it).48 If imperialism meant “blatant jingoism” or “lust for territorial conquest,” then it was wrong. However, the right kind of imperialism was opposed to such abuses and favoured actions that brought blessings to other lands. There is ... a higher and nobler application of the term to that spirit of obedience to the will of God, and political unselfishness, which, while it does not hesitate to reach out a helping hand to all who may be in distress, seeks especially the highest good of those peoples, for whose welfare, in the providence of God, the Empire has been made responsible. This definition shuts out the exploitation of any portion of the Empire for the selfish aggrandizement of any other nations or any particular class and it limits the spirit of aggression in our dealings, especially with weaker portions, to that policy which wisdom and experience have taught us in the best interests of these nations. After clarifying what was meant by “imperialism,” the author identified a key precedent for missions following the course of empire – the fact that the early apostles had directed their attention to fellow members of the Roman Empire. Consequently, there was a clear and convincing biblical precedent established for spreading the gospel within the confines of an empire. For those who countered that God’s Kingdom did not recognize political boundaries, the response was that while that was so, the gospel was to be propagated following the “natural course” of “human divisions.” Besides, the acquisitions of the empire were “God’s finger-posts pointing” to duty, opportunity, and responsibility.

the war and its impact on missions The outbreak of war had given rise to anxiety about the work of the church and missions in South Africa. Of course the Anglicans, who

For Missions

129

had a significant presence in South Africa, were more worried than the Baptists, who by comparison did not. Alongside these natural partisan matters was a shared concern for the safety and health of the wider church in South Africa. And what was considered the best thing for it? A British victory over the Boers was deemed to be the only option. In The Bible and the Flag, Brian Stanley illustrates how British missionaries in the later nineteenth century entered the political arena to protect their own interests.49 When political unrest or uncertainty threatened their work, many Anglican and nonconformist missionaries agitated for an imperial solution to the problem. It was assumed, Stanley argues, that British imperial control could best bring about the much-needed stability and rule of law (not to mention commerce and technology) that would aid the work of the missionaries. In the case of the war in South Africa, it was feared that “a triumphant Afrikanerdom would spell spiritual and material ruin for the region’s native peoples.”50 These assumptions about the necessity of an imperial solution to missionary problems were shared by the Canadian Protestant churches, not only in relation to the South African War but also to the 1900 Boxer Rebellion in China.51 As one article stated about the former, “Irrespective of the merits of the war now raging in that country, we believe that the result will be favorable to missionary and religious enterprise.”52 Conversely, British defeat would be a “blow at the enterprises of the world’s evangelization.”53 The reason for such an anti-Boer position was simple: all four denominations believed that Boer rule was a hindrance to missionary work. Their attitude was not new. Even before David Livingstone’s negative appraisal of the Boers and their treatment of the “natives,” British missionaries had experienced tensions with the Boers over differing views of how to treat the “natives.” As far back as the 1820s, British missionaries had advocated for the rights of the indigenous peoples of South Africa.54 One of the basic issues had been whether or not slavery was to be allowed under British rule. Whereas Britain at that time had been moving towards the emancipation of slaves within its empire, the Boers had no intention of abandoning slavery. Tensions had been so serious between the missionaries (and British authorities) and the Boers over the treatment of the “natives” that many of the Boers had fled northward to escape British rule.55 Paul Dekar has proposed that nineteenth-century Baptist missionaries were implicitly acting as peacemakers when they took on the role of agents of reconciliation and spoke out against social injustices.56 He

130

A War with a Silver Lining

acknowledges that while most would not have been pacifists, there were a few who considered “war incompatible with a call for people to turn to Christ.”57 In both cases, Baptist missionaries often acted to advance the cause of the poor, oppressed, and needy. Thus, the concern for the Boer treatment of the “natives” and missionary work expressed in the Baptist press was not out of the ordinary. Missionaries had objected to many injustices in the past, and what was happening in South Africa was just one more. However, Dekar does not consider whether or not Canadian Baptist missionaries had ever sought military aid from the state in order to ensure the possibility of the safe spreading of the gospel. What is evident from the Canadian Baptist articles is that peacemaking in this case meant using force to get rid of the Boers so that justice could be established and the spread of the gospel could occur. In an article entitled “A Missionary View of the war,” for example, the Canadian Baptist defended the actions of the British and damned those of the Boers.58 It claimed that they were “the enemies of progress, ignorant, bigoted, cruel without measure. They have even stood in the way of the mission worker. They treat the natives worse than dogs.” The Western Baptist echoed this view. It pointed back to the days of Livingstone as an example of Boer mistreatment of the “natives” and as an example of the Boer hindrance to missionary work.59 Elsewhere, the Baptist press called the Boers a primitive “seventeenth century” people,60 who were “unsophisticated, unkempt, unwashed, surrounded by a crowd of grubby children,” and who had no desire to evangelize the “natives.”61 If there was any doubt about the lack of Boer interest in missionary work among the “natives,” statistics attested to their disregard for outreach.62 At the conclusion of the war, the Baptist publication the Canadian Missionary Link printed an article that rejoiced in the British victory as an opportunity for the advancement of missionary work: “How many there are who have thanked God for the peace so long desired. Not for the ending of war’s miseries alone, but for the establishment of a better rule, and especially for the opening of a wider and more effectual door for the Gospel.”63 Such rejoicing can be understood only in light of the conviction that Boers were active agents in hindering missionary work. The Presbyterian attitude echoed that of the Baptists. The conviction that a South Africa under British rule would benefit missionary work more than a South Africa under the Boers was embedded within the commentary on the war. Two examples will suffice to illustrate

For Missions

131

some of the ways in which the Presbyterian press framed the issue. The Westminster featured a front-page article that addressed the concerns of those who questioned the rightness of ministers praying for a British victory.64 The editor of the Westminster made it clear that the paper was firmly behind the British cause and considered it a “privilege and a duty” to pray for the success of British arms. He then declared that even if the justice of Britain’s cause was in question, it would still be the responsibility of ministers and Christians to pray for the triumph of British arms. The reason was simple: if Britain lost, it would be a “setback to the world’s civilization” and a blow to missionary work. The second example is from the Presbyterian Witness. Its August 1900 issue outlined the way in which the Boers had thwarted missionary work as far back as the days of Robert Moffat and David Livingstone.65 It claimed that the Boers had mistreated Moffat, Livingstone, and other missionaries, as well as the “natives”; it also declared that the advance of the British had gone a long way to correct the Boer abuses; and it hinted that the present defeats of the Boers were a part of God’s providential work and judgment. Despite the fact that the Boers were Christians, they had allegedly done nothing to further the work of missions in South Africa. If anything, their treatment of the “natives” had hindered it. There was no question that the Boers had to go – and, for the sake of missions, the sooner the better. The Methodist press was no less adamant that the missionary work so dear to the Methodist Church would be much better off under British rule. Methodist concern was rooted in disgust with the Boer treatment of the “natives,” as well as the suspicion that such treatment made effective missionary work difficult if not impossible. Articles decried the long-standing Boer opposition to missions,66 and lamented the Boers’ terrible treatment of the “natives.”67 Other articles concluded that a Boer was not a “civilizer or an evangelizer,”68 and a British victory would allow the “natives” to experience the “blessings of the Gospel as they never enjoyed them before.”69 A few articles in the Christian Guardian declared that the Boers’ religion was at the root of their mistreatment of the “natives.” An article reprinted from the Methodist Churchman, a Cape Colony publication, argued that the root of the difference in the way the Boers treated the “natives” was the “marked contrast” in their “conception of religious truth and duty.”70 Further, it stated, the Boer religion had “abnormal[ly]” developed in “comparative isolation” from European developments and as a result had focused on the “most dangerous phrases

132

A War with a Silver Lining

of the Calvinistic creed.” This had led to their view of being a chosen people, destined to take the promised land and settle in it. Almost incessant fighting with Hottentots and Bushman for the land of which the Dutch Colony desired to obtain an ever-increasing possession had turned the thoughts of the settlers to those portions of the Word of God in which the chosen of the Lord were represented as pursuing a policy of extermination of the peoples who denied the sacred name. As they climbed the hills and overlooked the fertile valleys, the Boers did not doubt that they saw a land of promise stretching before their eyes, and with little compunction of conscience they were prepared to slay the Canaanite and Hittite; indeed, with solemn psalm, they could celebrate the slaughter as men who had done God service. In brief, with not a single song of praise in New Testament language, and with no consciousness of any higher conception than that of the book of Judges of missionary responsibility, they went doggedly forward with their work of taking possession of the land of promise, not always slaying the inhabitants of the land, because it was more convenient to enslave them, and change them into beasts of burden. It was felt that, in general, this view was at the root of the difference between the Boer and British attitudes to the “natives.” Not every Boer was included in this indictment; and indeed recent changes in the Dutch Reformed Church revealed a growing awareness of the need for the Dutch to be involved in missionary work among the “natives.” Nevertheless, the article looked forward to a British victory that would “destroy forever” the way in which the Boers treated the “natives” and would “pave the way” for peace in South Africa. For the war’s supporters, military force was God’s instrument to prepare a region or people for the gospel message and open the way for missionary work. Called “God’s ploughshare,” war was described as a possible means to “break up the fallow ground” so that religious growth could occur in the future.71 It was recognized, however, that a ploughshare caused damage to the good growth that had occurred over the years. Nevertheless, sometimes such harsh methods were necessary to ensure growth for the future.The Augustinian and medieval imagery of a doctor’s lancet was also used to depict the necessary but painful action needed if growth and health were to come to South Africa: “A doctor’s lancet is not a desirable toy, but it is a necessary

For Missions

133

knife when there is a disease. History shows that war mostly has been God’s sword to slay corruption.”72 Another Christian Guardian article pointed out two obstacles to missionary work in South Africa: selfish commercialism and selfish ecclesiasticism.73 Selfish commercialism referred to imperial or commercial abuses. It was acknowledged that the “natives” had been mistreated by a “hard commercialism” that paid poor wages and exploited the labor of the “natives.” Selfish ecclesiasticism, on the other hand, referred to the poor treatment of the “natives” by the South African churches. The Dutch Reformed Church still held attitudes to the “natives” that the British Protestants had dropped over half a century before, and this refusal to change had led to serious opposition to missionary work. The statistics cited supported the claim that the Boers were not involved in serious or successful missionary work. A breakdown of the “native” members of the churches in South Africa revealed that the Wesleyan Methodist Church accounted for 36.7 percent of the churchgoing “natives,” followed by the Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. The numbers for the Boers’ Dutch Reformed Church lagged far behind and showed that it was “doing nothing” for the “natives.” The booklet written by F.J. Livingston, a Canadian Methodist medical missionary in South Africa, has already been referred to; entitled My Escape from the Boers: The Exciting Experiences of a Canadian Medical Missionary, it reinforced the many popular notions of the evils of the Boers.74 It is another example of how the experiences of missionaries were promulgated partly to meet the public’s desire for war news (the more thrilling the account, the better) and partly to help convince the public of the justice of the British cause. The first half of the booklet outlined the history of South Africa and the causes of the war, placing the blame solely on the Boers. It is only on page nineteen that Livingston begins to describe his experience in Zululand after the Boers captured him not long after the war broke out. His description of his captors is not very flattering. After watching them loot some houses and offices, he wrote: “To be helpless in the clutches of such an unprincipled lot of renegades, who knew neither discipline nor honor, and were ruled by no law but that of their own passions, was no enviable position.”75 He eventually decided to escape and was successful on his first attempt. Upon arriving back in Canada, he was surprised to find that some people were convinced that the Boers were pious people. Livingston sought to make it clear that they did not have

134

A War with a Silver Lining

that reputation in South Africa, where, because of their attitude to the “natives,” they were considered “altogether irreligious and unchristian.”76 He concluded by saying that the war was just and that it needed to be supported by all parts of the empire. Livingston’s attitude towards the Boers and missionary work mirrored those found in the religious press. He described one case that he had witnessed: “When I was in Ladysmith, natives from the Transvaal had been down there and had embraced Christianity. When they returned home they kept beseeching us to send them a missionary who could preach them the gospel and administer the sacrament. We sent a highly educated ordained native. We told him to go to the nearest field cornet and tell him his business. He went. The field cornet took him, tied him to his wagon, and whipped him until he was tired, and then told him to fly for his life or he would shoot him.”77 Such barbaric treatment of the “natives” and the concomitant hindrance to missionary work appalled Livingston, and he pleaded with his readers to support the British cause: “Let us hope the outcome [of the war] will be all that the interests of Christianity and civilization and British hearts could desire; that in the near future the racial hatred which has cursed that country for three generations may be blotted out, and that the different states and colonies may be welded into one Dominion and British supremacy be forever established.”78 Of course, the corollary was that without a British victory the abuses would continue and the spread of the gospel would be hindered. If the commentary in the religious press is any indication, Anglicans were no less convinced that the Boer treatment of the “natives” impeded missionary work and that a British victory would open up new and wonderful opportunities for the missions. Illustrating this sentiment was the editorial in the Church Missionary Gleaner on the announcement of peace in South Africa: “To the missionary-hearted man and woman the possibilities of our Imperial Mission extend beyond the statesman’s or the speculator’s furthest horizon. There is wealth in the Transvaal greater than either its gold mines or its fertile soil can yield. More glorious victories remain to be achieved in South Africa. For a nation waits for the Proclamation of the Gospel of Peace.”79 Other Anglican commentaries on the war mirrored this sentiment. The Parish and Home expressed the hope that the evil of war would ultimately bring about “good” and that a British victory would bring an end to Boer misrule and an advancement of the Kingdom of God.80 The Algoma Missionary News desired a postwar South Africa

For Missions

135

Missionary accounts of the atrocities and backwardness of the Boers played an important part in shaping pro-war sentiment.

where the gospel would be proclaimed “with more ardour and with greater success than hitherto.”81 In all these cases, a British victory was understood to be the necessary prerequisite for the advancement of Christian missions. Not surprisingly, the war created great difficulties for the churches and their missions, especially those in the immediate war zones. These difficulties were reported on throughout the war. Many reports were simply accounts of the struggles of the church and came as calls for prayer and financial support. Some of the same accounts also served the purpose of convincing readers of the barbarous nature of the Boers and the justice of going to war against such a savage and godless

136

A War with a Silver Lining

people. They also served to illustrate how missionary work would suffer if the Boers were allowed to remain rulers. As in the normal course of missionary affairs, the reports from the mission field varied. Some summarized the involvement of the church in South Africa,82 while others were directly related to the war. Many letters from church leaders in South Africa, as well as official statements of their churches, were published in the press for the sole purpose of justifying the British war effort. Readers were presented with the pro-British opinions of a wide range of people: American missionaries,83 the moderator of the Free Church of Scotland in South Africa,84 South African Methodists,85 Kimberly ministers,86 Natal Methodist ministers,87 a retired bishop formerly from Liberia,88 a Canadian missionary in South Africa serving with the African Methodist Episcopal Church at Port Elizabeth in Cape Colony,89 and even ten Roman Catholic priests in Cape Colony. David Livingstone’s observations of the Boers were often mentioned as evidence against them,90 while American Bishop Hartzell was the most commonly cited source among Methodists. Hartzell had been in charge of Methodist missionary work in South Africa for three years before the war, and he was convinced of the righteousness of Britain’s cause.91 The missionaries and church leaders in South Africa were considered to be important eyewitnesses to the events unfolding there. Separated by thousands of miles of ocean, there was a need in Canada for first-hand information about the war as a basis for informed decisions on the justice (or injustice) of the cause. These missionaries and church leaders, perhaps more so than politicians and military leaders, seemed able to satisfy this need.92 They provided information about the state of the church and missions in South Africa, and reported on efforts to alleviate the suffering of the many war refugees.93 Numerous articles depicted the hardships that the churches themselves faced as a result of the war, providing the readers both with a sense of the devastation of church property and the deleterious effect of the war on church work.94 Evaluation of the war’s impact was mixed. Some of the reports claimed that missionary work was hindered by the war,95 while others claimed that, despite the hardships, the church was continuing to grow.96 Readers were given graphic descriptions of the churches’ difficulties, as a report written by Rev. A.P. Troughton illustrates.97 Troughton was in the Anglican mission at Enhlonhlweni in northern Natal. When war

For Missions

137

broke out, his mission was cut off from the rest of the world for four months by the “invading hordes of the Boer Army.” Troughton described the arrival of the Boers, the four-month imprisonment of the mission, the ongoing missionary work during those months, and the conduct of the Boers towards himself and the mission. Troughton was suprisingly positive in his appraisal of the Boers: “I am bound to confess they treated us well and civilly all through; and for this we were indeed grateful considering how completely we were at their mercy, and how differently things might have turned out.” He concluded his article with a description of the retreat of the Boers, the arrival of the British troops, and the physical destruction of the mission property. Other accounts of the Boer treatment of missions and churches were not so positive. An article in Onward portrayed it as savage and barbaric.98 A letter from the Anglican bishop of Pretoria complained that he was forced to leave his diocese even though he had been assured that he could stay.99 Such negative images of the Boers and their disruption of missionary work reinforced the almost universal conviction that missions would suffer if the Boers were to win the war.

conclusion Like their British counterparts, Canadians concerned for missionary work in South Africa believed that the spiritual stakes in the conflict loomed large and that the war against the Boers must be supported. This confidence that missionary work would be better off under British rather than Boer rule was rooted in the conviction of the relative superiority of the British Empire. Once again, the Canadian approach to the conflict mirrored that of many in British mission circles.100 As has been noted above, the ills of the empire were sometimes acknowledged and openly criticized; but their shortfalls notwithstanding, the British form of government, rule of law, and treatment of the “natives” was considered superior. To pray and hope for a British victory was not in expectation of perfect or sinless British rule but for rule that was simply more just and fair (especially towards the “natives”). Under British rule, missionary work would have a better chance of success than it would under the Boers. Berger has identified how Canadian English Protestant imperialism was “infused” with religious emotion.101 The English Protestant reaction to the prospect of a Boer victory certainly confirms this claim. The

138

A War with a Silver Lining

war was much more than a war to “paint the map even more red”; it was also a war to ensure the expansion of the Kingdom of God. A war tinged with such religious sentiment fitted into the new dominion’s perceived national destiny, whereby the nation, securely within the empire, began to help Christianize the world.

Conclusion

Despite serious and sustained international criticism, a great deal of it coming from their neighbours in the United States, as well as domestic opposition primarily among French Canadians, the Canadian Protestant churches never swayed in their conviction that they should support the war effort in South Africa. From the onset of the conflict between Britain and the Boers in 1899 to the final peace settlement in 1902, there were no anti-war statements pronounced by any of the four largest English Canadian Protestant denominations. Their official publications and statements consistently defended Britain’s cause and supported the sending of Canadian soldiers to fight alongside British and colonial troops. The few Canadian clergy who were vocal in their anti-war sentiment were exceptions who soon found that they did not represent the position of their denomination as a whole. Why were the churches so supportive of the war effort? There were various reasons. As described in chapter 2, in the opinion of the churches, the war fitted the traditional criteria of just cause and just means. The growing concern for social reform also played a part. Before the First World War shattered confidence in the efficacy of war as a device for bringing about social change, the South African War reflected the hope that the conflict would result in much-needed reforms in South Africa. When the war ended with a British victory, all believed that the victory would bring about the anticipated outcome: liberty and justice for the “natives,” the Outlanders, and the Boers. Looking at the churches’ reaction one hundred years later allows us to identify some biases that influenced the churches’ interpretation of the events. Certainly, their pro-British bias blinded them to some geopolitical realities of the war, as well as some of the British blunders.

140

Conclusion

Their racial bias also played a role in colouring their interpretation of the events. In addition, their nation-building ethos made it necessary for the British Empire to be right. The nation of Canada was relatively new, and its identity was still in the making. Since a great deal of its identity was derived from its place in the empire, to question the goodness of the empire was to question the identity of Canada. Consequently, the nation-building churches found it very difficult to take seriously any criticism of Britain’s motives or actions. Since the war was fought for liberty and justice, the churches had no qualms defending it from the attacks of its critics. Throughout the war, the religious press did more than just report on the war; it aggressively sought to convince readers of the justice of the cause and of the need to support the sending of Canadian troops. Contrary to their claims, the churches’ attitude to the war was far from objective: they were predisposed to be pro-British and anti-Boer. Much has been written about how absolute the churches’ support was in the First World War; but as shown in chapter 3, their reaction to the war in South Africa shows that such wholehearted support was not something new. While their efforts were more coordinated and comprehensive during the First World War, during the South African War the churches did all they could to aid and bless the war effort. Chapter 3 also places the churches’ backing of the war within the framework of their nation-building ethos and illustrates the many ways in which this ethos affected their response to the war. Understanding that their denominations were crucial institutions in the nationbuilding process, the churches did their best to ensure that the young nation grew in the right direction. While thrilled with passionate displays of patriotism, they argued that there was a need to guide such emotions away from the evils of jingoism and militarism towards a wholesome, healthy, and Christian form of patriotism. All four denominations’ religious press carried extensive coverage of the domestic, international, and battlefield news; and since the various contingents were of special interest, close attention was given to the members of Canada’s first overseas contingents. Another way in which the churches aided the war effort was by holding special services for the troops. Church services were an integral part of the send-off ceremonies, and there were few soldiers who did not leave with the assurance that the churches were supportive and that God was on their side. When events on the battlefield did not go as planned, the churches offered their prayers for success. The most obvious example of this was the Day of

Conclusion

141

Humble Supplication organized by the Anglican Church. Defeat in battle led many to invoke the Old Testament conviction that sin had somehow led to their defeat. Through the day of supplication, the church could help deal with the “sin in the camp” and allow God to bring victory on the battlefield. In this sense, the war brought an added benefit: it helped to purify the nation and the empire. While the churches were unanimous in their support for the war, there was some conflict between the various denominations. The Methodists resented what they saw as Anglican attempts to act as the established church. Chaplaincy and the order of precedence at special services were the two issues that ignited the fires of controversy. Matters were not totally settled by the war’s end, but attempts to resolve them contributed to the ongoing development of the chaplaincy in the Canadian army, as well as the role that churches would play at state functions when order of precedence became an issue. The churches participated in the nation-building exercise in other practical ways. They were enthusiastic about raising money for the Canadian Patriotic Fund. They were sensitive to English-French tensions in Canada and sought to calm the anti-French rhetoric coming from certain people and papers in English Canada. In these nationbuilding exercises, the churches were concerned for the nation’s Christian character and the precedents being set for the future. Such concerns were justified, the actions and attitudes of the churches during the South African War can be seen as a model of how they reacted during the First World War. Their patriotic activities, including sermons and prayers invoking God’s blessing on the battlefield, were built on and expanded in the next war. Chapter 4 dealt with how the churches’ imperial convictions contributed to their support of the war. At the end of the nineteenth century, Canada’s present and future were assumed to be inextricably bound to the British Empire. The idea of a Canada independent of the empire was unthinkable if not treasonable. While there was no consensus on the exact type of relationship the evolving parts of the empire were to have with London, there was a strong movement towards imperial federation of some kind. This was no ordinary empire, for God had raised it up to be a providential tool to spread civilization and Christianity around the globe. What excited many in the churches was how the war had aided the unification of the Anglo-Saxon peoples in order to accomplish this task. Although the abuses of the empire were recognized and condemned,

142

Conclusion

many people were convinced that it was being purged of its sins. Despite its sins, the relative goodness and the blessings of empire upon its subjects were assumed. There were two main ways in which the imperial sentiment in the churches contributed to their support of the war effort. First, any threat to the empire was considered a threat to Canada. If the empire crumbled, Canada’s security would be at risk. As one of the church articles stated, “Where the interests of the Empire are at stake, the interests of every colony are at stake also.”1 Second, the war had the effect of strengthening the empire. There had been calls for imperial federation before the war, but the supportive response to Britain’s need in South Africa made it seem that the various parts of the empire were coming together to form a closer bond, with a growing sense of interdependency. Many in the churches took this interdependency a step further, anticipating a greater role for Canada within the imperial structure. The point of chapter 5 can be stated simply: the churches believed that missionary work would be better off under British rule than under Boer rule. The nineteenth century had been a successful one for Protestant missions in general and for British missions in particular. Numerous articles celebrated the growth of Protestant missions over the past hundred years and attributed much of this growth to the expansion of European empires, particularly the British Empire. Clearly, God had raised up the empire to spread Christianity around the globe. Could there be any other explanation for its growth? In fact, the spread of the empire was often very difficult to differentiate from the spread of Christianity, and vice versa. The military motifs used to describe the work of the church did nothing to sharpen the distinction between the British Empire and the Kingdom of God, or the work of the British Empire and the work of the church. The Boer mistreatment of the “natives” had been documented by British missionaries long before the war. With the arrival of the war, such conduct was once again noted, along with the Boer refusal to plant a church among the “natives.” It was hoped that a British victory and the establishment of British rule would put an end to Boer injustices and allow British missionary work to begin in earnest. The assumption was that since the British had a more humane view of the “natives,” the latter would be much more responsive to the Christian message. Consequently, those concerned for missionary work in South Africa had to hope and pray for a British victory.

