No Kruger Presidency past 1893

So, I am interested to see where we think South Africa and the World would have ended up if Paul Kruger, for whatever reason, did not stay President past the 1893 election. He could lose, refuse to stand, retire, travel or die, but for whatever reason, someone else wins.

Why the 1893 Election? Well, it is the closest election prior to the Jameson Raid while still being some years out. If the POD is sufficiently far back, perhaps some of the immediate preconditions to the Raid will change and no Raid or the like will happen.

Why is the Raid important? Well, imo, it was the single most important sundering event between Afrikaners and the British prior to the Second South African War. There were many other deep seated issues that made the relationship between the Colonies, the Empire and the Republics fraught and liable to conflict (diamonds, gold, territorial expansion (Rhodesia etc), political rights of British residents of ZAR etc), but the Jameson Raid helped turn the "loyal" Afrikaner populations of the turn against the British/Colonial governments and helped make the later war become as much a war between the Afrikaner peoples and the British Empire. A culture war as much as a regular war.

With no, or a lesser South African War, or at least one where the Afrikaner populations of the Cape or Natal stay largely loyal (and no concentration camps occur), both Britain/Empire and the South African colonies or republics may turn out rather differently.

1. There may be no Union of South Africa - there may instead remain a patchwork of small white colonies or republics, alongside the British Crown tribal territories and the German & Portuguese territories. It is probable that the Cape and Natal unite though, into a British Dominion, given the example in Canada, Australia and NZ.

Maybe they do all join a looser commercial union of some kind. Like a proto EFTA or ASEAN. Close friends, but different countries?

2. Without a big war in SA, Britain's feet of clay will not be so visible. Nor however will have the Dominions had to unite behind Britain and the Empire in the way that they did. So if there is a Great War sometime after the turn of the century the Empire may be worse prepared.

3. On the other hand, maybe tensions in Europe may be slightly lessened if the rest of Europe doesn't despise Britain for their conduct as per OTL?
I think the Germans and British will fall out to some degree either way, but without a public telegram to Kruger maybe the Kaiser wouldn't be such a figure of hate in Britain. Maybe the Dutch might be slightly more favourably inclined to the British, if their co-nationalists are subjected to a vicious war and murderous peace?

The butterflies could be huge

4. Race!

The Afrikaner renaissasance would probably carry on either way, clearly solidifying into a distinct cultural group, alongside Dutch, but not Dutch. However without the OTL War and the mass death of civilians, or the Raid, there will be a clearer split between those who are British and those who live in the Republics. Identity will also not be so clearly based on opposition to the Hated British. Maybe High Dutch retains a stronger hold on "higher culture"?

Other races - Black/Indian/Coloured/Chinese etc

I don't see this changing much initially, but with at least 4-5 different national units or no war, or the influence of the OFS/Transvaal/Natal/etc on the Cape, the latter will retain its slightly more enlightened franchise?


Thoughts?
 
Julius, I like this one. Insofar as Oom Paul was significant in this.

Some thoughts:
1) Could Paul Kruger be voteds out? Joubert tried his level best. I am not really aware of others who were "up there" or even having put their hat in the ring.

2) 1893does come across as too late. Kruger's reputation was settled at that point.

3) What if Majuba was a disaster? and Kruger's negotiations came to nothing? that would take away his stance? But then again, you would have SA developments without the 1st war?

4) You could also have Kruger to back a British influence, as Jan Smuts did? But then he would (probably) have to form another party?

5) Maybe Kruger gets killed at the battle of Blood River? That would settle it.

Ivan
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
If Kruger or his agents were involved in some sort of ballot-stuffing, then maybe this comes to light and is properly investigated and Joubert wins?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Julius, I like this one. Insofar as Oom Paul was significant in this.

Some thoughts:
1) Could Paul Kruger be voteds out? Joubert tried his level best. I am not really aware of others who were "up there" or even having put their hat in the ring.

2) 1893does come across as too late. Kruger's reputation was settled at that point.

3) What if Majuba was a disaster? and Kruger's negotiations came to nothing? that would take away his stance? But then again, you would have SA developments without the 1st war?

4) You could also have Kruger to back a British influence, as Jan Smuts did? But then he would (probably) have to form another party?

5) Maybe Kruger gets killed at the battle of Blood River? That would settle it.

Ivan

The earlier PODs are pretty interesting too, but I prefer 1) as the result was about 5% in PK's favour and as GY implied, there was some thought that PK was ballot stuffing. If Jourbet won, well who knows?
 
Now, this is fun:

Joubert is winning the election. Let's put it at 1883.

Joubert was a hard-liner at that time. Would it have put Transvaal at odds with Britain sooner?

It was only later he started to "mellow" a bit.

Joubert as the leader of Transvaal and OFS in 1880's? Yes?

Ivan
 
If the Boer republics are never brought into the Imperial fold, arguably life will be better for blacks in Cape Colony and Natal. IOTL, prior to the Boer War, blacks could attain political office in the British colonies, and only when the Union of South Africa was created, did apartheid become the norm in Anglo-African areas as well Afrikaans areas.
 
If the Boer republics are never brought into the Imperial fold, arguably life will be better