Conclusion

143

Central to the ministry of the Canadian churches was a shared concern for justice, nation, empire and missions. Seeking justice, building the new nation Canada, unifying and strengthening the empire, and supporting missions were common goals, and a British victory in South Africa would advance all four at once. These four aims had been pursued by the churches before the war began, but the war brought them into sharper focus and provided a unique context for their expression. Underlying the churches’ support for the British cause was their belief in the providential establishing of the empire for the spread of civilization and Christianity; consequently, concomitant with these four aims was the idea that a British victory would benefit all involved. It would be good for Canadians, good for Britons, good for the empire, good for the entire world, and even good for the Boers. How could one not support the imperial effort, when the interests of church and missions, nation and empire, the secular and the sacred were so intertwined? As these chapters indicate, the churches supported Canada’s participation in the war for the cause of justice, for the growth of the nation, for the survival of the empire, and for the spread of missions. It is important to see these objectives as mutually supportive and intertwined, rather than separate. Each was built on assumptions that rested on the others, especially with regard to attitudes towards the empire. For instance, the argument for justice was built on assumptions about the Christian character and divine calling of the empire. The argument for nation building was grounded in part on assumptions about Canada’s Christian identity and its calling within the larger empire (an empire that had its own special calling from God). The argument for upholding the empire was partly based on the fear of what would happen to the newly minted nation if the empire were to weaken. The argument for missions was based in large measure on assumptions regarding the empire’s divine calling to spread Christian civilization around the globe. What this indicates is that the identity of the empire and Canada’s place within it factored significantly in the support for the war shown by the English Protestant churches. Thomas Brown’s prize-winning speech at Wesley College in the early months of the war signalled many of these assumptions. In his speech defending the war effort, he argued that a British victory would be a blessing to all involved: it was a war with a “silver lining.”2 The first streak of silver that he saw in the “cloud of devastation ... bursting upon the Transvaal” was the establishment of British supremacy in South Africa – and with that supremacy would come equality and

144

Conclusion

justice. The second streak of silver was the establishment of a uniform system of government in South Africa, with all the advantages it would bring. The third streak of silver was the unification of the empire. And the fourth and final streak was the “mighty impetus” that would be given to missionary work. There was no doubt in Brown’s mind that Britain would win and, as a result of the inevitable victory, the war would be a blessing to all involved. Almost without exception, the Canadian English Protestant churches agreed with Brown’s assessment of the empire and its benefits. In their minds and those of many others in Canada, this was indeed a war with a silver lining.

Notes

introduction 1 Ferguson, Empire, 367. 2 See, for example, Edward Said’s Orientalism, the seminal work in postcolonial studies. 3 Thomas D. Brown, “The South African War,” Vox Wesleyana, January 1900, 59–61. For a brief biograpical sketch on Brown, see Vox Wesleyana, Summer 1900, 135–6. 4 In Ontario in 1901 the Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian membership made up almost 75 percent of the population; 18 percent of Ontario’s population was Roman Catholic. The Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians dominated the Protestant religious landscape in Ontario, comprising over 95 percent of all Protestants in the province. See Semple, Lord’s Dominion, 181–2. 5 Airhart, “Ordering a New Nation,” 99. 6 Berger, The Sense of Power. 7 This war in 1899–1902, called the South African War, was the largest war that Britain fought between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. It is also known as the Boer War. 8 Miller, Painting the Map Red, 23. On this point Thomas Socknat agrees with Miller: “The hierarchy of the Methodist church and other Protestant churches openly supported the war” (Socknat, Witness against War, 24). 9 See Laity, “The British Peace Movement and the War,” 138–56; Porter, “The Pro-Boers in Britain,” 239–57; Blanch, “British Society and the War,” 210–37. 10 There was limited dissent by church leaders, as noted by Miller in “EnglishCanadian Opposition” and Painting the Map Red, 23–4. See also Humphries, “Two bc Pacifists and the Boer War,” 116–27.

146

Notes to page xix

11 When reference is made to “churches,” what are being referred to are the Canadian Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian denominations. Any other churches (Roman Catholic, American, British, etc.) are clearly identified as such. While the official title at the time was the Church of England in Canada, the shorter and more contemporary version, “Anglican,” is used throughout this study. 12 For a recent article that begins to explore how one of these smaller Protestant communties was affected by the war, see Nijhof and De Bakker, “The Dutch Community in the Kildonans.” 13 Miller, Painting the Map Red, xvi. 14 Other important authors in this category are Norman Penlington, Robert Page, Douglas Cole, Terry Cook, and Phillip Buckner. Penlington (Canada and Imperialism) claims that Canada’s participation in the war can best be understood in the context of Canadian and American animosity. He argues that Canada participated in the British cause in South Africa primarily because Canada needed British support in its land claims against the United States in the Yukon and British Columbia. Page (“Canada and the Imperial Idea” and The Boer War) illustrates how English Canada was passionate in its support for imperialism; see also Page, “Intellectual Origins of Canadian Imperialist Thought,” 39–43. Buckner echoes Page’s observations on how deeply rooted imperial concerns were among anglophone Canadians (Buckner, “Whatever Happened to the British Empire” and “Canada”). The question of the relationship between nation, nationalism, and imperialism in Canada in the late nineteenth century is debated. Cole disagrees with Berger’s emphasis on Canadian nation -alism. He writes: “My disagreement with Professor Berger is upon this perspective of emphasis. He chooses to view Canadian imperialism as a variety of Canadian nationalism. I think it is at least justifiable to view it as a variety of Britannic nationalism. I am not so sure as is Professor Berger that the many varieties of Canadian ‘nationalism’ have all been inspired by the same nation. What Hancock, Sinclair, and Berger ... all tend to underemphasize, because of their perspective, is the breadth of the imperialist phenomenon. They tend to single out and emphasize the local, native, and indigenous, and thus to underemphasize the features common to imperialists throughout the Empire, and even beyond. In doing so they tend to omit the shared ideas, assumptions, and ideals that would unite certain Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Britons, and South Africans to the extent that they would collectively label themselves as imperialists and jointly collaborate in the realization of common aims” (Cole, “Canada’s ‘Nationalistic’ Imperialists,” 44–5). In a similar way, Cook writes that for imperialists like George R. Parkin, there was no distinct Canadian nationalism outside the Britannic whole (Cook, “Concept of Britannic Idealism,” 15–31).

Notes to pages xix–xxv

147

15 Grant, The Church in the Canadian Era, 91; Clarke, “English-Speaking Canada from 1854,” 304–5; Moir, Enduring Witness, 185–6, 192. 16 Magney, “The Methodist Church,” 3–95; Semple, Lord’s Dominion, ch.8; and Airhart, “Ordering a New Nation.” 17 Nock, “Patriotism and Patriarchs,” 80. 18 Airhart, “Ordering a New Nation,” 131. 19 See Gordon, The Dominion Partnership; Preston, Canada and “Imperial Defence”; Cook, Brown, and Berger, eds., Imperial Relations; and Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict. 20 See Miller, “Research Resources,” 116–21. 21 Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition. 22 Nelles, The Art of Nation-Building, 229–30. 23 “Commemoration as an act of self-invention” is Nelles’s expression; see Nelles, The Art of Nation-Building, 12. 24 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 6. Steve Attridge’s work on the transformation and shaping of an imagined community in the civil and military world is a helpful example of how this process unfolded; see, Attridge, Nationalism, Imperialism, and Identity in Late Victorian Culture. 25 Francis, National Dreams, 10. 26 Vance, Death So Noble, 266–7. 27 Rutherdale, Women and the White Man’s God, 152–3. 28 See the chapter on “the orientals” in Woodsworth, Strangers within Our Gates. 29 Ross, “Christian Missions and the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Change in Attitudes to Race,” 85–105. 30 Said, Orientalism. 31 Rutherdale argues that categories often shifted over time due to experience (Rutherdale, Women and the White Man’s God, 152). 32 As Samson, Stanley, Ross, and others note, however, missionary views of race are far more complex than usually assumed by post-colonial scholars. See Samson, “Ethnology and Theology”; Stanley, “Christianity and Civilization in English Evangelical Mission Thought”; Ross, “Christian Missions and the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Change in Attitudes to Race.” 33 Samson, “The Problem of Colonialism in the Western Historiography of Christian Missions,” 2–26. 34 Porter, Religion versus Empire? 35 Buckner, “Canada,” 233. 36 For an analysis and annotated bibliography of the late-Victorian Protestant press, see Heath, “Forming Sound Public Opinion.” Much of the following commentary on the press in Canada is taken from this article. 37 Distad, “Newspapers and Magazines,” 299–300.

148

Notes to page xxv

38 Globe, 6 November 1899, 6; Evening Telegram, 13 February 1900. 39 Studies of the religious press that have been completed are helpful but dated. For example, see Millman, “Canadian Anglican Journalism in the Nineteenth Century”; Trinier, A Century of Service; Freeland, “Pioneer Baptist Journalism in Ontario and Quebec, 1836–1865.” For a more recent study of the Methodist Book and Publishing House, see Burr, “The Business Development of The Methodist Book and Publishing House, 1870–1914.” 40 For example, see Fetherling, The Rise of the Canadian Newspaper; Kesterton, A History of Journalism in Canada; and Sutherland, The Monthly Epic. Mary Vipond basically ignores it (Vipond, The Mass Media in Canada). Paul Rutherford does comment on the clergy’s attempts to influence the burgeoning late-Victorian press but does not go into any detail regarding the nature and extent of the religious press of the day (Rutherford, A Victorian Authority, 197–204). For the most recent detailed study of the development of the press in general in Canada (with a brief section on the development of the religious press), see Fleming and Lamonde, History of the Book in Canada, vols. 1 and 2. One nineteenth-century summary of the development of the press did briefly note the importance of the religious press.; see Bourinot, The Intellectual Development of the Canadian People, 80–2. Another example of how the Protestant press has been overlooked can be found in Carman Miller’s summary of the research resources available for studying the South African War (1899–1902), which does not mention the many religious publications available to historians researching the war (Miller, “Research Resources on Canada and the South African War,” 116–21). 41 In the late nineteenth century the press was a major factor in the formation of public opinion. For instance, the “new journalism” was linked to the “new imperialism.” John A. Hobson, one of the most prominent late-Victorian opponents of imperialism, was concerned about the power of the press in creating imperial sentiment; see Hobson, Imperialism, 216–17 (page citations are from the reprint edition). Bourinot claimed that the influence of the press played a key role in educating the “masses” about the key issues of the day (Bourinot, The Intellectual Development of the Canadian People, 83). Judd and other contemporary historians have also noted how influential the press was in swaying public opinion during wartime; see Judd and Surridge, The Boer War, 10; and Harrington, “Pictorial Journalism and the Boer War,” 224–44. Paula Krebs goes so far as to argue that the press actually created the spontaneous outburst of imperial fervour during the South African War (Krebs, Gender, Race, and the Writing of Empire). While there were limitations on what influence the press could have on its readers, it did have the power

Notes to pages xxv–7

42

43 44 45

149

to set agendas, mobilize, stereotype, confer status, manipulate, socialize, and legitimize; see Rutherford, A Victorian Authority, 7–8. In one of its attempts to encourage church members to support it, the Canadian Churchman printed an article that outlined its value. One reason why it was so important was that, in the decades to come, the paper would be a source for historians seeking to know about the past. It stated: “With regard to the first part of our work, the recording of the events in the history of the Church, it is not easy to exaggerate the importance of this department. Long after those who are engaged in this work shall have passed away, the columns of this newspaper will be used to furnish material for the history of the Church in Canada” (“The Church Press,” Canadian Churchman, 28 June 1900, 406). Magney, “The Methodist Church,” 5. Wilkinson, “To the Front,” 203–4. Hennessy, “The Press and Broadcasting,” 20. For another helpful discussion on the potential and pitfalls of using newspapers for research, see Franzosi, “The Press as a Source of Socio-Historical Data.”

chapter one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War, 53. Schreuder, The Scramble for Southern Africa, 2. “Growth of the British Empire,” Canadian Epworth Era, December 1900, 355. James, Rise and Fall, 215. As quoted in Judd, Empire, 132. Ibid., 139. For accounts of this conflict, see Lehmann, The First Boer War; Duxbury, David and Goliath; Ransford, The Battle of Majuba Hill. Miller, Painting the Map Red, 12. Kruger, The Memoirs of Paul Kruger, 120. In the opinion of Winston Churchill, the Jameson Raid marked the beginning of many of Britain’s woes. He said, “I date the beginning of these violent times in our country from the Jameson Raid” (as quoted in Longford, Jameson’s Raid, 25). For summaries on the events leading up to the hostilities of 1899, see Porter, Origins of the South African War, and Smith, Origins of the South African War. “South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 27 July 1899, 470. “War or Peace,” Canadian Churchman, 12 October 1899, 611. “The Transvaal,” Trinity University Review, October 1899, 85–6.

150

Notes to pages 7–11

15 Rev. M.H.M. Wood, “Easter Day Up-Country in South Africa,” Canadian Church Magazine and Missionary News, August 1899, 179–80. This article was reprinted from the Quebec Diocesan Gazette. 16 Canadian Baptist, 5 October 1899, 638. 17 Canadian Baptist, 12 October 1899, 639. 18 Religious Intelligencer, 2 August 1899, 4. 19 See “The Transvaal,” Messenger and Visitor, 26 July 1899, 1; “The Transvaal Resolution” and “A Firm Position,” Messenger and Visitor, 9 August 1899, 1; “The Transvaal Situation,” Messenger and Visitor, 16 August 1899, 1; “President Kruger,” Messenger and Visitor, 23 August 1899, 1; “South Africa,” Messenger and Visitor, 27 September 1899, 1; “The Orange Free State” and Johannesburg,” Messenger and Visitor, 4 October 1899, 1. 20 See Barry Moody, “Boers and Baptists: Maritime Canadians View the War in South Africa,” unpublished paper in author’s collection. This sympathy can most readily be seen in its editorial “Inglorious War,” Messenger and Visitor, 6 September 1899, 1. 21 “The Transvaal Bluff,” Messenger and Visitor, 11 October 1899, 1. 22 Ibid. 23 “Preparation for War in Great Britain” and “In South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 11 October 1899, 649. 24 “The Transvaal Trouble,” Methodist Magazine and Review, July 1899, 82–3. 25 “The Transvaal,” Methodist Magazine and Review, August 1899, 182. 26 Wesleyan, 11 October 1899, 1. 27 See Wesleyan, 9 August 1899, 1; 16 August 1899, 1; 13 September 1899, 1; 27 September 1899, 1; 4 October 1899, 1; and 11 October 1899, 1. 28 Wesleyan, 9 August 1899, 1. 29 Wesleyan, 27 September 1899, 1. 30 Wesleyan, 11 October 1899, 1. 31 “When England Ruled the Transvaal,” Presbyterian Witness, 9 September 1899, 286. 32 Samuel E. Moffett, “One Way Out of the Transvaal Trouble,” Presbyterian Witness, 9 September 1899, 287. 33 “The Anglo-Saxon Mission,” Presbyterian Witness, 7 October 1899, 316. 34 “Difficulty of the Problem,” Westminster, 1 July 1899, 8. 35 Ibid. 36 “The Case for Intervention,” Westminster, 1 July 1899, 8. 37 “Sir Alfred Milner,” Westminster, 1 July 1899, 8. 38 “The Transvaal Resolution,” Westminster, 5 August 1899, 123. 39 Ibid.

Notes to pages 11–13

151

40 “Canada’s Right to Speak,” Westminster, 5 August 1899, 123. The relationship between Europeans and the native people in Canada was not mentioned. 41 “Preparations on Both Sides,” Westminster, 19 August 1899, 181; “Threatening Aspect in South Africa,” Westminster, 2 September 1899, 229; “Military Preparations in Progress,” “Estimate of Possible Forces,” and “Available Forces,” Westminster, 2 September 1899, 230; “The Transvaal Situation,” Westminster, 9 September 1899, 279; “The Transvaal Rumors,” Westminster, 16 September 1899, 307; “The Issue in South Africa,” “Suzerainty a Vital Issue,” and “The Next Move,” Westminster, 23 September 1899, 329; “Marking Time in South Africa,” Westminster, 30 September 1899, 350–1; “Will the Boers Attack?” Westminster, 30 September 1899, 351; “The South African Trouble,” “Spirit of the Boers,” and “Great Britain Regretful,” Westminster, 7 October 1899, 383; “The Predominant Power,” Westminster, 7 October 1899, 383–4. 42 “Current Events,” Queen’s Quarterly, July 1899, 79. This section was authored by Grant, but it was simply signed “G.” 43 Ibid. 44 James Cappon, “Current Events,” Queen’s Quarterly, October 1899, 165. 45 Ibid., 164. 46 Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War, 46–7. 47 Wesleyan, 18 October 1899, 1. 48 “War in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. 49 “War,” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 643. The same sentiment was expressed in a different article in the same issue. “It will be a comfort to every British subject that we did not force on the quarrel” (“The War with the Transvaal,” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 645). 50 “War with the Boers,” Canadian Baptist, 19 October 1899, 662. 51 Parish and Home, November 1899, 1. 52 “The War in South Africa,” Evangelical Churchman, 26 October 1899, 683. 53 “England has done her utmost to have all disagreements settled amicably” (“The Situation in South Africa,” Trinity University Review, November 1899, 101). 54 “The Boer Ultimatum,” Westminster, 14 October 1899, 424. 55 Presbyterian Witness, 14 October 1899, 325. 56 “War with the Boers,” Canadian Baptist, 19 October 1899, 662. The Christian Guardian also printed the main points of the ultimatum; see “War in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. 57 Presbyterian Witness, 14 October 1899, 325. 58 “The Boer Ultimatum,” Westminster, 14 October 1899, 424. 59 Wesleyan, 18 October 1899, 1.

152 60 61 62 63

64 65

66

67

68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Notes to pages 13–16

“War in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. “The Transvaal War,” Religious Intelligencer, 18 October 1899, 4. “The Boer Ultimatum,” Messenger and Visitor, 18 October 1899, 1. For accounts of the conflict in general, see Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War; Judd and Surridge, The Boer War; Warwick, ed., The South African War; and Nasson, The South African War. For a recent reconsideration of the long-term impact of the war, see Porter, “The South African War and Imperial Britain.” “War,” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 643. T. Bedford-Jones, “Prayer: To Be Offered Daily in the Diocese of Ontario during the Time of War in South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 653. Evangelical Churchman, 19 October 1899, 665. One week later it noted with pride that a large proportion (600 out of 1,000) of the contingent, including officers, were from the Church of England (Evangelical Churchman, 26 October 1899, 682). “Church Notes,” Parish and Home, November 1899, 1; Lieutenant C.S. Wilkie (’96), Lieutenant R.H. Temple (’97), and Private Anderson of the Medical College; see Trinity University Review, November 1899, 101. “Is It a Shame?” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 644. “It is not credible to us, that we, the greatest of the colonies of the British Empire, should have been the most backward to come to the help of the Mother Country” (“Is It a Shame?” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 644). “Is It a Shame?” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 644. Ibid., 645. “The City and the Empire,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 660. “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 659. Canadian Baptist, 19 October 1899, 655. “War with the Boers,” Canadian Baptist, 19 October 1899, 662. New Zealand Baptists were ardent supporters of the war effort; see Guy, “Baptist Pacifists in New Zealand.” “Fighting in South Africa,” Messenger and Visitor, 25 October 1899, 1. “The War,” Messenger and Visitor, 1 November 1899, 4. “A Canadian Contingent,” Westminster, 14 October 1899, 424. “The Canadian Battalion,” Westminster, 21 October 1899, 450. “A Disgrace to Canada,” Presbyterian Record, November 1899, 322. “A Disgrace to Canada,” Presbyterian Record, December 1899, 354. “The Canadian Contingent,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. “A Canadian Regiment,” Christian Guardian, 25 October 1899, 680. The Maritime Methodist interest can be seen in the Wesleyan, 18 October 1899, 1, and 25 October 1899, 1.

Notes to pages 16–20 84 85 86 87

88

89 90 91 92 93 94 95

96

153

“The War in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 1 November 1899, 698. Page, “Canada and the Imperial Idea,” 41. Miller, Painting the Map Red, 424. See Rev. J. Tallman, “The Transvaal,” Methodist Magazine and Review, November 1899, 453–60; Onward, 4 November, 1899, 348; Rev. William Inglis, “About the Boers,” Onward, 4 November 1899, 350; Rev. J. Tallman Pitcher, “The Transvaal,” Methodist Magazine and Review, November 1899, 453–60; H.W., “The Boer’s Daughter: A Tale of Majuba Hill (Part One),” Onward, 28 October 1899, 341–2; H.W., “The Boer’s Daughter; A Tale of Majuba Hill (Part Two),” Onward, 4 November 1899, 349–50; “The Transvaal,” Onward, 4 November 1899, 349; Rev. William Inglis, “About the Boers,” Onward, 4 November 1899, 350; Parish and Home, November 1899, 133–4; Canadian Baptist, 26 October 1899, 672; “Briton and Boer,” Presbyterian Record, November 1899, 324; “Dr. Livingstone and the Boers,” Presbyterian Witness, 21 October 1899, 332; T. Bedford-Jones, “Prayer: To Be Offered Daily in the Diocese of Ontario during the Time of War in South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 26 October 1899, 653; “Prayers: For Use during the War” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, November 1899, 142; “To Victory,” Happy Days, 11 November 1899, 91; “War Poems,” Onward, 4 November 1899, 349. Canadian Baptist, 19 October 1899, 655, and 26 October 1899, 672; “The Invasion of Natal,” Westminster, 21 October 1899, 449; “The Boer Advance,” Westminster, 21 October 1899, 449–50; “Situation on the Western Border,” Westminster, 21 October 1899, 450; Presbyterian Witness, 21 October 1899, 332; “The Progress of the War,” Religious Intelligencer, 25 October 1899, 4; Canadian Baptist, 26 October 1899, 672; “General Buller’s Free Hand,” Christian Guardian, 25 October 1899, 680–1; “A Tribute to Manhood,” Christian Guardian, 1 November 1899, 697; Wesleyan, 18 October 1899, 1; Wesleyan, 25 October 1899, 1; Algoma Missionary News, 2 November 1899, 1; “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 659. “After the War – What?” Christian Guardian, 25 October 1899, 61. “Pastors Talk of War,” Globe (Toronto), 16 October 1899, 5. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Miller, Painting the Map Red, 62. Andrew Hunter Dunn, “Quebec,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 678–9. Dunn was the bishop of Quebec. See also F.G.S., “The First Imperial Church Parade in Canada,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, December 1899, 160–1. Rev. F.G. Scout, “Sermon,” Mitre, November 1899, 35.

154

Notes to pages 21–4

chapter two 1 As quoted in Page, The Boer War, 13. 2 Ibid. 3 For a discussion of these points in detail, see Holmes, ed., War and Christian Ethics. 4 For an example of how these critieria are applied to contemporary conflicts, see O’Donovan, The Just War Revisited. 5 Grant, The Church in the Canadian Era, 114. 6 Grant quotes Bliss, “The Methodist Church,” 231. 7 William Magney concludes that the church entered the South African War with an ambivalent response (Magney, “The Methodist Church,” 46). Such a claim is difficult to defend, for the Methodist response was not substantially different from that of any other English Protestant denomination. 8 The majority of Methodists in Britain and South Africa supported the war effort (Cuthbertson, “Preaching Imperialism,” 157–72). 9 “Thanksgiving for Peace,” Parish and Home, 1902, 91. 10 Rev. Canon Newbolt, “Endurance; A Message from the War,” Canadian Churchman, 18 January 1900, 39. 11 Thaddeus, “The Anglo-Boer War: Some of Its Lessons,” Religious Intelligencer, 21 March 1900, 1. 12 See “Christianity and War,” Christian Guardian, 7 August 1901, 504; “The Wars of the Nineteenth Century,” Presbyterian Witness, 29 December 1900, 412, and December 1899, 4. 13 “A doctor’s lancet is not a desirable toy, but it is a necessary knife when there is a disease. History shows that war mostly has been God’s sword to slay corruption” (“War,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 104, reprinted from Boy’s Brigade Budget). 14 “Ian MacLaren, “‘Ian MacLaren’ on the War,” Presbyterian Witness, 24 March 1900, 94. 15 William Armagh, “Is ‘War the Only Thing That Has No Good in It’?” Canadian Churchman, 7 December 1899, 746. 16 Rev. Canon Newbolt, “Endurance: A Message from the War,” Canadian Churchman, 18 January 1900, 39. See also Rev. Canon Newbolt, “The Fruits of War,” Canadian Churchman, 15 March 1900, 166–7. 17 “Peace and War,” Trinity University Review, March 1901, 38. 18 Grant, The Church in the Canadian Era, 114. 19 See Koss, ed., The Pro-Boers, and Davey, The British Pro-Boers. 20 Blunden, “The Anglican Church during the War.” 21 Cuthbertson, “The Nonconformist Conscience” and “Preaching Imperialism”; Wilson, “A House Divided,” 454.

Notes to pages 24–6

155

22 Wilson, “The United States and the War.” 23 Knoxonian, “Why Are We Disliked?” Westminster, 23 June 1900, 736. This article was reprinted in Onward, 8 August 1900, 257. For similar sentiment, see “Why Are We Disliked?” Canadian Churchman, 15 March 1900, 164; “Foreign Hostility,” Canadian Churchman, 20 February 1902, 117–18; “Splendid Isolation,” Onward, 20 January 1900, 20. 24 “In contrast to the ambivalence in a section of the anglophone press, French Canadian attitudes towards Canadian participation in the South African war were unequivocal, if one can judge by the francophone press before and immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. Not one journal – Liberal, Conservative, independent, religious, recreational, or commercial – advocated the dispatch of Canadian troops” (Miller, Painting the Map Red, 26). See also Silver, “Some Quebec Attitudes,” 440–60. 25 “Not all English Canadians supported British intervention in South Africa, much less Canadian participation. A small, well-defined but ineffective opposition existed in English Canada, drawn largely from the farming community, radical labour, Protestant clergy, and anglophobic groups, principly Germans and Irish Canadians. Their opposition was based upon a broad range of liberal, socialist, pacifist, ethnophobic, and practical considerations; but their ideology was too diverse and their numbers too small and scattered across the country to form a viable opposition to their pro-war opponents” (Miller, Painting the Map Red, 22). See also Miller, “English-Canadian Opposition,” 422–38, and Stiles, “The Dragon of Imperialism.” 26 “The Westminster and the War,” Westminster, 9 February 1901, 173. 27 “The War in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 17 January 1900, 33. 28 “Carping Criticism,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 12. 29 See “A Ridiculous Performance,” Canadian Epworth Era, May 1900, 131; “American Sympathy,” Christian Guardian, 3 January 1900, 9; “Misplaced Sympathy,” Methodist Magazine and Review, April 1900, 376–7; “The Boer Envoys,” Methodist Magazine and Review, June 1900, 563; “Boers and Filipinos,” Methodist Magazine and Review, June 1900, 563; Canadian Baptist, 26 October 1899, 672; Canadian Baptist, 30 November 1899, 750; Canadian Baptist, 22 March 1900, 177; “U.S. Sympathy with the Boers,” Canadian Baptist, 17 May 1900, 312; Canadian Baptist, 7 June 1900, 353; “Called Down,” Canadian Baptist, 19 December 1901, 816; “Intervention in South Africa,” Westminster, 31 March 1900, 353; “Giving Comfort to the Enemy,” Westminster, 11 August 1900, 166; Canadian Churchman, 16 August 1900, 485–6; “How to Help the Boers,” Canadian Churchman, 28 June 1900, 404. 30 Regarding the Boston Watchman’s criticisms of the war, the Canadian Baptist wrote: “When the Watchman has finished writing for the New England Baptists

156

31 32

33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42

43

Notes to pages 26–9

all it does not know on the Transvaal question, it will have at hand the materials for a large book” (19 October 1899, 655). See also Canadian Baptist, 5 April 1900, 209. At the end of the war the Canadian Baptist concluded that even “the Watchman of Boston, pro-Boer and anti-British, considers that an honorable peace has been made” (Canadian Baptist, 12 June 1902, 1). It was also critical of the Baptist Missionary Magazine’s response to the war; see “The Baptist Missionary Magazine vs the British Government and People,” Canadian Baptist, 8 February 1900, 89. After the British victories in the early months of 1900, the Canadian Baptist proudly proclaimed that “deluded American editors of the religious press” would have to reevaluate their views of the British generals (1 March 1900, 136). After this type of comment, it is surprising that the Canadian Baptist printed some of Dr. Clifford’s anti-war comments without denouncing them. Perhaps this exception was because he was not “pro-Boer”; see “Dr. Clifford on S.A.,” Canadian Baptist, 16 August 1900, 517. The Christian Guardian was just as ready to take on another Methodist publication, although with considerably more tact; see “The Christian Advocate and the Boers,” Christian Guardian, 10 January 1900, 28. Hobson, Imperialism, 216–17 (page citations are to the reprint edition). Judd and Surridge, The Boer War, 10; Harrington, “Pictorial Journalism,” 224–44. For a discussion of the use of pamphlets in the war, see Galbraith, “The Pamphlet Campaign,” 111–26. Krebs, Gender, Race, and the Writing of Empire, 2. See Heath, “Forming Sound Public Opinion.” Thompson, “Imperial Propaganda.” The English papers received their information about the war primarily from London-based wire services, whereas the French papers received their news primarily from Paris-based wire services; see Page, The Boer War, 17. Evans, The Canadian Contingents, 11. Francis, National Dreams, 10. Grant, “Principal Grant: The Kingston Divine Preaches on the Boer War,” Globe (Toronto), 18 December, 1899, 4. See Berger, The Sense of Power, 32–3. Elmore Harris, “The Boer War as Canadians See It,” Canadian Baptist, 12 April 1900, 232. Harris also reminded his American readers that Britain had stood alongside the United States during its recent war against Spain. Because of this support, Harris contended, it was America’s turn to show its appreciation and reciprocate in kind by supporting Britain’s war in South Africa. “Bishop’s Opening Address,” Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Synod of the Diocese of Montreal (16–19 January, 1900), 30.

Notes to pages 29–33

157

44 See “Loyal Addresses: To His Excellency the Earl of Minto, GovernorGeneral of Canada,” Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1900), 483; and “Loyal Addresses: To the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty,” Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1900), 483. 45 Dominion Presbyterian, 31 May 1900, 342. 46 “Causes of the War and the Settlement: Letter from Kimberley Ministers,” Wesleyan, 18 April 1900, 1. The letter was written by eight Christian ministers from various Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregational, and Wesleyan churches. One author was a Jewish rabbi. 47 “Brantford Ministers on the War,” Onward, 10 March 1900, 75. 48 “Natal Congregationalists and the Boer War,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 125; “Important Letter from Kimberley Ministers,” Onward, 5 May 1900, 138 (reprinted from Methodist Times). 49 “Natal Methodists and the War,” Onward, 28 April 1900, 134; “Capetown Wesleyan Synod and the War,” Onward, 14 April 1900, 115; “Methodism and the War,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 195 (reprinted from Methodist Recorder); “Christianity and the War,” Onward, 9 November 1901, 355; “Rev. Wm. Patterson on the War,” Onward, 24 February 1900, 61; “Methodism and the War,” Onward, 14 April 1900, 114. 50 “Conan Doyle on the War,” Onward, 2 February 1901, 36; “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 12 April 1902, 119 (reprinted from Methodist Times). 51 “Not for Gold,” Onward, 24 February 1900, 59. 52 “The War,” Canadian Churchman, 28 December 1899, 804. 53 “Never Again,” Onward, 12 July 1901, 220. 54 “Not for Gold,” Onward, 24 February 1900, 59. 55 “Rev. Wm. Patterson on the War,” Onward, 24 February 1900, 61. 56 “The War in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 17 January 1900, 33. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 “The British and Boer Contest in Words and War,” Christian Guardian, 7 March 1900, 152. 60 Thompson, “Imperial Propaganda,” 314. 61 See “Dr. Livingstone and the Boers,” Christian Guardian, 21 February 1900, 114; “Livingstone and the Boers,” Canadian Epworth Era, March 1900, 80; Rev. John Lee, “Livingstone and the Boers,” Onward, 26 May 1900, 166. 62 Fitzpatrick, The Transvaal from Within. 63 “The Causes of the War,” Onward, 5 May 1900, 138; “Causes of the War and the Settlement: Letter from Kimberley Ministers,” Wesleyan, 18 April 1900, 1 (both reprinted from the London Methodist Times).

158

Notes to pages 33–4

64 Mrs Lewis stated, “If ever there was a war for the lord god of hosts [emphasis in original], if ever there was a war for truth and right, for the putting down of oppression and wrong, for the deliverance of a people powerless to deliver themselves, whose wrongs have cried up to heaven until the Lord has come down to deliver them, this is that war” [emphasis in original]; see Mrs Lewis, “A Voice from South Africa: A Message to the Christian People of Great Britain,” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 1. An anonymous woman wrote “A Boer Lady on the War,” Wesleyan, 7 February 1900, 1 (reprinted from Methodist Times). For Congregational opinion in Natal, see “Natal Congregationalists and the Boer War,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 125 (reprinted from Outlook). For Chamberlain’s speech, see “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 19 April 1902, 124. For Laurier’s views, see “Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Vindication of Britain,” Onward, 13 April 1901, 115, and “Premier Laurier on the War,” Onward, 10 March 1900, 79. For British views, see “British Views of the Boer War,” Pleasant Hours, 10 March 1900, 40, and “An Eminent Presbyterian Minister on the War,” Onward, 4 August 1900, 243. For a Lutheran view, see “Religion in the Transvaal,” Onward, 27 January 1900, 27 (reprinted from Lutheran Church Times). For an American opinion, see “The Price of South Africa,” Methodist Magazine and Review, July 1901, 87–8. For Doyle’s view, see “Conan Doyle on the War,” Onward, 2 February 1901, 36, “Conan Doyle on the War,” Christian Guardian, 12 February 1902, 105, and “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 12 April 1902, 119 (reprinted from Methodist Times). For a Perth professor’s view, see “An Important Defender of England,” Onward, 23 December 1899, 412 (reprinted from Christian Advocate). For an enemy’s view, see “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 13 April 1901, 116. 65 “British or Boer,” Wesleyan, 8 November 1899, 1. 66 Onward also reprinted portions of it. See “Bishop Hartzell Makes a Strong Plea for British Rule in South Africa,” Wesleyan, 27 June 1900, 1; “Briton versus Boer,” Onward, 14 July 1900, 219. 67 “Bishop Hartzell on the War,” Onward, 28 April 1900, 135. 68 “Bishop Hartzell on South Africa,” Onward, 16 June 1900, 191; “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 9 June 1900, 181; “Rabbi Hertz and Bishop Hartzell on the Transvaal Question,” Onward, 25 August 1900, 268 (reprinted from Outlook); “Bishop Hartzell on the War in South Africa,” Wesleyan, 20 November 1901, 1 (reprinted from Christian Commonwealth). 69 The Manitoba Free Press, 22 January 1900, as quoted in Miller, “English-Canadian Opposition,” 433. 70 “Dr. Carman Misrepresented,” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 4. 71 “Dr. Carman Objects to Misrepresentation,” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 4. See also “Dr. Carman’s Reply to the ‘News,’” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 4.

Notes to pages 34–7

159

72 “Official Representative of Canadian Methodism to the British Methodist Churches,” Wesleyan, 29 August 1900, 3, 6, 8. 73 “Loyal Addresses: To the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty,” Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1901), 483; “Loyal Addresses: To His Excellency the Earl of Minto, Governor-General of Canada,” Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1901), 483; Minutes of the Sixty-Eighth Annual Session of the Free Baptist General Conference of New Brunswick (1900), 53; “Bishop’s Opening Address,” Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Synod of the Diocese of Montreal (1900), 30; “Opening Address by Archbishop Robert Machray,” Report of the Synod of the Diocese of Rupert’s Land (1900), 16; “Bishop Cyprian Pinkham’s Address,” Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the Synod of the Diocese of Calgary (1900), 19; “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of the Fifth Session of the Synod of the Diocese of Ottawa (1900), 38. 74 Miller, Painting the Map Red, 4. 75 James, Rise and Fall, 205. 76 Parkin, Imperial Federation, 1. 77 This sentiment is expressed in the poem “Men of the Northern Zone,” published in the Presbyterian Record, 5 May 1900, 139. Oh, we are the men of the Northern Zone; Shall a bit be placed in our mouth? If ever a Northman lost his throne Did the conqueror come from the South? Nay, nay – and the answer blent In chorus is southward sent; “Since when has a Southerner’s conquering steel Hewed out in the North a throne? Since when has a Southerner placed his heel On the men of the Northern Zone?” For comments on this aspect of imperial sentiment, see Berger, “Canadian Nationalism,” 220–8, and Page, The Boer War, 6–7. 78 Marvin Dana, “Song of the Saxon,” Onward, 16 February 1900, 46 (reprinted from Black and White). 79 “An Arrested Civilization,” Onward, 17 February 1900, 53. 80 “The Boer Character,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 97. 81 “Truth about the Boers,” Onward, 29 March 1900, 95 (reprinted from Toronto Globe and London Daily Mail). 82 James Barnes, “At Modder River,” Canadian Baptist, 8 February 1900, 94. 83 “Home Life among the Boers,” Canadian Baptist, 22 March 1900, 186 (reprinted from Congregationalist). See also “An English Girl in South Africa,”

160

84 85 86

87 88 89 90 91

92

93

Notes to pages 37–8

Canadian Baptist, 29 March 1900, 199; “Sketches of Boer Life: By One Who Has Lived among Them,” Religious Intelligencer, 26 March 1902, 1. Canadian Baptist, 8 February 1900, 88. “Boer Women in War Time,” Westminster, 5 May 1900, 502. Ibid. The involvement of Boer women at the front was something that the British had a difficult time understanding and accepting. See also “South African Women,” Dominion Presbyterian, 17 May 1900, 316 (reprinted from Collier’s Weekly). Dominion Presbyterian, 28 June 1900, 403. “Boer Atrocities,” Onward, 16 December 1899, 405. Julian Ralph, “Treachery and Cruelty of the Boers,” Onward, 9 June 1900, 178. “Condemned by Boer Evidence,” Canadian Baptist, 20 February 1902, 16. In an article entitled “The Boers and the Bible” the Boers’ literal interpretation of the Bible was criticized, their belief that the Bible was written in Dutch was mocked, their belief that the Old Testament promises and threats applied to them was condemned, and their worship was claimed to be directed to a “purely tribal God” (Onward, 7 April 1900, 106). Kruger’s misuse of scripture was detailed. “Kruger’s Misquotations of Scripture,” Religious Intelligencer, 6 December 1899, 6. Elsewhere it was claimed that the “distorted judgement” of the Boers (with regard to their reading of the Bible) was caused by their “ignorance and aggravated by [their] zeal;” see B.A. Sherwood, “War – And Some Lessons,” Religious Intelligencer, 21 February 1900, 4. The Presbyterian Witness published an article which said that the Boers were an “enigma” to the outside observer, and their beliefs were “imbued with the spirit of the Old Testament”; that many Boers had a “very low standard of morality,” their ideas of God were “crude,” and they were “cruel” to their animals; see “The Boer’s Religion,” Presbyterian Witness, 15 March 1902, 86 (reprinted from Christian Leader), and “Boer Piety,” Presbyterian Witness, 24 February 1900, 60. The Boer mistreatment of the “natives” led one author to refer to the Boers’ piety as “so-called” piety (“The Curse of Slavery,” Onward, 16 March 1901, 84). The Canadian Churchman printed an article that was critical of the supposed godly character of the Boers (“The War and the Native Races,” Canadian Churchman, 26 April 1900, 260). “Taking them on the whole, their religion, their piety, is a farce. They interpret the scriptures to meet their own purposes, and their prayers are that God will bless them and slay the — Englishmen.” Moreover, they treated the “natives” worse than a “dog,” and the war was justified because they should “fall” (“Boer Piety,” Onward, 12 May 1900, 151). For comments on the idea of a good Christian soldier, see Anderson, “Growth of Christian Militarism,” 48–9.

Notes to pages 38–43 94 95 96 97

98

99 100 101

102 103 104 105 106 107 108

109 110 111 112

161

“The Soldier and the Gospel,” Canadian Churchman, 29 March 1900, 195. J. W. Weeks, “Soldiership,” Canadian Baptist, 25 January 1900, 662–3. Rev. M.F. Crewdon, “A Chaplain’s Testimony,” Onward, 5 May 1900, 139. These images of the Boers’ conduct in the war did not seem to last long after the war, for the unprecedented horrors of the First World War made the Boer conflict seem like a small, noble, heroic, “gentleman’s war”: “With few exceptions Britain and Boer fought cleanly … As wars go, the war in South Africa was probably the most humane ever fought. We did not contrive at brutality as all beligerants did during the World War” (Fuller, The Last of the Gentleman’s Wars, 5–6). Miller notes that some Canadians considered the farm burning similiar to the English devastation of Scotland or the expulsion of the Acadians in the eighteenth century. The farmers in the army, who knew what such destruction meant for a rural family, also struggled with this response to the Boer tactics; see Miller, Painting the Map Red, 277–9. Evans, “Farm Burning,” 94. Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War, 397. There were more than 115,000 “natives” in camps by the end of the war. At least 14,154 died in the camps, over 80 percent of these deaths being children (Hall, Handbook of the Anglo-Boer War, 217). “Incidentally, it went barely noticed at the time [in the secular press] that at least as many blacks also died in their own segregated and even more poorly equiped and managed concentration camps” (Judd and Surridge, The Boer War, 196). Criticisms of the British actions are still being published. For a contemporary example, see Coetzer, Fire in the Sky. “South Africa,” Westminster, 20 October 1900, 461. “Barn-Burning in War,” Westminster, 29 December 1900, 878. “The Finish in South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 19 September 1900, 593. “Boer and Briton,” Christian Guardian, 5 December 1900, 777. “South African Affairs,” Christian Guardian, 19 October 1900, 809. See “Foreign Hostility,” Canadian Churchman, 20 February 1902, 117–18; “The Responsibilities of Empire,” Canadian Churchman 6 March 1902, 149; “Declaration of Peace,” Canadian Churchman, 12 June 1902, 372. Journal of the Incorporated Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Toronto (10–13 June 1902), 65. “The Refugee Camps,” Canadian Baptist, 8 August 1901, 511 (reprinted from Christian World). “The Refugee Camps,” Canadian Baptist, 29 August 1901, 554. “British Victims of the War,” Canadian Baptist, 19 September 1901, 603 (reprinted from Christian World).

162

Notes to pages 43–6

113 “How Well Are They Treated?” Religious Intelligencer, 27 November 1901, 2. 114 “Cannot Meddle,” Canadian Baptist, 24 October 1901, 688 (reprinted from New York Weekly Post). 115 “South Africa,” Westminster, 9 March 1901, 292. 116 “South Africa,” Westminster, 20 July 1901, 77. 117 Ibid. 118 Ibid. 119 “The French, Austrian, Dutch, and Scandinavian press accused Britain of waging a war of extermination. In the Transvaal itself the representatives of a number of countries, even Turkey (recently involved in massacring Armenians), protested the continuance of the camps. In the United States there was such a groundswell of indignation that the camps became an embarrassment to the American goverment” (Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War, 416). See also “John Morley on the War,” Westminster, 9 November 1901, 556. 120 Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War, 408. 121 “The Concentration Camps,” Westminster, 21 December 1901, 764. 122 “South Africa,” Westminster, 11 January 1902, 52. 123 “South Africa,” Westminster, 1 March 1902, 243. 124 Rev. R.L. Rogers, “A Visit to the Boer Concentration Camps,” Presbyterian Record, February 1902, 68–9 (reprinted from Mission World). 125 In fact, it was lamented that British refugees did not get the same quality of care that the Boers did. 126 “Britain Vindicated,” Pleasant Hours, 21 June 1902, 100 (reprinted from Christian Advocate). Onward reprinted the same article from the Christian Advocate; see Bishop Hartzell, “The Boer Concentration Camps,” Onward, 24 May 1902, 163. See also “Boer Slander Refuted,” Onward, 24 May 1902, 164. 127 “The Concentration Camps,” Christian Guardian, 18 December 1901, 809. 128 “Is This Barbarism?” Wesleyan, 4 December 1901, 1; “The Concentration Camps,” Wesleyan, 22 January 1902, 1; Rev. F.J. Williams, “The Concentration Camps: The Truth about Their Condition,” Wesleyan, 5 February 1902, 1; “Brighter Prospects,” Methodist Magazine and Review, February 1902, 186–7; Rev. Edward P. Lowry, “‘Stop the War’ Slanders,” Onward, 23 March 1901, 92–3; “Is This Barbarism?” Onward, 4 January 1902, 6 (reprinted from Wesleyan); “British Clemency,” Onward, 7 September 1901, 285 (reprinted from Canadian-American); “A Boer Women in a Concentration Camp,” Onward, 15 February 1902, 56. 129 “More Defamation,” Methodist Magazine and Review, January 1902, 86–7; “A Campaign of Lies,” Methodist Magazine and Review, November 1901, 466.

Notes to pages 46–7

163

130 “Two Camps Contrasted,” Onward, 7 September 1901, 285; “British Clemency,” Onward, 9 November 1901, 354; “A Boer Concentration Camp,” Onward, 30 November 1901, 384; “British Beneficence,” Onward, 28 December 1901, 424 (reprinted from Globe); “British Protection of Boers,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1901, 478. 131 The “Gospel revenge” was the application of Jesus’ instruction, “If thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst, give him drink.” See “Feeding Her Foes,” Onward, 29 March 1902, 104. 132 One such picture was published in the Methodist Magazine and Review, Pleasant Hours, and Onward. The illustration was of a band playing in a camp surrounded by well-dressed and happy Boer women and children. The caption read, “This illustration is a curious commentary on the wild statements made by pro-Boers about the treatment of Boer women and children in camps – especially of the odious caricatures of the German press.” In both cases there was no mention of the origin of the illustration. See Methodist Magazine and Review, February 1902, 186; Pleasant Hours, 12 April 1902, 60; and Onward, 15 February 1902, 56. Onward printed a cartoon from the British magazine Punch that portrayed a person painting John Bull as a knife-wielding butcher. John Bull, who was watching the person paint him, said that he was not like that and the person’s glasses must be off (Onward, 7 June 1902, 184). 133 Farwell, The Great Anglo-Boer War, 420. 134 “The British Clemency,” Onward, 18 January 1902, 21 (reprinted from Independent); J.B. Mattison, “The Boers in Bermuda,” Onward, 31 May 1902, 176 (reprinted from Era Magazine). 135 “South Africa,” Westminster, 25 May 1901, 624–5. 136 “South Africa,” Westminster, 15 February 1902, 194. See also “John Morley on the War,” Westminster, 9 November 1901, 556–7; “The Boer Prisoners,” Westminster, 18 January 1902, 77; “Boer Prisoners,” Presbyterian Witness, 21 January 1901, 28. 137 “Ottawa Diocesan Synod News,” Canadian Churchman, 19 June 1902, 391; Journal of the Seventh Session of the Synod of the Diocese of Ottawa (2–5 June 1902), 22; “Diocesan Notes,” Letter Leaflet (July 1902), 294; “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of Proceedings of the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario (17–19 June 1902), 24–5; “The Bishop’s Address,” Yearbook of the Diocese of Nova Scotia (1901–02), 90–2; “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of the Thirty Fourth Session of the Diocesan Synod of Fredericton (1902), 31; “Bishop’s Address,” Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the Synod of the Diocese of Calgary (30–31 July 1902), 11–12; “Loyal Addresses,” Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1902), 551.

164

Notes to pages 47–51

138 Canadian Baptist, 5 June 1902, 1. 139 “The End of the War,” Canadian Baptist, 5 June 1902, 8. For more comments on the end of the war, see “The Boer War,” Canadian Baptist, 12 June 1902, 16; Canadian Baptist, 12 June 1902, 1. 140 “What Is Said of the Peace,” Onward, 21 June 1902, 196. For other commentaries on the terms of peace, see “The Terms of Peace,” Religious Intelligencer, 11 June 1902, 1; “Declaration of Peace,” Canadian Churchman, 12 June 1902, 372; “The Terms of Surrender,” Presbyterian Witness, 7 June 1902, 180; “Peace in South Africa,” Queen’s Quarterly, July 1902, 119–22. 141 “Peace,” Onward, 21 June 1902, 196. The Canadian Churchman said the same thing: “The termination of this unhappy war will bring, not only relief, but lasting benefits to the loyalists of South Africa, for the maintenance of whose rights the war was chiefly waged, to the Kaffirs and black races of Africa at large, and though last, not least, to our brave but misguided foe, who under British sovereignty will enjoy greater liberty, and make greater progress commercially and otherwise than was possible under the antiquated and unprogressive policy and methods of the late Dutch Republics” (“Declaration of Peace,” Canadian Churchman, 12 June 1902, 372). 142 “The Future of South Africa,” Onward, 28 June 1902, 202 (reprinted from Independent). The Christian Guardian expressed the same hope for a united people: “The Boers are now British subjects, and should be welcomed as such, and treated with kindness, justice, and generousity” (“The Peace of Pretoria,” Christian Guardian, 4 June 1902, 353). 143 “The Press on Peace,” Onward, 5 July 1902, 209 (reprinted from Montreal Witness). 144 The Christian Guardian used language that foreshadowed the postwar optimism in 1918: “It will be interesting to our readers to know the general outlook for international peace. It is brighter now than at any time in the previous history of the world” (“The Outlook in the War against War,” Christian Guardian, 11 June 1902, 369).

chapter three 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Airhart, “Ordering a New Nation,” 99. Wright, “Canadian Protestant Tradition,” 143. Careless, Canada, 301. “Canada in the Twentieth Century,” Westminster, 5 January 1901, 8. “Canada Our Heritage,” Christian Guardian, 14 August 1901, 520. “Dominion Day,” Canadian Epworth Era, July 1900, 209. Grant, The Church in the Canadian Era, 91.

Notes to pages 52–5

165

8 “Canadian Patriotism,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 126 (reprinted from London Times). 9 “Canada in World Politics,” Westminster, 7 April 1900, 380–1. The Canadian Baptist echoed this sentiment when it concluded that the “part taken by Canada in the war has certainly made a new and proud name for Canadians” (22 March 1900, 177). 10 H. Isabel Graham, “To Canada and Her Contingents,” Dominion Presbyterian, 15 February 1900, 109. 11 Berger, The Sense of Power, 19. George Stanley makes a similar argument when he writes that Canada’s participation in the war was a “step towards independence and self-respect and the recognition of Canadian nationality by the world at large” (Stanley, Canada’s Soldiers, 289). 12 “Albert E.S. Smythe, “Lift Up Your Banners, Canada,” Onward, 29 June 1901, 207. 13 Rev. Armstrong Black, “A Nation Born in a Day,” Onward, 10 November 1900, 358. 14 “Our Canadian Future,” Westminster, 23 June 1900, 723. For similar sentiment published elsewhere, see Rev. W.M. Mackeracher, “Dominion Day,” Onward, 29 June 1901, 203 (reprinted from Westminster). 15 Canadian Epworth Era, December 1899, 369. 16 “Patriotism and Home Missions,” Canadian Baptist, 21 June 1900, 388. 17 “Editorial,” Christian Guardian, 21 March 1900, 177. A few months later, in his address as the official representative of Canadian Methodism to the British Methodist Churches, Rev. A. Carman made it clear that conquest alone was a deficient form of patriotism as well as an insufficient basis for imperial unity: “It is not red-handed Imperialism, not conquest, but eternal justice, humanity, patriotism, and Christian civilisation that shall bind and hold us together” (“Official Representative of Canadian Methodism to the British Methodist Churches,” Wesleyan, 29 August 1900, 8). 18 “Canada’s Day,” Christian Guardian, 3 July 1900, 417. 19 “Our Canadian Future,” Westminster, 23 June 1900, 723–4. 20 Berger, The Sense of Power, 233. 21 Ibid., 234. 22 Ibid., 253. 23 As quoted in ibid., 239. 24 Ibid., 249–51. 25 “Lest We Forget,” Canadian Baptist, 4 July 1901; “Good from the War,” Christian Guardian, 2 January 1901, 9. 26 “Militarism, Force,” Christian Guardian, 31 July 1901, 481. 27 Airhart, “Ordering a New Nation,” 99–101.

166

Notes to pages 57–60

28 Airhart’s expression (ibid., 101). 29 “The Canadian Contingent,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. 30 “Parliament and the Canadian Contingents,” Westminster, 23 December 1899, 728; “The Return of the Volunteers,” Westminster, 3 November 1900, 517. 31 “Call Parliament First,” Christian Guardian, 8 November 1899, 713. 32 Ibid. 33 “A Second Canadian Contingent,” Christian Guardian, 20 December 1899, 809. 34 Canadian Baptist, 8 March 1900, 160. 35 Ibid. 36 “Peace at Last,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 196. 37 “Celebrating,” Presbyterian Witness, 9 June 1900, 180. 38 “Tin Pan Patriotism,” Canadian Epworth Era, July 1900, 208. 39 “Farewell to the Soldier Boys,” Christian Guardian, 1 November 1899, 594 (reprinted from New Crusade); Dominion Presbyterian, 7 June 1900, 358. 40 “Trinity Men in South Africa,” Trinity University Review, February 1900, 21; Vox Wesleyana, February 1900, 73. For a discussion of students and empire, see Heath, “Citizens of That Mighty Empire.” 41 “Books for South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 20 March 1900, 177. 42 “Church Notes,” Parish and Home, November 1899, 1. 43 Eliza Wills, “Canada’s Heroes,” Onward, 12 May 1900, 148; “Canada’s Brave Dead,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 99; Clive Phillipps-Wolley, “In Memory of Our Dead,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 102 (reprinted from Toronto Globe); Glengarry, “Our Dead,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 103; Letitia M’Cord, “Our First Dead,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 103; Adaline Johnson, “The Solder’s Death,” Onward, 14 April 1900, 115 (reprinted from Montreal Witness); “The Memory of the Dead,” Onward, 14 April 1900, 119; Rev. W.J. Hunter, “Canada, Well Done!” Onward, 21 April 1900, 122; Austin Dobson, “O Distinguished Dead,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 128. 44 H. Isagel Graham, “The Dying Soldier to His Mother,” Dominion Presbyterian, 14 June 1900, 388. 45 “A Charlottetown Boy Killed in South Africa,” Wesleyan, 14 March 1900, 4; “A Brave Christian Soldier,” Wesleyan, 18 April 1900, 4. 46 “For His Country,” Religious Intelligencer, 18 September 1901, 4. 47 Calgary Diocesan Magazine, February 1900, 14. 48 “Huron Diocese News,” Canadian Churchman, 1 March 1900, 135. 49 “A Permanent Memorial to Our Soldiers,” Wesleyan, 10 October 1900, 1; “A Monument to Nova Scotia’s Heroes,” Wesleyan, 2 January 1901, 1; Quebec Diocesan Gazette, November 1901, 1; “Montreal Diocese News,” Canadian Churchman, 26 December 1901, 807.

Notes to pages 60–5

167

50 Grant, A Profusion of Spires, 235. 51 Clarke, “Religion and Public Space,” 83. 52 See “Ontario,” Letter Leaflet, January 1900, 97; “Prayer Topic,” W. B. M. U. Tidings, February 1901, 1; “Patriotism at the Conference,” Onward, 4 August 1900, 244; “Soldiers of the Queen,” Wesleyan, 17 October 1900, 3. 53 “Great Sunday School Meeting in St. James’ Church on New Year’s Day,” Wesleyan, 10 January 1900, 4. 54 “Ministers and Churches,” Dominion Presbyterian, 1 March 1900, 138. 55 “Ministers and Churches,” Dominion Presbyterian, 31 May 1900, 362. 56 Much of the following description comes from Miller, Painting the Map Red, 62. 57 “The First Imperial Church Parade in Canada,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, December 1899, 160–1. The service had been led by the dean of Quebec’s Anglican cathedral along with nine other local Anglican clergy. See Miller, Painting the Map Red, 62. 58 Canadian Churchman, 8 March 1900, 151. 59 “Fredericton,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 678. 60 “The City and the Empire,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 660; “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 659. 61 “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 659. 62 Evangelical Churchman, 2 November 1899, 703. The Canadian Churchman also reported on this service; see “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 2 November 1899, 659. 63 “Commendatory Sermon for the Special Service Force,” Evangelical Churchman, 9 November 1899, 719. 64 “The Churches and the Contingent,” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 4. 65 “Soldier and Country,” Christian Guardian, 31 January 1900, 65. 66 “Prayers for Use during the War,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, November 1899, 142. 67 Hollingworth Tully Kingdon, “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of the Thirty-Second Session of the Diocesan Synod of Fredericton (1900), 39. 68 “Toronto Diocese Report,” Canadian Churchman, 11 January 1900, 25. The most recent history of the church is Benn, The Parish and Cathedral of St. James. 69 Some of the following material is in Heath, “Sin in the Camp.” 70 C.H. Andras, “The Unification of Christendom,” Calgary Diocesan Magazine, December 1899, 2–3. 71 Mrs Manley, “The War,” Canadian Churchman, 8 February 1900, 92. 72 This was recorded in the parish paper Church Record (quoted in Reeve, Every Good Gift, 36).

168

Notes to pages 65–8

73 Rev. Canon Newbolt, “Endurance: A Message from the War,” Canadian Churchman, 1 January 1900, 38. 74 Ibid. 75 “God rules in this kingdom; God rules in this world; and the sooner we own it the better it will be for us. The same spirit which has cast away the due observance of Sunday, the same spirit which has tried to drive God out of our schools, the same spirit which has been ashamed to put forward the claims of Christ in our dependencies, and has starved missions, and has allowed us to forget as a nation the Lord God of Hosts. This war will bring with it a blessing in disguise; if it leads us into the new century more chastened, more elevated, more religious, as we acclaim God once more to be our King” (ibid.). 76 A.A.T., “A Hymn in Time of War,” Canadian Churchman, 1 February 1900, 75. This hymn had the caption at the beginning: “Approved by the Bishop of Ely.” 77 “A Day of Humiliation,” Canadian Churchman, 25 January 1900, 53. In the same issue, the British nation was considered to be less guilty than other parties in the war (“Further Lessons from the War,” Canadian Churchman, 25 January 1900, 51). 78 “Day of Humble Supplication,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, February 1900, 16. 79 The letter to the archbishop was signed by the bishops of Fredericton, Ottawa, Quebec, Algoma, Montreal, Huron, Toronto, and Niagara (“Ottawa,” Canadian Churchman, 1 February 1900, 73). 80 “Our Day of Supplication,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, March 1900, 40. The bishop of the Synod of Fredericton also noted how amazing it was that the day was on the same day in Britain and Canada; see Hollingworth Tully Kingdon, “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of the Thirty-Second Session of the Diocesan Synod of Fredericton (1900), 39. The “Opening Address” in Journal of the Incorporated Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Toronto (1900) would seem to indicate, however, that the English archbishop’s decision was known in advance of the date being decided upon in Canada; see “Opening Address,” Journal of the Incorporated Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Toronto (1900), 47. 81 “The Churches,” Globe (Toronto), 10 February 1900, 17. 82 “Day of Humble Supplication,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, February 1900, 16–18. 83 Rev. Canon Newbolt, “The Fruits of War,” Canadian Churchman, 15 March 1900, 167. 84 “Our Day of Supplication,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, March 1900, 40. 85 “The Day of Humiliation,” Canadian Churchman, 22 February 1900, 115. The Toronto Globe also summarized the services of various Anglican services in Toronto; see “The Nation’s War: Services of Supplication in the Anglican Churches,” Globe, 12 February 1900, 8.

Notes to pages 68–74

169

86 “Septuagesima Sunday,” Canadian Churchman, 22 March 1900, 179; “Our Day of Supplication,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, March 1900, 40–1. 87 “Our Day of Supplication,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, March 1900, 41. 88 Hollingworth Tully Kingdon, “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of the Thirty-Second Session of the Diocesan Synod of Fredericton (1900), 39. 89 Hollingworth Tully Kingdon, “Bishop’s Address,” Journal of the Thirty-Fourth Session of the Diocesan Synod of Fredericton (1902), 32. 90 “Thanksgiving for Victory,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, March 1900, 41. 91 Gauvreau, “Protestantism Transformed,” 87. 92 “An Appeal to Caesar,” Wesleyan, 14 March 1900, 4. The Wesleyan had complained much earlier about the exclusion of the Methodists from church parades; see “Editor’s Chair,” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 5. 93 “An Appeal to Caesar,” Wesleyan, 14 March 1900, 4. 94 Ibid. 95 “We are making history and establishing precedents, and every loyal Methodist should demand that our Church receive full rights, justice and recognition” (“Letter to Editor,” Wesleyan, 28 March 1900, 5). Those concerned with precedence were right in their assumption that the war was a precedentsetting one; see Morton, A Military History of Canada, 117–18. 96 Free Baptist Banner, February 1901, 27. 97 “Editorial Notes,” Messenger and Visitor, 7 August 1901, 4. 98 “Clerical Precedence,” Messenger and Visitor, 9 October 1901, 1. 99 “Order of Precedence,” Canadian Baptist Yearbook (1902), 17. 100 Rev. Dr. John Potts, “Denominational Equality,” Wesleyan, 20 November 1901, 1. 101 “An Open Letter,” Wesleyan, 6 November 1901, 1. 102 Shaw was careful to note that he was not referring to the privileges guaranteed to the Roman Catholic Church in the Treaty of Paris, 1763. 103 “Civil Rights and Privileges,” Journal of the Methodist General Conference, 1902, 316–17. 104 “Liquor for Our Volunteers,” Presbyterian Witness, 14 April 1900, 116; “The Worst Gift to the Contingent,” Wesleyan, 11 April 1900, 1; “The Worst Gift to the Contingent,” Onward, 12 May 1900, 146. 105 “The First Contingent Coming Home,” Wesleyan, 3 October 1900, 1; “How Shall We Welcome Our Heroes?” Wesleyan, 17 October 1900, 1. 106 Miller, Painting the Map Red, 145. 107 Ibid., 145–6. 108 “Reprehensible Features of That Welcome,” Presbyterian Witness, 17 November 1900, 364. 109 Ibid.

170

Notes to pages 74–6

110 Presbyterian Witness, 24 November 1900, 372. 111 “Appeal by Lord Roberts,” Presbyterian Witness, 24 November 1900, 374. The Canadian Churchman also commented on the reception of some of the troops in London, Ontario. It did not specifically mention alcohol but did note that the “excess of the rejoicing almost destroyed the welcome” (“The Return of the Contingents,” Canadian Churchman, 8 November 1900, 675). 112 “The Returning Troops,” Wesleyan, 12 December 1900, 1. 113 V.M.I., “The Army Canteen,” Onward, 23 November 1901, 374. 114 Crerar, Padres in No Man’s Land. 115 Ibid., 4–5, 14–16. 116 Ibid., 13. 117 For example, see “A Chaplain’s Testimony,” Onward, 5 May 1900, 139; “In Ladysmith,” Onward, 12 May 1900, 147; “Majuba Day,” Onward, 12 May 1900, 14; “Methodism and the War,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 195 (reprinted from Methodist Recorder); W.G. Lane, “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 12 January 1901, 11 (reprinted from Toronto Globe). 118 “Editorial Notes,” Wesleyan, 10 January 1900, 1; “The Methodist Chaplain,” Wesleyan, 10 January 1900, 4; “A Send-Off for Chaplain Lane,” Wesleyan, 17 January 1900, 5; “A Methodist Chaplain Appointed,” Christian Guardian, 10 January 1900, 25. 119 See W.G. Lane, “Letter from Chaplain Lane,” Wesleyan, 2 May 1900, 4; W.G. Lane, “Letter from Chaplain Lane,” Wesleyan, 6 June 1900, 4; “Letter from Chaplain Lane,” Wesleyan, 11 July 1900, 4; “Letters from Wm. G. Lane,” Wesleyan, 11 July 1900, 5; “Written under Difficulty,” Christian Guardian, 8 August 1900, 505; W.G. Lane, “A Letter from Chaplain Lane,” Christian Guardian, 8 August 1900, 505; “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 12 January 1901, 11. The Ontario-based Onward published chaplain letters mainly from British Methodists, whereas the Christian Guardian managed to be able to publish a few of Lane’s letters. Onward did reprint one of Lane’s letters that had been published in the Toronto Globe. 120 “Chaplain’s Lecture on South Africa,” Christian Guardian, 19 December 1900, 1. 121 “Anglican Chaplain for the First Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 25 January 1900, 59. 122 Radical, “Utter Lack of Foresight,” Canadian Churchman, 15 February 1900, 107. The author, “Radical,” was upset that the Presbyterian, Methodist, Salvation Army, and Roman Catholics were so willing to pay for their chaplains, while the Anglican Church had to beg for money from its members. It seems that “Radical” had not read the urgent appeals for money in the Methodist press.

Notes to pages 76–9

171

123 “The Methodist Chaplain,” Wesleyan, 10 January 1900, 4; “The Chaplain’s Fund,” Wesleyan, 24 January 1900, 5; “Chaplain’s Fund,” Wesleyan, 7 February 1900, 5. 124 “The Chaplaincy Fund,” Christian Guardian, 11 April 1900, 225. 125 Anglicanus, “Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 23 November 1899, 715. For other details of the behind-the-scenes attempts of the church to change the government’s mind, see C.F.L., “A Suggestion to ‘Radical,’” Canadian Churchman, 1 March 1900, 138. 126 Evangelical Churchman, 9 November 1899, 713. 127 Ibid. For similar explanations of why the government changed its mind, see “An Anglican Chaplain for the Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 675; C. Fessenden, “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 683; Anglicanus, “Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 23 November 1899, 715; Algoma Missionary News, 2 November 1899, 1. 128 Evangelical Churchman, 26 October 1899, 682; Evangelical Churchman, 9 November 1899, 713; C. Fessenden, “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 683. 129 “An Anglican Chaplain for the Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 675. 130 “A Government Jumble,” Canadian Churchman, 30 November 1899, 723. 131 Evangelical Churchman, 9 November 1899, 713. 132 Crerar, Padres in No Man’s Land, 19. 133 C. Fessenden, “The Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 683; Anglicanus, “Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 23 November 1899, 715; Clementine Fessenden, “That Canadian Contingent,” Canadian Churchman, 30 November 1899, 731; Radical, “Utter Lack of Foresight,” Canadian Churchman, 15 February 1900, 107; C.F.L., “A Suggestion to ‘Radical,’” Canadian Churchman, 1 March 1900, 138; “Army Chaplains,” Canadian Churchman, 12 June 1902, 372. 134 “A Methodist Chaplain,” Christian Guardian, 3 January 1900, 9. 135 Crerar, Padres in No Man’s Land, 13. 136 On the other hand, the Anglicans argued that only Anglican chaplains could minister to Anglican soldiers; see “A Government Jumble,” Canadian Churchman, 30 November 1899, 723. 137 “The Chaplaincy of the Contingents,” Christian Guardian, 14 February 1900, 97. 138 Ibid. 139 Crerar, Padres in No Man’s Land, 19. 140 Ibid.

172

Notes to pages 79–83

141 Ibid. 142 “The Chaplaincy of the Contingents,” Christian Guardian, 14 February 1900, 97. 143 As quoted in Crerar, Padres in No Man’s Land, 23. 144 Crerar argues that improvisation marked the selection of Canadian chaplains from the 1860s to the First World War (Padres in No Man’s Land, 4). 145 Crerar notes that after 1900 the chaplain’s office was “here to stay” (Padres in No Man’s Land, 22). 146 Ibid. 147 Unless noted otherwise, the following on the Patriotic Fund comes from Miller, Painting the Map Red, 429–32. 148 “Ministers and Churches,” Dominion Presbyterian, 1 March 1900, 138. 149 One person sent a letter to the editor of the Westminster with some critical questions regarding the way in which money was to be raised and dispersed. The writer, however, made it clear that despite his questions he had “every sympathy” with “Imperialism”; see “A Volunteer of 1886, “The National Patriotic Fund: A Volunteer’s Questions,” Westminster, 3 February 1900, 136. 150 “Civic Patriotism: A Prayer Meeting Incident,” Religious Intelligencer, 17 January 1900, 1. 151 “Patriotic Funds,” Religious Intelligencer, 7 March 1900, 4. 152 “Assistance for the War Sufferers,” Canadian Churchman, 4 January 1900, 3. 153 By 1 March 1900, the Toronto churches had collected $332.17; see Canadian Churchman, 1 March 1900, 135. For a later update, see Canadian Churchman, 8 March 1900, 151. 154 “Canadian Patriotic Fund,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, March 1900, 41–2. 155 “Canadian Patriotic Fund,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, April 1900, 52. 156 “The Rev. H. Gomery’s Work for the s.p.c.k.,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, February 1900, 19. 157 “The War in South Africa,” Journal of the Incorporated Synod of the Church of England in the Diocese of Toronto (12–15 June 1900), 47. 158 Ibid., 115. 159 Morton, A Military History of Canada, 70. 160 Miller, Painting the Map Red, 16. 161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 The range of opposition within the press, however, went from outright condemnation to mild censure. For example, the Canadian Churchman claimed that Smith’s remarks were “entirely unsupported by facts or reason” (“Professor Goldwin Smith,” Canadian Churchman, 3 May 1900, 276). In a more balanced view, the Westminster argued that what Smith had to say about

Notes to pages 83–5

164

165

166 167 168 169

170 171 172

173 174 175

176 177

173

the war was “well worth the attention,” but it would disagree with him in his “anti-British view of the war” (“Mr. Goldwin Smith on the War,” Westminster, 28 April 1900, 473). Other criticisms included Canadian Baptist, 26 April 1900, 1. Apparently not all Baptists were opposed to Smith’s message, for he delivered an address before the Young Men’s Class of the Beverley Street Baptist Church; see Goldwin Smith, “War,” Canadian Baptist, 12 December 1901, 5. See also Brown, “Goldwin Smith and Anti-Imperialism,” 93–105. “Mr. Tarte in Paris,” Canadian Churchman, 26 April 1900, 259; “Anti-British,” Religious Intelligencer, 30 October 1901, 4; “Mr. Bourassa’s Lost Opportunity,” Westminster, 15 September 1900, 317. For example, see “The London Times on Laurier’s Great Speech,” Onward, 7 April 1900, 106; “The Premier’s Defense,” Christian Guardian, 14 February 1900, 104; “Canadians Complimented,” Dominion Presbyterian, 28 June 1900, 407; “Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Speech,” Westminster, 24 March 1900, 330. See also Miller, Painting the Map Red, 21. Religious Intelligencer, 31 January 1900, 4. “What a French Paper Says,” Religious Intelligencer, 4 December 1901, 1. “Carping Criticism,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 124. Miller, Painting the Map Red, 20. There is some debate over how disciplined the smaller, independent presses were. See ibid., and Beaven, “Partisanship, Patronage, and the Press,” 317–51. Parts of the following comments on the press are taken from Heath, “Forming Sound Public Opinion.” Hampton, “The Press, Patriotism, and Public Discussion.” “A Disgrace to Canada,” Presbyterian Record, November 1899, 322. This message was repeated one month later; see “A Disgrace to Canada,” Presbyterian Record, December 1899, 354. “Degeneration in Canadian Journalism,” Westminster, 7 December 1901, 673. “Criticism of Canada on the War and the Best Way to End It,” Queen’s Quarterly, January 1901, 236. “Although Liberals accused Conservatives of using the ‘race cry,’ apart from the Mail and Empire and the Hamilton Spectator, the Conservative press took care to avoid crude forms of racial rhetoric” (Miller, Painting the Map Red, 20). The following description of the riots is taken from Miller, Painting the Map Red, 443–4. “The Sovereignty of Parliament,” Messenger and Visitor, 21 March 1900, 1; “The Race Question in Canada” Westminster, 17 February 1900, 190; Pax, “A Plea for Unity amongst Canadians,” Canadian Churchman, 19 April 1900, 250; “Loyalty,” Christian Guardian, 20 February 1901, 121; “A French Canadian on the War,” Onward, 4 August 1900, 243; Canadian Baptist, 1 March

174

178 179 180 181

182 183

184

185 186 187 188 189

Notes to pages 85–8

1900, 1. In an example of editorial censorship and what would have been considered responsible journalism, the Canadian Baptist went so far as to refuse to print an article criticizing French Canadian (and Irish) loyalty. It refused to do so in order to avoid inflaming passons. See Canadian Baptist, 8 March 1900, 8. Queen’s Quarterly, April 1900, 4–5; Presbyterian Witness, 17 February 1900, 52. Presbyterian Witness, 17 February 1900, 52. Pax, “A Plea for Unity amongst Canadians,” Canadian Churchman, 19 April 1900, 250. Canadian Baptist, 8 March 1900, 1; “At Ottawa,” Messenger and Visitor, 14 March 1900, 1; Pax, “A Plea For Unity amongst Canadians,” Canadian Churchman, 19 April 1900, 250. “The Race Problem,” Messenger and Visitor, 15 May 1901, 1; “The Boers of Canada,” Westminster, 21 October 1899, 448–9. “The Boers of Canada,” Westminster, 21 October 1899, 448–9. In the Presbyterian Witness, the example of Austria was noted as a warning for anyone who would stir racial tensions: “In Austria race feeling is threatening to dissolve the Empire. In this case language and race combine to aggravate differences; and religious antipathies also exist which add to the difficulties of the situation. The lesson to us in Canada is that we should cultivate the sense of absolute fairplay, freely concede equal rights, and be tolerant of religious, political and racial peculiarities” (Presbyterian Witness, 17 February 1900, 52). Francis, National Dreams, ch. 4. Francis notes that among English Canadians at the end of the nineteenth century there was “no recognition that the French might be nursing any hard feelings about the outcome of the Battle of Quebec” (National Dreams, 95). “The Racial Problem in South Africa and in Canada,” Messenger and Visitor, 28 March 1900, 4. For another example of this alleged unity, see Canadian Baptist, 9 November 1899, 1. See Miller, Painting the Map Red, 444; Page, The Boer War, 22. Wright, “Canadian Protestant Tradition,” 143. Page asserts that the Canadian press must assume considerable responsibility for the weakening of the already fragile Canadian unity (Imperialism and Canada, 13).

chapter four 1 Gollwitzer, Europe in the Age of Imperialism. 2 Wright, ed., The ‘”New Imperialism.”

Notes to pages 88–91

175

3 Hobson, Imperialism, 23. 4 See “How the British Empire Is Governed,” Presbyterian Witness, 2 June 1900, 174. 5 Stacey argues that Quebecers’ willingness to fight for the Pope in 1868 illustrates how differently they saw the world (Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict, 7). Silver claims that there was a French Canadian imperialism, except that this imperialism saw its divine mission to be the preservation and promotion of Catholicism in North America and the world. In other words, it took on the role of France as the protector of Catholicism (Silver, “Some Quebec Attitudes,” 440–60). 6 Page and Stacey assert that in the years immediately following Confederation, English Canadians were loyal to Britain but were not at all excited about imperial ventures and imperialism in general; see Page, The Boer War, 3, and Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict, 40–4. 7 Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict, 52. 8 Berton, Marching as to War, 24. 9 Page, “Canada and the Imperial Idea,” 33. 10 See Berton, Marching as to War, 24; Francis, National Dreams, 52. 11 Page, Imperialism and Canada, 2; Page, “Canada and the Imperial Idea,” 33–49. 12 Buckner, “Whatever Happened to the British Empire?” See also Buckner, “Canada,” 234. 13 Page, Imperialism and Canada, 5, 12. 14 Ibid., 12. 15 Page, “Canada and the Imperial Idea,” 34; Miller, Painting the Map Red, 9; Berger, The Sense of Power, 9. 16 “A Great and Growing People,” Messenger and Visitor, 26 December 1900, 1; “Facts about the British Empire,” Onward, 30 June 1900, 206; Canadian Baptist, 13 June 1901, 1; “The Old Year,” Presbyterian Record, December 1901, 1; “Our Imperial Heritage” Presbyterian Witness, 29 December 1900, 412; “The Growing Tongue,” Canadian Epworth Era, April 1901, 99; Onward, 8 June 1901, 184; “Wondrous Developments of the British Empire,” Onward, 25 August 1900, 269; “Church’s Progress during the Nineteenth Century,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, January 1901, 1–2. 17 “Growth of the British Empire,” Canadian Epworth Era, December 1900, 355. 18 “More Empire Building,” Methodist Magazine and Review, September 1901, 270–1; “More Empire Building,” Onward, 12 April 1902, 115; “How the British Empire Is Governed,” Presbyterian Witness, 2 June 1900, 174; “British Rule,” Religious Intelligencer, 27 November 1901, 2. 19 “Proposes an Invasion of England,” Messenger and Visitor, 12 December 1900, 1; “Continental Hatred of Britain,” Wesleyan, 19 September 1900, 1;

176

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35 36

37

Notes to pages 91–2

“Anti-British Feeling in Germany,” Presbyterian Witness, 8 March 1902, 76; “Britain and Germany,” Messenger and Visitor, 15 January 1902, 1; “The Old Year,” Canadian Baptist, 26 December 1901, 8. “Why Are We Disliked?” Canadian Churchman, 15 March 1900, 164; Knoxonian, “Why Are We Disliked?” Westminster, 23 June 1900, 736; Knoxonian, “Why Are We Disliked?” Onward, 18 August 1900, 257 (reprinted from Westminster); “Splendid Isolation,” Presbyterian Witness, 20 January 1900, 20; Dominion Presbyterian, 24 May 1900, 223. “Foreign Hostility,” Canadian Churchman, 20 February 1902, 117–18; “English News,” Christian Guardian, 17 January 1900, 35. Captitals in the original. See Globe (Toronto), 18 December 1899, 1. Judd, Empire, 136. See also Page, The Boer War, 5, and Kennedy, Rise and Fall, 226–32. “The Canadian Contingent,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. “British or Boer,” Christian Guardian, 17 January 1900, 35 (reprinted from British Weekly). Alleyne Ireland, “The Cohesive Elements of British Imperialism,” Methodist Magazine and Review, February 1900, 183. Rev. Davis W. Clark, “The Transvaal Question in a Nutshell,” Onward, 16 December 1899, 403 (reprinted from Zion’s Herald); W.R. Quinan, “South Africa: A Cape Town View,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1900, 464–7 (abridged from Outlook); “A Cape Colony m.p. on the War,” Onward, 3 February 1900, 36 (reprinted from Montreal Star). “The World-Wide Character of the South African War,” Westminster, 3 February 1900, 126–7. “Praying for the Soldiers of the Queen,” Westminster, 13 January 1900, 1–2. “Peace Declaration,” Westminster, 7 June 1902, 693; “Neither Kruger nor Rhodes,” Westminster, 3 May 1902, 537; “Another New Year,” Presbyterian Record, January 1900, 1–2. It could be the “fulcrum” of the southern part of its empire; see “South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 22 February 1900, 116. “South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 22 February 1900, 116. “British Prestige,” Canadian Churchman, 16 January 1902, 37–8. “The War in South Africa,” Canadian Baptist, 11 January 1900, 8. Canadian Baptist, 9 August 1900, 1. “The Price of South Africa,” Canadian Baptist, 23 May 1901, 11 (reprinted from Independent); “England & America,” Canadian Baptist, 11 January 1900, 11 (reprinted from New York Observer). Rev. Charles Phillips, “Was the War Inevitable?” Canadian Baptist, 8 February 1900, 7 (reprinted from Christian Budget).

Notes to pages 92–6 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46

47

48 49 50 51 52 53

54

55 56 57 58 59

177

Miller, Painting the Map Red, 4. Page, “Intellectual Origins of Canadian Imperialist Thought,” 40. “An Empire Builder,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1902, 469. “The Great Empire-Builder,” Christian Guardian, 2 April 1902, 217. “The Cecil Rhodes Scholarships,” Messenger and Visitor, 30 April 1902, 1; “Rhodes and the Races,” Messenger and Visitor, 16 April 1902, 1 (reprinted from New York Tribune); “Cecil Rhodes’ Educational Scheme,” Messenger and Visitor, 16 April 1902, 1. “Talmage and Rhodes,” Free Baptist Banner, April 1902, 82. “Cecil Rhodes,” Messenger and Visitor, 2 April 1902, 1. “Cecil Rhodes,” Canadian Churchman, 10 April 1902, 228–9. “Death of Cecil Rhodes,” Presbyterian Witness, 29 March 1902, 101; “Cecil Rhodes,” Presbyterian Witness, 12 April 1902, 116; “Cecil Rhodes,” Presbyterian Witness, 7 June 1902, 182. “Neither Kruger nor Rhodes,” Westminster, 7 April 1900, 381 (not the same article as “Neither Kruger nor Rhodes,” Westminster, 3 May 1902, 536); “Cecil Rhodes’ Departure,” Westminster, 28 April 1900, 473; “The Submersion of Rhodes,” Westminster, 16 June 1900, 693; “The Eclipse of Rhodes,” Westminster, 29 September 1900, 366. “The Passing of Cecil Rhodes,” Westminster, 8 April 1902, 418. “Neither Kruger nor Rhodes,” Westminster, 3 May 1902, 536. “Cecil Rhodes’ Will,” Westminster, 12 April 1902, 461. “Cecil Rhodes,” Messenger and Visitor, 2 April 1902, 1. “Neither Kruger nor Rhodes,” Westminster, 7 April 1902, 381. As Carl Berger and others have noted, the imperial sentiment pulsating in English Canada and abroad was infused with religious sentiment, and “the contention that the British Empire was a providential agency, the greatest secular instrument for good in the world, was a widely held conviction among imperialists” (Berger, The Sense of Power, 217). “Our Imperial Heritage,” Presbyterian Witness, 29 December 1900, 412. Earlier that year, the Presbyterian Witness had confidently written, “If there is anything worth believing about our unmatched heritage, it is that it has been given to us by divine gift” (“God and the National Character,” Presbyterian Witness, 10 March 1900, 74). “Mission of the British Race,” Onward, 17 August 1901, 264. Rev. Armstrong Black, “Canada’s Loyalty,” Onward, 25 November 1899, 376. “Britain’s Keys of Empire,” Onward, 17 May 1902, 153. “Dr. Carman,” Christian Guardian, 10 November 1900, 357. “The Soldier and the Gospel,” Canadian Churchman, 29 March 1900, 195.

178

Notes to pages 96–8

60 “The British Empire and Its Spiritual Expansion,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, June 1900, 85. 61 “Archbishop Temple,” Canadian Church Magazine and Missionary News, December 1901, 265. 62 “Editorial Notes,” Church Missionary Gleaner, 1 July 1902, 1. 63 The Onward echoes this sentiment; see “Lord Roberts on the War,” Onward, 19 January 1901, 20. 64 “Does our sin break the covenant which the Eternal made with our fathers? No people ever sinned against God like Israel. Between the sin of Israel and the sin of England there is a similarity which arises from a sense of being in the same position” (“Ian MacLaren on God’s England,” Wesleyan, 28 March 1900, 1). For a recognition of the sins of imperialism, see also “The Building of the Empire,” Presbyterian Witness, 25 August 1900, 271 (reprinted from Bulwark); “Patriotism and Home Missions,” Canadian Baptist, 21 June 1900, 4; “Two Great Events,” Yearbook of the Diocese of Nova Scotia (1897–98), 121; “Notes: National and Imperial,” Christian Guardian, 21 March 1900, 1; Rev. J. William Butcher, “Peace by Righteousness,” Wesleyan, 14 February 1900, 1. 65 Rev. Norman Russell, “Imperialism and Missions,” Westminster, 22 September 1900, 353. 66 “Militarism, Force,” Christian Guardian, 31 July 1901, 481; “The Address of the Rev. A. Carman,” Wesleyan, 29 August 1900, 8; James Cappon, “The Policy of Imperialism,” Queen’s Quarterly, October 1899, 159; “Imperialism,” Westminster, 4 November 1899, 496. 67 “A Fruit of Christian Civilization,” Religious Intelligencer, 27 March 1901, 1; Canadian Baptist, 18 January 1900, 1. 68 “It cannot be questioned but that the colonial system of our Motherland is much better fitted than that of any other country, to advance the material prosperity as well as the higher interests of those under her sway. For other reasons, therefore, than the merely patriotic, all true men may be glad that she will have so large a part in shaping the future of the Dark continent” (Canadian Baptist, 2 January 1902, 1). See also Canadian Baptist, 12 June 1902, 1, and 11 January 1900, 8. 69 “What British Power Means,” Religious Intelligencer, 22 August 1900, 6 (reprinted from Mail and Empire). 70 “The British Empire,” Westminster, 25 January 1902, 97. 71 Ibid. 72 “Events in Other Countries,” Queen’s Quarterly, January 1900, 258. 73 “The Anglo-Saxon Mission,” Presbyterian Witness, 7 October 1899, 316. 74 “Presentation of a Sword of Honor,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, September 1901, 114–15.

Notes to pages 98–101

179

75 Evangelical Churchman, 2 November 1899, 697. 76 “The War in South Africa,” Evangelical Churchman, 26 October 1899, 683. 77 “The Philippine Islands in the Future,” Canadian Churchman, 10 May 1900, 291. 78 “Dr. Carman on Britain’s Mission,” Onward, 10 November 1900, 357. 79 Kohn, This Kindred People. 80 While his thesis that Canadian imperialism was primarily due to a need to draw close to Britain in order to thwart U.S. designs on Canada has been challenged, Penlington (Canada and Imperialism) provides a helpful description of how many Canadians viewed their neighbour south of the border. 81 Judd, Empire, 145. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 A notable exception to those in favour of an Anglo-Saxon alliance was Goldwin Smith. He was an outspoken critic of any alliance with the United States; he believed that it would unite Canada with a nation committed to aggrandizement and war; see Brown, “Goldwin Smith and Anti-Imperialism,” 94. 86 The great union of the Anglo-Saxon race was not so powerful a movement as to eliminate all tensions between the United States and Canada, for antiAmerican sentiment can be found in the denominational press throughout the war years. 87 “The Anglo-Saxon Rapprochement,” Christian Guardian, 29 November 1899, 761; “Britain’s Friends,” Onward, 23 December 1899, 410; “American Sympathy,” Onward, 10 February 1900, 46 (reprinted from Montreal Star); “Together,” Methodist Magazine and Review, February 1902, 189; Wesleyan, 3 January 1900, 1. 88 “How Britain Helped in the Philippines,” Onward, 10 February 1900, 45 (reprinted from Independent); “The Anglo-Saxon,” Onward, 14 July 1900, 218 (reprinted from Outlook); “The Circle of the Year,” Christian Guardian, 3 January 1900, 8. 89 For example, see Howard Glassford, “Does Britain or the United States Hold the Future?” Methodist Magazine and Review, July 1901, 23–7. 90 Bishop Hartzell, “Briton versus Boer,” Onward, 14 July 1900, 219. 91 Rev. Dr. Carman, “Anglo-American Unity,” Onward, 16 September 1899, 293–4. For another example of the Methodist desire for a union between the two nations, see “The Moral Unity of the English-Speaking Races,” Christian Guardian, 23 October 1901, 673, 682. 92 See chapter 1. 93 Francis, National Dreams, ch. 3.

180

Notes to pages 101–6

94 For a discussion of the war poetry in the press, see Heath, “Passion for Empire,” 127–47. See also Davies, “We Hold a Vaster Empire Than Has Been,” and Smith, “The Poetry of the War.” 95 James David C[a]rrothers, “To the Anglo-Saxon Race,” Onward, 17 August 1901, 259 (reprinted from Epworth Herald); M. Louis Swart, “A Marching Song for the Saxon,” Onward, 19 January 1901, 18; Rudyard Kipling, “A Song of the White Men,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 195 (reprinted from Friend); Rev. Joseph Pascoe, “The Anglo-Saxon Race,” Onward, 14 July 1900, 218. 96 Marvin Dana, “Song of the Saxon,” Onward, 16 February 1900, 46 (reprinted from Black and White). 97 Bishop McCabe, “Anglo-Saxon-Superiority,” Onward, 27 January 1900, 2; “Decline of the Latin Races,” Presbyterian Witness, 4 November 1899, 348. The fact that the Boers were Protestant was not lost on proponents of British superiority. The Boer religion, however, was understood to be an inferior version of Protestantism. 98 George R. Parkin asserted that a “special capacity” for political organization could, without “race vanity,” be claimed for the Anglo-Saxon people (Parkin, Imperial Federation, 1). 99 “The ‘Anglo-Saxon Mission,’” Presbyterian Witness, 7 October 1899, 316. 100 Smith, “Constructing Victoria,” 376. 101 Ibid., 319. 102 For an examination of the churches’ reaction to the death of Queen Victoria, see Heath, “Were We in the Habit of Deifying Monarchs.” 103 “Queen Victoria,” Canadian Churchman, 31 January 1901, 67. 104 “The Memorial Services,” Christian Guardian, 6 February 1901, 81. 105 “The Queen,” Messenger and Visitor, 23 January 1901, 4. 106 Rev. A. Carman, “The Empire’s Noble Queen,” Christian Guardian, 30 January 1901, 72. Immediately following this statement Carman noted that the Queen would have fought such exaltation of herself. 107 Bradley, God Save the Queen, 130. 108 This was Carman’s argument; see Rev. A. Carman, “The Empire’s Noble Queen,” Christian Guardian, 30 January 1901, 72. 109 “For English-speaking Canadians the empire engendered a fierce pride which came out in their novels and poetry, their politics and economics, their approach to education and religion. It was, in fact, the embodiment of many of the ideals of an age. It brought together in a single focus many of the elements of Victorian society in Canada” (Page, “Canada and the Imperial Idea,” 33). 110 H.H.F., “Confessional,” Westminster, 3 February 1900, 136. There were other poems published in other publications that expressed similar sentiments. For

Notes to pages 107–10

111 112 113

114 115 116

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

126

181

example, see “We Must Not Forget God,” Christian Guardian, 28 March 1900, 193. Judd, Empire, 136. See previous chapter. The Methodist Magazine and Review printed it in its entirety, and the Christian Guardian printed the outline and main points. See Rev. John Watson, “Comfort for England,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1900, 406–11; “Comfort for England,” Christian Guardian, 28 March 1900, 193; Rev. John Watson, “Comfort for England,” Messenger and Visitor, 28 March 1900, 2–3 (reprinted from British Weekly). Rev. James Barclay, “The War, Its Sorrows, Sacrifices and Rewards,” Westminster, 3 March 1900, 255. Rev. Canon Newbolt, “Endurance: A Message from the War,” Canadian Churchman, 18 January 1900, 37–9. Rev. Canon Newbolt, “The Fruits of War,” Canadian Churchman, 15 March 1900, 166–7. For a similar sentiment, see the sermon by the Rev. Rural Dean Armitage in St Paul’s Church in Halifax, n.s., at the end of the war: “Thanksgiving for Peace,” Parish and Home, July 1902, 91–2. Wright, “Canadian Protestant Tradition,” 143–5. See Miller, Painting the Map Red, ch. 3. “Monument to Kruger,” Canadian Epworth Era, March 1900, 67. “Professor Clark on South Africa,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, May 1900, 66. Democritus, “The Empire’s Message,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1900, 470 (reprinted from Manchester Chronicle). Georgiana M. de L’Aubinière, “England’s Promise,” Onward, 27 January 1900, 27. “Sons of the Empire,” Onward, 3 March 1900, 68. C.M., “The Children of the Blood,” Onward, 21 April 1900, 123. George Essex Evans, “The Federation of Australia,” Onward, 6 July 1901, 210; Rudyard Kipling, “The New Australian Commonwealth,” Onward, 6 July 1901, 210 (reprinted from London Times); “Australia,” Presbyterian Witness, 14 April 1900, 118. W. Wilfred Campbell, “The Exile Briton to His Heart – Wherever He May Be the World Over,” Onward, 29 June 1901, 203; W. Wilfred Campbell, “England’s Heroes Too,” King’s Own, 21 April 1900, 61; Conan Doyle, “Who Carries the Gun?” Westminster, 16 December 1899, 710; M.C.M., “The Canadian’s Prayer,” Presbyterian Witness, 3 November 1900, 350; I. MacLean, “The Volunteer,” Presbyterian Witness, 11 August 1900, 254; MacKenzie Bell, “True Sons of Britain,” Presbyterian Witness, 9 December 1899, 390; Rev. W.M. MacKeracher, “Dominion Day,” Westminster, 30 June 1900, 752; George

182

127 128 129 130

131

132 133 134 135 136 137

138 139

140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Notes to pages 111–15

W. Armstrong, “British Imperialism,” Dominion Presbyterian, 8 March 1900, 149. “Unionist Empire Team,” Onward, 29 June 1901, 208. “The United Empire,” Onward, 18 May 1901, 160. “Quebec,” Canadian Churchman, 9 November 1899, 678. For a few examples, see “Commendatory Sermon for the Special Service Force,” Evangelical Churchman, 9 November 1899, 719; “Patriotic Address,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, April 1900, 51–2. Rev. John Watson, “Comfort for England,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1900, 411. The same sermon was summarized in the Christian Guardian and the Messenger and Visitor; see “Comfort for England,” Christian Guardian, 28 March 1900, 193; “Comfort for England,” Messenger and Visitor, 28 March 1900, 2–3; “War and Worship,” Dominion Presbyterian, 5 April 1900, 214–15. “The Address of the Rev. A. Carman,” Wesleyan, 29 August 1900, 8. “Loyal Addresses: To the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty,” Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1900), 483. “Misc. Business,” Minutes of the Seventeenth Session of the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Conference of the Methodist Church (21–27 June 1900), 83. Morton, A Military History of Canada, 117. For further comments, see Nock, “Patriotism and Patriarchs,” 79–94. Stacey notes that the British North America Act states nothing about foreign relations, since at that time both Canada and Britain would have considered them a British concern. Even in the 1880s, Canada had no real “apparatus of self-defense” in place (Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict, 3, 11–12). Berger, The Sense of Power, 233ff. Grant had been an advocate of Imperial Federation long before the conflict in South Africa. For example, see Grant, Imperial Federation and Advantages of Imperial Federation. As quoted in Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict, 75. “Imperial Federation,” Westminster, 12 May 1900, 544. “Imperial Federation,” Westminster, 1 September 1900, 248. “Imperial Defence,” Westminster, 1 March 1901, 243. “British Politics,” Westminster, 22 March 1902, 357. “The Colonial Conference,” Messenger and Visitor, 19 March 1902, 1. “Imperial Federation: The Problem of National Unity,” Christian Guardian, 28 March 1900, 200. “Our Future,” Christian Guardian, 28 March 1900, 198. “Problems of Empire,” Christian Guardian, 28 May 1900, 345. “Readjusting the Empire,” Christian Guardian, 5 September 1900, 561. A little over a year later it expressed an openness to changing the Judicial

Notes to pages 115–20

150 151 152 153 154

155 156 157 158

183

Committee of the Privy Council if it meant that Canada would have a representative who resided in London; see “Colonial Appeals,” Christian Guardian, 25 December 1901, 825. “Imperialism Must Not Be Rushed,” Christian Guardian, 9 May 1900, 297. G., “Current Events,” Queen’s Quarterly, April 1900, 333–4; S., “Current Events,” Queen’s Quarterly, April 1900, 319–20. James Cappon, “Current Events,” Queen’s Quarterly, January 1903, 385–92. See Penlington, Canada and Imperialism. Bishop Cyprian Pinkham, “Bishop Cyprian Pinkham’s Address,” Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the Synod of the Diocese of Calgary (11–14 September 1900), 19. “This Week,” Presbyterian Witness, 6 January 1900, 5. “The Wars of the Nineteenth Century,” Presbyterian Witness, 29 December 1900, 412. “The Christian Advocate and the Boers,” Christian Guardian, 10 January 1900, 28. “End of the War,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 198 (reprinted from Globe); “The Future of South Africa,” Onward, 13 October 1900, 326 (reprinted from Independent); “The Why of the War,” Onward, 16 March 1901, 83.

chapter five 1 Also printed in the Religious Intelligencer; see “The Outlook for Missions in Africa,” Religious Intelligencer, 28 February 1900, 1. 2 Latourette, The Great Century, 1. As Brian Stanley argues, however, numbers alone would make the twentieth century an even greater century for Protestant missions (The Bible and the Flag, 83–4). 3 Stanley, The Bible and the Flag, 55. 4 The next closest Protestant missionary-sending nation was the United States. Out of those 17,245 Protestant missionaries, the United States sent 4,159. See Stanley, The Bible and the Flag, 83). 5 Thorne, Congregational Missions, 5. 6 For a helpful summary of the history of Christian missions, see Neill, A History of Christian Missions. 7 For instance, see Stanley, The Bible and the Flag, ch. 1. 8 Greenlee and Johnston, Good Citizens, ch. 3. 9 Ruth C. Brouwer notes that in the early 1880s there was some recognition among Canadian missionaries in India and East Asia that British imperial policy sometimes worked against mission work (New Women for God, 80). 10 Brouwer, New Women for God, 80.

184

Notes to pages 120–3

11 “Church’s Progress during the Nineteenth Century,” Canadian Church Magazine, January 1901, 1–2 (reprinted from London Guardian). 12 “Missions,” Canadian Churchman, 26 June 1902, 104. 13 Berger, The Sense of Power, 226. 14 “S.P.G.,” Algoma Missionary News, 1 June 1901, 41–2. 15 “The British Empire and Its Spiritual Expansion,” Quebec Diocesan Gazette, June 1900, 85–93. 16 Rev. A.C. Courtice, “The March of the Centuries,” Wesleyan, 1 August 1900, 4. 17 “King Edward VII and Foreign Missions,” Presbyterian Record, October 1901, 416 (reprinted from Chronicle, L.M.S.). 18 “s.p.g.,” Algoma Missionary News, June 1901, 42. Similar sentiments were expressed in other issues of the Algoma Missionary News: “If they [Britons] kept their eyes open and considered what was really happening, they could not possibly avoid feeling that they were called upon to undertake a task which God had been slowly laying upon their shoulders – a task which … they were reluctant to accept – the preaching of the Gospel to every creature. Why were the vast regions submitted to their influence? … Surely for a purpose. They must know and face the responsibilities of empire” (“The Bishop of London on the Extension of the Empire,” Algoma Missionary News, May 1900, 37). 19 “Archbishop Temple,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, December 1901, 265–6. 20 Stanley, The Bible and the Flag, 157. 21 Ibid., 165. 22 “It is sometimes said that the battle of the future between contending civilizations will be between the Anglo-Saxon and the Slav. Be that as it may, one thing is certain that English Christianity and English civilization stand to-day with possibilities of imperial sway and world-wide expansion, which no other country can possibly rival” (“Possibilities of Missionary Expansion in the Twentieth Century,” Parish and Home, May 1902, 67). Both Onward and the Methodist Magazine and Review printed an article entitled “More Empire Building,” an article that recounted some of the recent British acquisitions in Africa. In the article it was noted that British rule had helped to move the culture from “savagery into civilization.” In the same article it was stated that many “a noble life has been laid down in the attempts which have already been made to introduce Christianity and Christian forms of government” to the land; see “More Empire Building,” Methodist Magazine and Review, September 1901, 270–1; and “More Empire Building,” Onward, 12 April 1902, 115. For other connections made between Christianity and civilization,

Notes to pages 123–7

23 24 25 26

27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

185

see “Progress in Africa,” Presbyterian Record, October 1899, 307–8; “This Week,” Presbyterian Witness, 6 January 1900, 5; “Missions and Commerce,” Canadian Churchman, 31 May 1900, 339; Evangelical Churchman, 2 November 1899, 697; “Britain’s Mission,” Onward, 13 January 1900, 10 (reprinted from the Star); “Dr. Carman on Britain’s Mission,” Christian Guardian, 10 November 1900, 357. “Missions,” Canadian Churchman, 26 June 1902, 104. “The Presbytery and the War,” Westminster, 24 March 1900, 337. Miller, Painting the Map Red, 10. “The Gospel Conquest of Central Africa,” Dominion Presbyterian, 29 August 1900, 510; “Christianity for the World,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, February 1901, 26 (emphasis in the original). Rev. John Morrison, “Trained Soldiers Required,” Canadian Epworth Era, October 1900, 313; “Hand to Hand Combat,” Canadian Epworth Era, October 1900, 316. “Story of the Women’s Auxiliary to 1900,” Letter Leaflet, April 1900, 183. “Battle-Song of the Soldiers of God,” Presbyterian Witness, 21 July 1900, 230. “Sermon to Soldiers,” Parish and Home, March 1900, 40. See previous chapter on Empire. See “The Soldier and the Gospel,” Canadian Churchman, 29 March 1900, 195. Presbyterian Record, March 1900, 65. “For Honor,” Westminster, 24 February 1900, 217 (reprinted from London Chronicle). Rev. A. MacLean Sinclair, “A Canadian Battle Song,” Presbyterian Witness, 3 March 1900, 70. “Hymn for Our Soldiers,” Parish and Home, March 1900, 40. “Crusaders,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1902, 468. Berger, The Sense of Power, 231. Ibid., 232. See also Falardeau, “Role of the Church.” Mills, “Preach the World,” 5–38. Greenlee and Johnston, Good Citizens, 75–6. For an analysis of the Baptist response to the criticisms of missionaries that arose due to the Boxer Rebellion, see Heath, “When Missionaries Were Hated.” “The Church and the Empire,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, July 1900, 163 (reprinted from Church Bells). “Christianity for the World,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, February 1901, 26. “Bishop Moorhouse on South Africa,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, March 1900, 54. The Algoma Missionary News printed the same speech; see “The Scene of the War,” Algoma Missionary News, February 1900, 13–14.

186

Notes to pages 127–31

46 “Responsibility of the Church,” Presbyterian Record, August 1900, 228. 47 “Our Missions as Christian Patriotism,” Westminster, 5 January 1901, 28. 48 Rev. Norman Russell, “Imperialism and Missions,” Westminster, 22 September 1900, 353. 49 Stanley, The Bible and the Flag, ch. 5. 50 Greenlee and Johnston, Good Citizens, 88. 51 Heath, “When Missionaries Were Hated.” 52 “The Outlook for Missions in Africa,” Dominion Presbyterian, 1 February 1900, 78 (reprinted from Missionary Review of the World). Also reprinted as “The Outlook for Missions in Africa,” Religious Intelligencer, 28 February 1900, 1. 53 “Praying for the Soldiers of the Queen,” Westminster, 13 January 1900, 51–2. 54 Neill, A History of Christian Missions, 264. 55 Of course, there were other reasons for the tensions between the British and the Boers. For a helpful summary of these, see Judd and Surridge, The Boer War, ch. 1. 56 Dekar, Healing of the Nations, ch. 11. See also an earlier version in Dekar, “Envoys of Peace.” 57 Dekar, Healing of the Nations, 147. 58 “A Missionary View of the War,” Canadian Baptist, 18 April 1901, 12 (reprinted from Advance). 59 “War in the Transvaal,” Western Baptist, November 1899, 1. 60 “The Outlook in South Africa,” Canadian Baptist, 21 November 1901, 7; also printed in the Religious Intelligencer as “From South Africa,” 11 December 1901, 1. 61 “Sketches of Boer Life: By One Who Has Lived among Them,” Canadian Baptist, 13 March 1902, 11 (reprinted from Christian Leader) and printed again two weeks later, Canadian Baptist, 27 March 1902, 7; also printed in Religious Intelligencer, 26 March 1902, 1. 62 “Sketches of Boer Life: By One Who Has Lived Among Them,” Canadian Baptist, 13 March 1902, 11. 63 “Africa,” Canadian Missionary Link, July–August 1902, 167. 64 “Praying for the Soldiers of the Queen,” Westminster, 13 January 1900, 1. 65 “The Boers and Missions,” Presbyterian Witness, 18 August 1900, 260. 66 “The Boers and Wesleyan Mission – Their Attitude in 1880,” Onward, 3 March 1900, 66. 67 William Hudson, “The Boer, the Church, and the Native in South Africa,” Methodist Magazine and Review, August 1900, 120–4; “The Boers and the Blacks,” Onward, 27 January 1900, 27 (reprinted from Independent). 68 “Were the Boers to Triumph,” Onward, 24 March 1900, 91 (reprinted from Westminster).

Notes to pages 131–6

187

69 “Is This a Righteous War?” Methodist Magazine and Review, March 1900, 282. 70 “British, Boer and Native,” Christian Guardian, 17 January 1900, 35 (reprinted from Methodist Churchman). 71 “War and Missions,” Onward, 22 December 1900, 412. For the same article, see “War and Missions,” Methodist Magazine and Review, December 1900, 569. For similar language in the Presbyterian press, see “The Boers and Missions,” Presbyterian Witness, 18 August 1900, 260. 72 “War,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 104 (reprinted from Boy’s Brigade Budget). 73 “Missionaries, Natives and the South African Problem,” Christian Guardian, 16 May 1900, 312. 74 Livingstone, My Escape from the Boers. This example of missionary influence on the people back home has been noted by others. For instance, missionary attitudes played an important role in shaping American views of China around the same time; see McClellan, “Missionary Influences on American Attitudes toward China at the Turn of This Century.” 75 Ibid., 24–5. 76 Ibid., 32. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid., 35. 79 “Editorial Notes,” Church Missionary Gleaner, 1 July 1902, 97. 80 Parish and Home, November 1899, 134. 81 “The Scene of War – What is Our Mission?” Algoma Missionary News, February 1900, 13. 82 “s.p.g. Notes,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, February 1900, 32–4; “Native Christians in South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 16 August 1900, 484. 83 “Editorial Notes,” Canadian Baptist, 22 February 1900, 1; “American Missionaries and the African War,” Christian Guardian, 8 April 1900, 241. 84 “An Eminent Presbyterian Minister on the War,” Onward, 4 August 1900, 243. 85 “South African Wesleyans and the War,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 194 (reprinted from Methodist Recorder). 86 “Important Letter from Kimberly Ministers,” Onward, 5 May 1900, 138. 87 “Natal Methodists and the War” Onward, 28 April 1900, 134. 88 “The Missionary Outlook for Africa,” Methodist Magazine and Review, May 1900, 419–20. 89 “How Britain Protects the Blacks,” Onward, 3 February 1900, 36. 90 “Dr. Livingstone and the Boers,” Christian Guardian, 21 February 1900, 114; “Livingstone and the Boers,” Canadian Epworth Era, March 1900, 80; “Dr. Livingstone of the Boers,” Onward, 31 March 1900, 101; Rev. John Lee,

188

91

92

93 94

95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Notes to pages 136–43

“Livingstone and the Boers,” Onward, 26 May 1900, 166; Evangelical Churchman, 30 November 1899, 762; “Dr. Livingstone and the Boers,” Presbyterian Witness, 21 October 1899, 332. For instance, see “Bishop Hartzell on the War,” Onward, 28 April 1900, 135; “Britain Vindicated,” Onward, 9 June 1900, 181; “Bishop Hartzell on South Africa,” Onward, 16 June 1900, 191; “Bishop Hartzell on the War,” Onward, 23 June 1900, 199; “Rabbi Hertz and Bishop Hartzell on the Transvaal Question,” Onward, 25 August 1900, 268; “Bishop Hartzell Makes a Strong Plea for British Rule in South Africa,” Wesleyan, 27 June 1900, 1,4. “Missionaries, Natives and the South African Problem,” Christian Guardian, 16 May 1900, 312. One exception to this general rule is that of Mr Godfrey, a clergyman in Pretoria who sided with the Boers. Obviously, to the proBritish side this conduct of one of their own was an embarrassment. The Canadian Churchman printed an article to explain his behaviour; see “An Explanation,” Canadian Churchman, 27 December 1900, 803. “Churches in South Africa,” Canadian Churchman, 17 May 1900, 307–8; “Methodists and the War,” Onward, 12 May 1900, 148. “The Position in South Africa – Relief for the Distressed Clergy,” Canadian Church Magazine and Mission News, May 1900, 101–2; “The War in Africa – From a Bishop in Africa,” Algoma Missionary News, October 1900, 76–7. “Missions in South Africa,” Foreign Missionary Tidings, July–August 1900, 63–4 (reprinted from Missionary). “English News,” Christian Guardian, 4 July 1900, 419. Rev. A.P. Troughton, “Shut Up In Northern Natal,” Canadian Church Magazine and Missionary News, October 1900, 223–4 (reprinted from Mission Field). “The Boers and Missionary Property,” Onward, 28 April 1900, 134 (reprinted from Methodist Times). “The Bishop of Pretoria and the Boers,” Algoma Missionary News, January 1900, 6–7. Greenlee and Johnston, Good Citizens, 87–8. Berger, The Sense of Power, 217.

conclusion 1 “The Canadian Contingent,” Christian Guardian, 18 October 1899, 665. 2 Thomas Brown, “The South African War,” Vox Wesleyana, January 1900, 59–61.

Bibliography

primary sources Anglican journals of meetings Journal of Proceedings of the General Synod, 1902 Synod Journal of Diocese of Calgary, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1904 Synod Journal of Diocese of Athabasca, 1900, 1903 Synod Journal of Diocese of Fredericton, 1898–1902 Synod Journal of Diocese of Toronto, 1898–1903 Synod Journal of Diocese of Niagara, 1901, 1903 Synod Journal of Diocese of Montreal, 1898–1903 Synod Journal of Diocese of Rupert’s Land, 1898 Synod Journal of Diocese of Nova Scotia, 1897–98, 1900–01 to 1903–04 Synod Journal of Diocese of Ottawa, 1899–1903 Synod Journal of Diocese of Ontario, 1898–1903 Synod Journal of Diocese of Qu’Appelle, 1898 Synod Journal of Diocese of Quebec, 1901, 1903 magazines Quebec Diocesan Gazette, 1899–1902 Canadian Churchman, 1899–1902 Parish and Home, 1899–1902 Algoma Missionary News, 1899–1902 Calgary Diocesan Magazine, 1899–1902 Canadian Church Magazine and Missionary News, 1899–1902 Monthly Letter Leaflet; Letter Leaflet; Living Message, 1899–1902

190

Bibliography

Canadian Church Missionary Gleaner, 1899–1902 Rouge et Noir: Trinity University Review, 1899–1902 Mitre, 1899 Baptist journals of meetings Baptist Yearbook, 1899–1903 magazines Canadian Baptist, 1899–1902 Messenger and Visitor, 1899–1902 Western Baptist, 1899–1902 Northwest Baptist, 1899–1902 Religious Intelligencer, 1899–1902 Free Baptist Banner, 1900–1902 Home Mission Journal, 1899–1902 WBMU Tidings, 1899–1902 Baptist Visitor, 1899–1902 Canadian Missionary Link, 1899–1902 Methodist journals of meetings Journal of the Proceedings of the Sixth General Conference of the Methodist Church, 1902 Proceedings of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Church, 1899–1903 magazines Christian Guardian, 1899–1902 Methodist Magazine and Review, 1899–1902 Western Methodist Recorder, 1899–1902 Wesleyan, 1899–1902 Sunday School Banner, 1899–1902 Onward, 1899–1902 Pleasant Hours, 1899–1902 Sunbeam, 1899–1902 Happy Days, 1899–1902 Canadian Epworth Era, 1899–1902 Annual Report of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Church, 1899–1903

Bibliography

191

Missionary Leaflet/Monthly Letter, 1899–1902 Palm Branch, 1899–1902 Vox Wesleyana, 1899–1902 Presbyterian journals of meetings Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, 1899–1903 magazines Dominion Presbyterian, 1899–1902 Westminster, 1899–1902 Presbyterian Witness, 1899–1902 Presbyterian Record, 1899–1902 King’s Own, 1899–1902 Foreign Missionary Tidings, 1899–1902 Presbyterian College Journal, 1899–1902 Queen’s Quarterly, 1899–1902

secondary sources Airhart, Phyllis, D. “Ordering a New Nation and Reordering Protestantism, 1867–1914.” In The Canadian Protestant Experience, 1760–1990, edited by George Rawlyk, 98–138. Burlington, on: Welch, 1990 Allen, Richard. The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971 Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London & New York: Verso, 1991 Anderson, Olive. “The Growth of Christian Militarism in Mid-Victorian Britain.” English Historical Review 86 (1971): 46–72 Attridge, Steve. Nationalism, Imperialism, and Identity in Late Victorian Culture: Civil and Military Worlds. Houndmills, uk: Palgrave, 2003 Baumgart, Winfried. Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion, 1880–1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982 Beaven, Brian N. “Partisanship, Patronage, and the Press in Ontario, 1880–1914: Myths and Realities.” Canadian Historical Review 64 (Sept. 1983): 317–51 Benn, Carl. The Parish and Cathedral of St. James, Toronto 1797–1997: A Collaborative History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998

192

Bibliography

Benoit, Edward Brian. “D Battery, Royal Canadian Field Artillery in the South African War, 1900.” ma thesis, McGill University, 1997 Berger, Carl. “Canadian Nationalism.” In Interpreting Canada’s Past, vol. 2, edited by J.M. Bumsted, 215–37. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1993 – The Sense of Power: Studies in the Ideas of Canadian Imperialism, 1867–1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970 Berton, Pierre. Marching as to War: Canada’s Turbulent Years, 1899–1953. Toronto: Anchor Canada, 2002 Blanch, M.D. “British Society and the War.” In The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War, 1899–1902, edited by Peter Warwick, 210–38. Burnt Mill: Longman, 1980 Bliss, J.M. “The Methodist Church and World War I.” Canadian Historical Review 49 (Sept. 1968): 213–33 Blunden, Margaret. “The Anglican Church during the War.” In The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War, 1899–1902, edited by Peter Warwick, 279–91. Burnt Mill: Longman, 1980 Bourassa, Henri. Great Britain and Canada: Topics of the Day. Montreal: C.O. Beauchemin & fils, 1902 Bourinot, John George. The Intellectual Development of the Canadian People: An Historical Review. Toronto: Hunter, Rose, 1881 Bradley, Ian C. God Save the Queen: The Spiritual Dimension of Monarchy. London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 2002 Brouwer, Ruth Compton. New Women for God: Canadian Presbyterian Women and India Missions, 1876–1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990 Brown, Robert Craig. “Goldwin Smith and Anti-Imperialism.” Canadian Historical Review 43 (June 1962): 93–105 Brown, Robert Craig, and Ramsay Cook. Canada 1896–1921: A Nation Transformed. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1991 Brown, Robert Craig, and M.E. Prang, eds. Confederation to 1949. Scarborough, on: Prentice-Hall, 1966 Brown, Stanley McKeown. With the Royal Canadians. Toronto: Publisher’s Syndicate, 1900 Buckner, Phillip. “Canada.” In The Impact of the South African War, edited by David Omissi and Andrew S. Thompson, 233–50. Houndmills, uk: Palgrave, 2002 – “Whatever Happened to the British Empire?” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 4 (1993): 3–32 Burr, Christina. “The Business Development of the Methodist Book and Publishing House, 1870–1914.” Ontario History 85 (1993): 251–71 Cannadine, David. Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001

Bibliography

193

Careless, J.M.S. Canada: A Story of Challenge. 2nd edn. Toronto: Macmillan, 1963 Choquette, J.E. Robert. Language and Religion: A History of English-French Conflict in Ontario. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975 Clarke, Brian. “English-Speaking Canada from 1854.” In A Concise History of Christianity in Canada, edited by Terrance Murphy, 43–61. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996 – “Religion and Public Space in Protestant Toronto, 1880–1900.” In Religion and Public Life in Canada: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Marguerite Van Die, 69–86. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001 Clifford, N.K. “His Dominion: A Vision in Crisis.” Studies in Religion 2 (1973): 315–26 Coates, Colin M., ed. Imperial Canada, 1867–1917: A Selection of Papers Given at the University of Edinburgh’s Centre of Canadian Studies Conference – May 1995. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1997 Coetzer, Owen. Fire in the Sky: The Destruction of the Orange Free State, 1899–1902. Oak Tree House, South Africa: Covos-Day Books, 2000 Cole, Douglas L. “Canada’s ‘Nationalistic’ Imperialists.” Journal of Canadian Studies 5 (Aug. 1970): 44–9 Cook, Ramsay. Canada: A Modern Study. Toronto & Vancouver: Clarke, Irwin, 1963 – The Regenerators: Social Criticism in Late-Victorian English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985 Cook, Ramsay, Craig Brown, and Carl Berger, eds. Imperial Relations in the Age of Laurier. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969 Cook, Terry. “George R. Parkin and the Concept of Britannic Idealism.” Journal of Canadian Studies 10 (Aug. 1975): 15–31 Creighton, Donald. Canada’s First Century: 1867–1967. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1970 – A History of Canada: Dominion of the North. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958 Crerar, Duff. Padres in No Man’s Land: Canadian Chaplains and the Great War. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995 Cuthbertson, Gregor C. “The Nonconformist Conscience and the South African War, 1899–1902.” d litt dissertation, University of South Africa, 1986 – “Preaching Imperialism: Wesleyan Methodism and the War.” In The Impact of the South African War, edited by David Omissi and Andrew S. Thompson, 157–72. Houndmills, uk: Palgrave, 2002 Cuthbertson, Gregor, Albert Grundlingh, and Mary-Lynn Suttie, eds. Writing a Wider War: Rethinking Gender, Race, and Identity in the South African War, 1899–1902. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002

194

Bibliography

Davey, Arthur. The British Pro-Boers: 1877–1902. Cape Town: Tafelberg, 1978 Davies, Barrie. “‘We Hold A Vaster Empire Than Has Been’: Canadian Literature and the Canadian Empire.” Studies In Canadian Literature 14 (1989): 18–29 Dekar, Paul. “Envoys of Peace: Canadian Baptist Women Missionaries as Peacemakers.” In Costly Vision: The Baptist Pilgrimage in Canada, edited by Jarold K. Zeman, 85–99. Burlington, on: Welch, 1988 – For the Healing of the Nations: Baptist Peacemakers. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 1993 Denison, George T. “The Present Situation of England: A Canadian Impression.” The Nineteenth Century 42 (Dec. 1897): 1009–18 – The Struggle for Imperial Unity: Collections and Experiences. Toronto: Macmillian of Canada, 1909 Distad, Merrill. “Newspapers and Magazines.” In History of the Book in Canada, vol. 2, edited by Patricia L. Fleming and Yvan Lamonde, 293–303. Toronto, Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press, 2005 Doob, Leonard W. Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1964 Doyle, A. Conan. The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Conduct. Toronto: George N. Morang, 1902 Dunae, Patrick A. “Boys’ Literature and the Idea of Empire, 1870–1914.” Victorian Studies 24 (Autumn 1980): 105–21 Duxbury, G.R. David and Goliath: The First War of Independence, 1880–1881. South African National Museum of Military History, 1981 Evans, Martin Marix. “Farm Burning.” In Encyclopedia of the Boer War, 1899–1902, 94. Santa Barbara, ca: abc Clio, 2000 Evans, W. Sanford. The Canadian Contingents and Canadian Imperialism: A Story and a Study. Toronto: Publisher’s Syndicate, 1901 Falardeau, Jean-Charles. “The Role of the Church in French Canada.” In French-Canadian Society, edited by M. Rioux and Y. Martins, 342–57. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1964 Farwell, Byron. The Great Anglo-Boer War. New York & London: W.W. Norton, 1976 Ferguson, Niall. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. New York: Basic Books, 2003 Fetherling, Douglas. The Rise of the Canadian Newspaper. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1990 Fitzpatrick, J.P. The Transvaal from Within: A Record of Public Affairs. Toronto: William Briggs, 1900

Bibliography

195

Fleming, Patricia L., and Yvan Lamonde, eds. History of the Book in Canada. Vols. 1 and 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004 Francis, Daniel. National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1997 Franzosi, Roberto. “The Press as a Source of Socio-Historical Data: Issues in the Methodology of Data Collection from Newspapers.” Historical Methods (1987): 5–16 Freeland, Robert E. “Pioneer Baptist Journalism in Ontario and Quebec, 1836–1865.” bd thesis, McMaster University, 1951 Frye, Northrop. “Conclusion.” In Literary History of Canada: Canadian Literature in English, edited by Carl F. Klinck, 821–49. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965 Fuller, J.F.C. The Last of the Gentleman’s Wars. London: Faber, 1937 Gagan, Rosemary R. A Sensitive Independence: Canadian Methodist Women Missionaries in Canada and the Orient, 1881–1925. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992 Galbraith, J.S. “The Pamphlet Campaign of the Boer War.” Journal of Modern History 24 (1952): 111–26 Gauvreau, Michael. “Protestantism Transformed: Personal Piety and the Evangelical Social Vision, 1815–1967.” In The Canadian Protestant Experience, 1760–1990, edited by George Rawlyk, 48–97. Burlington, on: Welch, 1990 Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983 Gollwitzer, Heinz. Europe in the Age of Imperialism, 1880–1914. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969 Gordon, Donald C. The Dominion Partnership in Imperial Defense, 1870–1914. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965 Gordon, John L. “Canada and the Imperial Federation Movement.” In Imperial Canada, 1867–1917: A Selection of Papers Given at the University of Edinburgh’s Centre of Canadian Studies Conference – May 1995, edited by Colin Coates, 43–61. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1997 Grant, George. Advantages of Imperial Federation. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson, 1891 – Imperial Federation: The Case for Canada. London, 1889 Grant, John Webster. “The Church and Canada’s Self-Awareness.” Canadian Journal of Theology 13 (1967): 155–64 – The Church in the Canadian Era. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1972. Reprint, Vancouver: Regent College, 1988 – A Profusion of Spires: Religion in Nineteenth-Century Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988

196

Bibliography

Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1992 Greenlee, James G., and Charles M. Johnston. Good Citizens: British Missionaries and Imperial States, 1870–1918. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999 Gundy, H. Pearson. “Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Lord Minto.” In Imperial Relations in the Age of Laurier, edited by Ramsay Cook, Craig Brown, and Carl Berger, 23–33. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969 Gunn, William T. His Dominion. Toronto: Canadian Council of the Missionary Education Movement, 1918 Guy, Laurie. “Baptist Pacifists in New Zealand: Creating Division in the Fight for Peace.” Baptist Quarterly 40 (Oct. 2004): 488–99 Hall, Darrell. The Hall Handbook of the Anglo-Boer War. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: University of Natal Press, 1999 Hampton, Mark. “The Press, Patriotism, and Public Discussion: C.P. Scott, the Manchester Guardian, and the Boer War, 1899–1902.” Historical Journal 44 (2001): 177–97 Harrington, Peter. “Pictorial Journalism and the Boer War: The London Ilustrated Weeklies.” In The Boer War: Direction, Experience, and Image, edited by John Gooch, 224–44. London: Frank Cass, 2000 Hart-McHarg, W. From Quebec to Pretoria: With the Royal Canadian Regiment. Toronto: William Briggs, 1902 Heath, Gordon L. “‘Citizens of That Mighty Empire’: Imperial Sentiment among Students at Wesley College, 1897–1902.” Manitoba History, June 2005, 15–25 – “‘Forming Sound Public Opinion’: The Late Victorian Canadian Protestant Press and Nation-Building.” Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society 48 (2006): 109–59 – “Passion for Empire: War Poetry Published in the Canadian English Protestant Press during the South African War, 1899–1902.” Literature and Theology 16 (June 2002): 127–47 – “Sin in the Camp: The Day of Humble Supplication in the Anglican Church in Canada in the Early Months of the South African War.” Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society 44 (Fall 2002): 207–26 – “‘Were We in the Habit of Deifying Monarchs’: Canadian English Protestants and the Death of Queen Victoria, 1901.” Canadian Evangelical Review (Fall 2005 – Spring 2006): 72–97 – “When Missionaries Were Hated: An Examination of the Canadian Baptist Defense of Imperialism and Missions during the Boxer Rebellion, 1900.”

Bibliography

197

In Baptists and Mission, edited by Ian M. Randall and Anthony R. Cross, 261–76. Carlisle, uk: Paternoster Press, 2007 Hennessy, Peter. “The Press and Broadcasting.” In Contemporary History: Practice and Method, edited by Anthony Seldon, 17–29. London: Blackwell, 1988 Hobsbawm, Eric J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 Hobsbawm, Eric J., and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983 Hobson, John A. Imperialism: A Study. London, 1902. Reprint, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1967 Hole, Hugh Marshall. The Jameson Raid. London: Philip Allan, 1930 Holmes, Arthur F. War and Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975 Humphries, Charles W. “Two bc Pacifists and the Boer War.” BC Studies 45 (1980): 116–127 Hutchison, William R., “Evangelization and Civilization: Protestant Missionary Motivation in the Imperialist Era.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 6 (April 1982): 50–65 James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. New York: St Martin’s Griffin, 1994 Jones, Preston. “‘His Dominion’?: Varieties of Protestant Commentary on the Confederation of Canada.” Fides et Historia 32 (Summer/Fall 2000): 83–8 Judd, Denis. The Boer War. London: Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, 1977 – Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present. London: Fontana Press, 1997 Judd, Denis, and Keith Surridge. The Boer War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002 Kecmanovic, Dusan. The Mass Psychology of Ethnonationalism. New York & London: Plenum Press, 1996 Kennedy, Paul M. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House, 1987 Kesterton, W.H. A History of Journalism in Canada. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1967 Kohn, Edward P. This Kindred People: Canadian-American Relations and the Anglo-Saxon Idea, 1895–1903. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004 Koss, Stephen, ed. The Pro-Boers: The Anatomy of an Antiwar Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973

198

Bibliography

Krebs, Paula M. Gender, Race, and the Writing of Empire: Public Discourse and the Boer War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 Kruger, Paul. The Memoirs of Paul Kruger. Toronto: George A. Morang, 1902 Laity, Paul. “The British Peace Movement and the War.” In The Impact of the South African War, edited by David Omissi and Andrew S. Thompson, 138–56. Houndmills, uk: Palgrave, 2002 Latourette, Kenneth Scott. The Great Century, A.D. 1800 -– A.D. 1914. New York: Harper, 1941 Lehmann, Joseph H. The First Boer War. London: Jonathan Cape, 1972 Livingston, F.J. My Escape from the Boers: The Exciting Experiences of a Canadian Medical Missionary. Toronto: William Briggs, 1900 Lloyd, Trevor. Empire: The History of the British Empire. London& New York, 2001 Longford, Elizabeth. Jameson’s Raid: The Prelude to the Boer War. London: Grenada, 1982 Louis, W.R., et al., eds. The Oxford History of the British Empire. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1998–2000 McClellan, Robert F. “Missionary Influence on American Attitudes toward China at the Turn of This Century.” Church History 38 (1969): 475–485 McCulloch, Ian. “Crucible of Fire: The Boer War and the Birth of the Canadian Army Medical Corps.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 15 November 1995, 1494–97 McLaren, Roy. Canadians on the Nile, 1882–1898: Being the Adventures of the Voyageurs on the Khartoum Relief Expedition and Other Exploits. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1978 MacLean, Guy Robertson. “The Imperial Federation in Canada, 1884–1902.” ph d dissertation, Duke University, 1958 Magney, William H. “The Methodist Church and the National Gospel, 1884–1914.” Bulletin 20 (1968): 3–95 Marquis, T.G. Canada’s Sons on Kopje and Veldt: A Historical Account of the Canadian Contingents. Toronto: Canada’s Sons Publishing, 1900 Marshall, David B. Secularizing the Faith: Canadian Protestant Clergy and the Crisis of Belief, 1850–1940. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992 Messamore, Barbara Jane. “The Governors General of Canada, 1880–1911: British Imperialists and Canadian ‘Nationalists.’” ma thesis, Simon Fraser University, 1991 Miller, Carman. “Canada’s First War.” Beaver 79 (Oct.–-Nov. 1999): 6–7 – “English-Canadian Opposition to the South African War as Seen Through the Press.” Canadian Historical Review 55 (Dec. 1974): 422–38 – Painting the Map Red: Canada and the South African War, 1899–1902. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998

Bibliography

199

– “Research Resources on Canada and the South African War.” Archivaria, Summer 1988: 116–21. Millman, T.R. “Canadian Anglican Journalism in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society 3 (March 1959): 1–19 Mills, Sean. “‘Preach the World’: Canadian Imperialism and Missionary Outreach at the Montreal Diocesan Theological College, 1892–1903.” Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society 43 (2001): 5–38 Moir, John. Enduring Witness: The Presbyterian Church in Canada. 2nd edn. Eagle Press, 1987 Morris, James. Heaven’s Command: An Imperial Progress. Harmondsworth, uk: Penguin Books, 1997 Morrison, E.W.B. With the Guns in South Africa. Hamilton, on: Spectator, 1901 Morton, Desmond. “The Cadet Movement in the Moment of Canadian Militarism, 1909–1914.” Journal of Canadian Studies 13 (Summer 1988): 56–68 – Canada at Paardeberg. Ottawa: Balmuir, 1986 – Canada at War: A Military and Political History. Toronto: Butterworth, 1981 – A Military History of Canada. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1999 Moss, Mark. Manliness and Militarism: Educating Young Boys in Ontario for War. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2001 Moyles, R.G. “A Boy’s Own View of Canada.” Canadian Children’s Literature 34 (1984): 41–56 Nasson, Bill. The South African War, 1899–1902. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999 Neatby, H. Blair. “Laurier and Imperialism.” In Imperial Relations in the Age of Laurier, edited by Ramsay Cook, Craig Brown, and Carl Berger, 1–9. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969 Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. Harmondsworth, uk: Penguin Books, 1986 Nelles, H.V. The Art of Nation-Building: Pageantry and Spectacle at Quebec’s Tercentenary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999 Nijhof, Timothy and Catharina De Bakker. “The Dutch Community in the Kildonans (1893–1911), the English Canadians, and the Boer War.” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 26 (2005): 1–13 Nock, David A. “Patriotism and Patriarchs: Anglican Archbishops and Canadianization.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 14 (1982): 79–94 O’Donovan, Oliver. The Just War Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 Olasky, Marvin. “Social Darwinism on the Editorial Page: American Newspapers and the Boer War.” Journalism Quarterly 65 (1988): 420–4

200

Bibliography

Omissi, David, and Andrew Thompson, eds. The Impact of the South African War. Houndmills, uk: Palgrave, 2002 Ostergaard, Karen. “Canadian Nationalism and Anti-Imperialism, 1896–1911.” ph d dissertation, Dalhousie University, 1976 Page, Robert J.D. The Boer War and Canadian Imperialism. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1987 – “Canada and the Imperial Idea in the Boer War Years.” Journal of Canadian Studies 5 (Feb. 1970): 33–49 – “Carl Berger and the Intellectual Origins of Canadian Imperialist Thought, 1867–1914.” Journal of Canadian Studies 5 (Aug. 1970): 39–43 – ed. Imperialism and Canada, 1895–1903. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972 Pakenham, Elizabeth. Jameson’s Raid. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1960 Pakenham, Thomas. The Boer War. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979 Parkin, George R. Imperial Federation: The Problem of National Unity. London: Macmillan, 1892 Penlington, Norman. Canada and Imperialism, 1896–1899. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965 – “General Hutton and the Problem of Military Imperialism in Canada, 1898–1900.” In Imperial Relations in the Age of Laurier, edited by Ramsay Cook, Craig Brown, and Carl Berger, 45–60. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969 Perris, George Herbert. Blood and Gold in South Africa: An Answer to Dr. Conan Doyle: Being an Examination of His Account of the “Cause and Conduct” of the South African War. London: International Arbitration Association, 1902 Poel, Jean van der. The Jameson Raid. Cape Town, London & New York: Oxford University Press, 1951 Porter, A.N. The Origin of the South African War: Joseph Chamberlain and the Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1895–99. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1980 – Religion versus Empire? British Protestant Missionaries and Overseas Expansion, 1700–1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004 – “The South African War and Imperial Britain: A Question of Significance?” In Writing a Wider War: Rethinking Gender, Race, and Identity in the South African War, 1899–1902, edited by Greg Cuthberson, Albert Grundlingh, and Mary-Lynn Suttie, 287–302. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002 Porter, Bernard. “The Pro-Boers in Britain.” In The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War, 1899–1902, edited by Peter Warwick, 239–57. Burnt Mill: Longman, 1980

Bibliography

201

Preston, Richard A. Canada and “Imperial Defence”: A Study of the Origins of the British Commonwealth Defence Organisation, 1867–1919. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967 Ransford, Oliver. The Battle of Majuba Hill: The First Boer War. London: John Murray, 1967 Reeve, Phyllis. Every Good Gift: A History of St. James’ Vancouver, 1881–1981. Vancouver: St James’ Church, 1981 Renfree, Harry. Heritage and Horizon: The Baptist Story in Canada. Mississauga, on: Canadian Baptist Federation, 1988 Richards, Noel J. “Political Nonconformity at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Church and State 17 (1975): 239–58 Roncetti, Gary A., and Edward Denby. The Canadians: Those Who Served in South Africa, 1899–1902. Edward E. Denby, 1979 Ross, Andrew C. “Christian Missions and the Mid-Nineteenth-Century Change in Attitudes to Race: The African Experience.” In The Imperial Horizons of Protestant Missions, 1880–1914, edited by Andrew Porter, 85–105. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003 Rutherdale, Myra. Women and the White Man’s God: Gender and Race in the Canadian Mission Field. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2002 Rutherford, Paul. A Victorian Authority: The Daily Press in Late Nineteenth-Century Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982 Rutherford, P.F.W. “The New Nationality, 1864–1897: A Study of the National Aims and Ideas of English Canada in the Late Nineteenth Century.” ph d dissertation, University of Toronto, 1973 Said, Edward. Orientalism. London & New York: Penguin Books, 1978 Samson, Jane. “Ethnology and Theology: Nineteenth-Century Mission Dilemmas in the South Pacific.” In Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, edited by Brian Stanley, 99–122. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001 – “The Problem of Colonialism in the Western Historiography of Christian Missions.” Religious Studies and Theology 23 (2004): 2–26 Saywell, John T. “The 1890’s.” In The Canadians: 1867–1967, edited by J.M.S. Careless and R. Craig Brown, 108–36. Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1967 Schreuder, D.M. The Scramble for Southern Africa, 1877–1895: The Politics of Partition Reappraised. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980 Semple, Neil. The Lord’s Dominion: The History of Canadian Methodism. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996 Silver, A.I. “Some Quebec Attitudes in an Age of Imperialism and Ideological Conflict.” Canadian Historical Review 57 (Dec. 1976): 441–60

202

Bibliography

Smith, Goldwin. In the Court of Human History: An Apology for Canadians Who Were Opposed to the South Africa War. Toronto: William Tyrrell, 1902 Smith, Iain R. “The Boer War.” History Today 34 (May 1984): 46–9 – The Origins of the South African War, 1899–1902. London & New York: Longman, 1996 Smith, Malvern van Wyk. “The Poetry of the War.” In The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War, 1899–1902, edited by Peter Warwick, 292–314. Burnt Mill: Longman, 1980 Smith, Neil Gregor. “Nationalism in the Canadian Churches.” Canadian Journal of Theology 9 (1963): 112–25 Smith, Victoria Ruth. “Constructing Victoria: The Representation of Queen Victoria in England, India, and Canada, 1897–1914.” ph d dissertation, Rutgers University, 1998 Socknat, Thomas P. Witness against War: Pacifism in Canada, 1900–1940. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987 Stacey, C.P. Canada and the Age of Conflict. Vol. 1, 1867–1921: Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992 – “Canada and the Nile Expedition of 1884–85.” Canadian Historical Review 33 (Dec. 1952): 319–40 Stanley, Brian. The Bible and the Flag: Protestant Missions and British Imperialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Leicester, uk: Apollos, 1990 – “Christianity and Civilization in English Evangelical Mission Thought, 1792–1857.” In Christian Missions and the Enlightenment, edited by Brian Stanley, 169–97. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001 Stanley, George F.G. Canada’s Soldiers, 1604–1954: The Military History of an Unmilitary People. Toronto: Macmillan, 1954 Stiles, Deborah. “‘The Dragon of Imperialism’: Martin Butler, Butler’s Journal, the Canadian Democrat, and Anti-Imperialism, 1899–1902.” Canadian Historical Review 85, (Sept. 2004): 481–505 Sutherland, Fraser. The Monthly Epic: A History of Canadian Magazines. Markham: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1989 Thomas, Ivor B. “A Baptist Anti-Imperialist Voice: George Horr and The Watchman.” Foundations 18 (1975): 340–57 Thompson, Andrew. “Imperial Propaganda during the South African War.” In Writing a Wider War: Rethinking Gender, Race, and Identity in the South African War, 1899–1902, edited by Greg Cuthbertson, Albert Grundlingh, and Mary-Lynn Suttie, 303–27. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002 Thorne, Susan. Congregational Missions and the Making of an Imperial Culture in Nineteenth-Century England. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999

Bibliography

203

Threlfall, John. “Empire over Nation: Victoria Newspapers and the Boer War.” BC Historical News 30 (Winter 1996): 34–7 Trinier, Harold U. A Century of Service: The Story of the Canadian Baptist, 1854–1954. Board of Publication of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, 1954 Vance, Jonathan F. Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1997 Vipond, Mary, The Mass Media in Canada. Toronto: Lorimer, 1992 Waite, Peter B. Canada, 1874–1896: Arduous Journey. Toronto & Montreal: McClelland & Stewart, 1971 Warwick, Peter, ed. The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War 1899–1902. Burnt Mill, uk: Longman, 1980 Westfall, William. Two Worlds: The Protestant Culture of Nineteenth-Century Ontario. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1989 Wilkinson, Glenn R. Depictions and Images of War in Edwardian Newspapers, 1899–1914. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 – “‘To the Front’: British Newspaper Advertising and the Boer War.” In The Boer War: Direction, Experience, and Image, edited by John Gooch, 203–12. London: Frank Cass, 2000 Willison, John S. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal Party: A Political History. Toronto: George N. Morang, 1903 Wilson, Douglas. The Church Grows in Canada. Toronto: Ryerson, 1966 Wilson, Henry S. “The United States and the War.” In The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War 1899–1902, edited by Peter Warwick, 315–32. Burnt Mill, uk: Longman, 1980 Wilson, Robert S. “A House Divided: British Evangelical Parliamentary Influence in the Latter Nineteenth Century, 1860–1902.” ph d dissertation, University of Guelph, 1973 Woodsworth, J.S. The Strangers within Our Gates. Toronto: F.C. Stephenson, 1909 Wright, Harrison M., ed. The “New Imperialism”: Analysis of Late Nineteenth-Century Expansion. Lexington, ma: D.C. Heath, 1961 Wright, Robert A. “The Canadian Protestant Tradition, 1914–1945.” In The Canadian Protestant Experience, 1760–1990, edited by George Rawlyk, 139–97. Burlington, on: Welch, 1990

This page intentionally left blank

Index

abolition of slavery: in United States, 23 Africa: better in British Empire, 97; scramble for, 3, 48 Afrikanerdom, 129 Agincourt, Battle of, 15 Airhart, Phyllis, xvi, xix, 50, 55 Albany, diocese of, 127 Almond, Rev. John. See Bishop’s College (Lennoxville); see also chaplains Ambrose, Saint, 21 American Civil War, 23 Anderson, Benedict, xxii Andras, C.H., 64 Anglican prayer book, 64 Anglo-Saxons, 25; Anglo-Canada, xxi; race to save others, xxiii, 10, 35, 100–2; “Song of the Saxon,” 35–6, 101; union of, 99–102, 141 Archibald, Jessie B., 73 Armagh, William, 23 Armitage, Rev. W.J. See St Paul’s Church (Halifax) Armstrong, Rev. Dr., 62 Assembly, Annual General Presbyterian, 29 Augustine of Canterbury, 119

Augustine, Saint, 21; Augustinian theories on war, 23; scalpel analogy, 132–3 Australia, 48, 108–10; Australian federation, 113 Baldwin, Rev. A.H., 63 Balfour, Arthur J., 30 Bantu: placed in camps, 40 Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, 7 Barclay, Rev. James, 108 Barrie, H.G., 76 Berger, Carl, xvi, xix, 54, 92–3; on Canadian military expansion, 113; on missions, 126; religion influenced Canadian nationalism, 89; on religious emotion, 137 Berton, Pierre, 89 Bishop’s College (Lennoxville), 76–7 Black, Rev. Armstrong: pastor of St Andrew’s Church, chaplain to the 48th Highlanders, 17, 52. See also chaplains Black Week, 57 Bloemfontein Convention, 4 Bloor Street Baptist Church, 17

206

Index

Boers, xvi–xvii, 25; aggressiveness of, 7–8, 31; essentially the same as British, 29; first to declare war, 28–30; images of, 36–9, 101; laying siege to towns, 68; losing war would be good for them, xxi, 47–9; and “mediaevalism,” 116; and natives, 129–38, 142; and noncombatants, 22, 33; perceived as unreligious, 8, 38, 131, 134; physical description, xxiv, 5; and prisoners, 137; and slavery, 129; stockpiling weapons, 29–31; use of guerrilla tactics, 39, 69; victories over the British, 64, 66–7; women considered spies, 43. See also missions Borden, Frederick W., 63, 70–1 Botha, Louis, 40 Bourassa, Henri, xviii, 83 Boxer Rebellion. See China Bradley, Ian, 105 British Empire League, 53 British House of Commons, 30, 33, 57–8 Brouwer, Ruth Compton, 120 Brown, Thomas, xv, xvi, xx, 143–4 Brunswick Street Methodist Church, 63 Buckner, Philip, xxiv, 89 Buller, Sir Redvers, 39 Campbell, Archibald, 84 camps, concentration (for noncombatants), 39–47; criticized by Americans, 43–4; statistics related to deaths in, 44 camps, prisoner-of-war, 46 Canadian contingent, 15, 21, 50–2, 61, 63; C Battery of second contingent, 63; chaplains, 75–9; Col.

William D. Otter, 16; first contingent, 56, 62, 82; losses, 60; New Brunswick contingent, 81; request for second contingent, 56–7; returning home, 73; 10th Royal Grenadiers (Toronto), 63. See also chaplains Canadian Parliament, 5, 77; debate over sending contingents, 57; and pay for Canadian contingent, 51; supports war in South Africa, 10 Canadian Patriotic Fund, 80–2, 141 Canadian Red Cross, 80 Canadian West, 118 Canterbury, Archbishop of, 67 Cape Colony: Boers in, 7; Jameson Raid, 5; Kimberley, 30, 68; views of war from, 30, 33, 131; war in, 64 Cape Town, 67 Cappon, James, 11, 115–16 Carlton Street Methodist Church (Toronto), 17 Carman, Rev. Dr. A.D., 34, 96; accused of disloyalty, 34; desires unity with U.S., 100; praises Victoria, 102, 105; war united empire, 111; writing on empire, 98–9 Catholics. See Roman Catholics Central Methodist Church (Toronto), 17 Century Fund, 80 Chamberlain, Joseph, 5–6, 11, 31, 33, 42, 49; alliance with U.S., 99–100; appeals for military support, 113–14; and imperial unity, 109; requests Canadian contingent, 57 Chaplain’s Fund, 76 chaplains: Armstrong Black, 17; Fullerton, 76; H.G. Barrie, 76;

Index John Almond, 76–7; Peter M. O’Leary, 76; tension within the churches regarding, 73, 74–80, 141; William G. Lane, 75–9 Charlottetown, 60 China, 13, 56; brewing trouble in, 92; and Boxer Rebellion, 119, 126–7 Christ Church Cathedral (Halifax), 70 Clarke, Brian, xix, 60 Colonial Conference, 113–15 Committee on Civil Rights and Privileges, 72 Confederation, xvi, 50, 74, 89 Conservative Party, 83 Convention of London, 5 Courtice, Rev. A.C., 121–2 Crerar, Duff, 75, 80 Crimean War, 38 Cronje, Piet, 34, 68 Day of Humble Supplication/Humiliation, 66–9, 82, 140–1; combatting “sin in the camp,” 107–8; poetry used during, 125 Dekar, Paul, 129–30 Denison, Lt. Col. George T., 53 denominational publications, xviii, xxiv–xxv; circulation numbers, xxv; critical of secular press, 82–4; defending Britain’s tactics, 42, 139; diversity within, 33; imperial apologists, 26–8, 30, 97, 140; reliable source, xxvi, 56, 140; trying to ease French-English tensions, 83–6, 141 Department of Militia, 71 Distad, Merrill, xxv Doane, Bishop. See Albany, diocese of

207

Dominion Day, 52, 54 Dominion Methodist Church (Halifax), 70 Doyle, Conan, 30, 33, 42 Dunn, Andrew Hunter, 81 Durham (Ont.), 82 Dutch, 10, 21, 49; Calvinists, 38; colony, 132; Reformed Church, 132–3; strife between Great Britain and, 98 Eaton, Rev. Charles A. See Bloor Street Baptist Church Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, 66 Edward VII, 122 Empire Day, 52 Enhlonhlweni, 136 Epworth League, 61, 100 Established Church: conflict over, 69–73 Euclid Avenue Methodist Church (Toronto), 17 Evangelical Alliance, 63 Evans, Sanford W., 27 Fash, Rev. Z.L., 69 Fenian raids, 75 Ferguson, Niall, xv, xxvii First World War, 49, 58; Boer War was dress rehearsal for, 61, 82, 86–7, 108, 117; chaplains, 79; churches more coordinated in, 140–1; churches’ support for, xviii, 22–4, 50, 60; memory of, xxiii; missions beforehand, 119; war no longer brings social change, 139 Fitzpatrick, J.P., 33 Fowler, Rev. Thomas, 69 France: a potential threat, 91–2; seen as “advancing civilization,” 97–8

208

Index

Francis, Daniel, xxii, 27; “myth of the master race,” 101 Francis Xavier, Saint, 119 Fredericton, 63, 81 Free Church Council, 30 French-English tensions, xx, 27; due to war, 82–3; Laval-McGill riots, 84–5; war aggravates both sides, 86. See also denominational publications Fullerton, Rev., 76 Germany, 24, 88; as a potential threat, 90–2, 97; and U.S., 100 Gomery, Rev. H., 81 Grant, George Monro, 54, 113, 126; early support of Boers, 11, 29; shift to support British cause, 28–9; support of Imperial Federation, 11 Grant, John Webster, xix, 22, 24, 60 Great Commission, 123, 127 Great Trek, 4 Greenbank Presbyterian Church, 62 Greenlee, James, 119 guerrilla warfare, 39 Haliburton, 82 Halifax, 60; first contingent returns to, 73–4 Hampton, Mark, 83 Harris, Elmore, 29 Hartzell, Bishop (superintendent American Methodist Society Missions in Africa), 33–4; report about camps, 45; righteousness of Britain’s cause, 136; unity between U.S. and Britain, 100 Heartz, Rev. Dr., 70 Hennessy, Peter, xxvi Herridge, Rev. Dr., 62

Hincks, Rev. W.H. See Central Methodist Church Hobhouse, Emily, 41–3 Hobsbawn, Eric, xxii Hobson, John A., 26, 88, 95 Holland, 34 Holy Trinity Cathedral (Quebec City), 18, 63 Holy Trinity Church (Toronto), 63 house burning, 39 Hubly, Rev. A.M., 60 Hubly, Russel C., 60 Hunter Dunn, Andrew, 81 Hutton, Edward, 5 Imperial Federation, 11, 109–16; league, 89 imperialism: American, 54; American today, xv; a blessing, 95–9, 105, 116; British Empire, 3–4, 90–2, 109–13; Canadian, 89; French, 91; German, 91, 97; issue today, xv, xxvii; nationalism a form of, xvii, xix; new imperialism, 26, 88; opposition to, xv, 21, 26, 82–3, 91, 93, 102; press and, 26–7; religious aspects, 101, 124–6; race and, xxiii–xxiv; Russian, 97; sins of, 65–9, 106–8; variety of views on, 92–3, 113, 128. See also AngloSaxons; missions; patriotism Imperial War Office, 71 India: considered Britain’s jewel, 4; to be “Christianized,” 128; trouble brewing in, 92 Ireland, Alleyne, 91 Israel, 65; Britain compared to, 96, 107, 124–5; Britain’s army like biblical Israel’s, 125

Index Jameson, Dr. Leander Starr, 5 Jameson Raid, 5, 31, 93 Japan, 88 jingoism. See patriotism Johannesburg, 58 Johnston, Charles, 119 Johnston, Rev. C.O. See Queen Street Methodist Church Joly de Lotbinière, Sir Henry, 76 Jones, T. Bedford, 14 Jubilee celebrations, 4 Judd, Denis, 107 just war theory, 21–3, 28–47 Kimberley. See Cape Colony Kingdom of God, 120–6, 134; and British Empire, 138, 142 Kingston, 28 Kipling, Rudyard, xxiv, 65. See also white man’s burden Kitchener, Lord, 39–42, 44, 46, 49 Klerksdorp, 43. See also camps, concentration Kohn, Edward, 99 Krebs, Paula, 26 Kruger, Paul, 5, 31; Cecil Rhodes compared to, 94; considered a danger by the British, 9, 12, 37; nicknamed Oom Paul, 12; statue in London for him, 109; united empire through war, 109 Ladysmith, 84, 134 Lane, Rev. William G. See chaplains Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 3, 5–6, 14, 33, 56–7; speeches of, 21, 51–2, 72, 76; power broken in Quebec, 82; slow to support Britain, 83, 89, 114–15 Laval University. See French-English tensions

209

Lewis, Mrs, 33 Liberal Party, 83 Livingston, F.J., 33, 133–4 Livingstone, David, 123, 129–31; opinion of the Boers, 136 London (England), 26, 30, 89; celebrating the Queen, 113; relation with colonies, 141 London (Ont.), 59 Lord’s Day Alliance, 55 Lord Strathcona’s Horse, 69–70; namesake was Presbyterian, 71; Steele, Col. S. Lowry, Rev. E.P., 30 Macdonald, Sir John A., 75 McGill University. See French-English tensions Macklem, Rev. T.C. Street, 76 MacLaren, Ian. See Watson, Rev. John McLeod, Rev. Dr., 81 McLeod, Rev. Norman, 62 MacNish, Rev. Dr., 62 Magney, William H., xix, xxv Majuba Hill, 4 Manley, Mrs, 65. See also poems Metropolitan Methodist Church (Toronto), 102 militarism, 53–5. See also patriotism Miller, Carman, xix, 4–5, 16; on opposition to the war, 82; religion influenced Canadian nationalism, 89 Miller, Robert M.M., 60 Mills, Sean, 126 Milner, Alfred, 10–11, 31, 49 Minto, Lord, 5, 29; founder of Canadian Patriotic Fund, 80–1 missions: Boers and, 129–37; critics of, 126–8; damage to, 135–7;

210

Index

empire and, 119–28; victory good for, 128–37 Moffat, Robert, 131 Moffett, Samuel, 9 Moir, John, xix Montreal riots. See French-English tensions Morton, Desmond, 82, 111 Mulock, William, 63 Natal, 30, 33, 136. See also Free Church Council National Council of Women, 80 natives: a term to designate Africans, xxiv; in need of help, 26–8, 32, 98; will benefit from missions, 127; mistreatment by Boers, 129–38 Nelles, H.V., xxii Newbolt, Rev. Canon, 65, 67; wrote about national sin, 108 New Edinburgh Church, 62 Nock, David A., xx Northumberland (Ont.), 82 Northwest Rebellion, 75 O’Leary, Father Peter M., 63, 76 opposition to the war: in Britain, 26, 41–2; in Canada, 14–15, 17–18, 25; in Europe, 41–2; in the U.S., 16, 26. See also FrenchEnglish tensions Orange Free State, xvii, 4, 39 Orangemen, 78 order of preference, 71–2 Ottawa, 62, 66, 71, 73 Otter, Col. William D. See Canadian contingent Outlanders (Uitlanders), 5, 8–9, 47; “Britishness” of, 32; in need of help, 26–8, 32–5, 39; liberty for, 139

Oxford University. See Rhodes Scholarship Paardeberg, Battle of, 34, 50, 58, 62; students celebrating victory, 84; victory seen as God’s blessing, 105 Page, Robert, 21, 105; religion influenced Canadian nationalism, 89 Parker, Rev. G.H., 18 Parkin, George R., 35, 115, 126 Parrsboro, 75 Patrick, Saint, 119 Patriotic Fund, xxvi, 66 patriotism: concern among Protestants about jingoism, 51–5, 58–9, 75–6, 96, 120, 140; Toronto zeal, 63 Patterson, Rev. William, 30 Peel (Ont.), 82 Pelletier, Oscar, 63, 98 Perris, George Herbert, 42 Persall, J.C., 63 Perth University, 33 Phillips, Rev. Charles, 29 Pinkham, Bishop Cyprian, 116 poems: against alcohol, 74; against national sin, 106; dedicated to soldiers, 52, 59–60; fighting for God, 125; imperial, 110, 112; and missions, 124; nationalist in scope, 52; pro Anglo-Saxon race, 101 Porter, Andrew, xxiv Prescott Presbyterian Church, 62 Pretoria, 47, 58; letter from bishop of, 137; Pretoria Convention, 5 Prince Edward Island: governor criticized, 83 Prohibition, 56, 73 Quebec City, 18, 21, 62–3; Pelletier receives Sword of Honour in, 98 Quebec Company G, 63

Index Quebec, province of, 56, 63, 71, 76–7; bishop of speaks on empire, 98; bishop of speaks on missions, 121; diocese of, 68, 81 Queen Street Methodist Church (Toronto), 17 Queen’s University, 28 race. See Anglo-Saxon Ralph, Julian, 37 Ramsay, Rev. Mr., 62 Ranger, Terence, xxi Red Cross, 37 Rhodes, Cecil, 5, 11, 28, 49; eulogized as imperialist, 93–7; compared to Paul Kruger, 94 Rhodes Scholarship, 94 Riggs, Alfred, 60 Roberts, Lord, 39, 42, 49, 68, 74 Rogers, Rev. R.L., 45 Roman Catholics, xvi–xviii; 63; chaplaincy, 75–9; involved with soldiers, 70–2; seen as inferior by Anglo-Saxons, 101; view of missions, 126; working with Protestants, 67–8. See also French-English tensions Roman Empire, 118, 127; Pax Romana, 121 Rose, Rev. Dr. See Dominion Methodist Church Roseberry, Lord, 95 Ross, Andrew, xxiii Rowe, Rev. Elliot S. See Euclid Avenue Methodist Church Russell, B., 63 Russia: a potential threat, 92, 97 Rutherdale, Myra, xxiii, Ryerson, Egerton, 69, 72, 78 Said, Edward, xxiii, 36 St Andrew’s Church (Toronto), 17

211

St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church (Halifax), 70 St James Cathedral (Toronto), 15, 63–4 St James Church (Diocese of Huron), 60 St James Church (Vancouver), 65 St James the Apostle Church (Montreal), 60 St John’s Church (Cornwall), 62 St Matthew’s Presbyterian Church (Halifax), 70 St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church (Halifax), 70 St Paul’s Anglican Church(Halifax), 124 St Paul’s Cathedral (London), 4, 38, 65 Salisbury, Lord, 6, 49 Samson, Jane, xxiv Sand River Convention, 4 Sardinian, 21, 77 Scott, C.P., 83 Scott, Rev. Frederick G., 18, 111 Scott-Hullard, Canon, 6 Semple, Neil, xix Shaw, William I., 72 Simcoe (Ont.), 82 slavery: Britain fought against, 10. See also Boers Smith, Goldwin, 82 Smith, Rev. Lenox, 18 Smith, Victoria, 102 social Darwinism, 24, 35 social gospel, 24, 35; related to missions, 121–2 Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge, 81 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 121 soldiers: Christian, 38; wives, 80

212

Index

Stanley, Brian, 123, 129 Stead, W.T., 26, 46 Stewart, Rev. James, 16 Steyn, M.T., 31 Strachan, Rev. John, 69 suzerainty: British, 5, 8; seen as one cause of war, 9 synods: Calgary, 116; Fredericton, 64, 68; Montreal, 29; Toronto, 42–3 Tarte, Israel, 14, 83 Taylor, Roland, 60 Te Deum, singing of, 69 Temple, Archbishop, 122 Thompson, Andrew, 32 Toronto, 63; diocese of, 82; Globe, 17–18; victory celebrations, 58–9. See also patriotism Toronto Methodist Conference, 61 Toronto News, 34 Transvaal Republic, xvi–xvii, 4, 30, 32, 39; Britain can save, 143; British annexation of (1877), 4; diamonds and gold found in, 5, 32, 94; local Christians, 134 Trinity College, 59 Troughton, Rev. A.P., 136–7 Truro, 73 Turk, Rev. G.R. See Carlton Street Methodist Church Twentieth Century Fund, 51 Uitlanders. See Outlanders United States, xv, xviii, xxii, xxvii, 26, 28–9; Canada’s tension with, 89, 99–100; conflict with Spain, 100; critical of Britain, 24–6, 33, 139; critical of British concentration camps, 43; money raised in U.S.

for Canadian Patriotic Fund, 80; in Philippines, 43, 98; post-1898 expansionism, 54; potential ally of Britain, 99–100; rapprochement with, 101; referred to negatively as “the eagle,” 84 Vance, Jonathan F., xxiii Van Sicien, George W., 16 Victoria, Queen, 3, 5, 7, 29, 38; death of, 71, 102–5; Diamond Jubilee of, 89, 111, 113; Golden Jubilee, 113 Victoria Rifles, 60 Wallace, Clarke, 78 Watson, Rev. John, 107, 111 Wesley College, xv, 59, 143 Westminster Abbey, 67 white man’s burden, 26, 35, 48; U.S. and British Empire sharing, 100; used of the Boers, xxiv Wilde, Oscar, 107 Wilkinson, Glenn, xxvi Williams, Very Rev. Dean, 18 Winnipeg, xv; presbytery and missions, 123 Winslow, Rev. Forbes, 15, 63 Woman’s Baptist Missionary Union, 61 Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, 63 Woodsworth, J.S., xxiii Wright, Robert A., 50, 60; Protestants in First World War, 108 ymca, 63, 76, 78–80. See also chaplains Zambesi River, 49 Zululand, 133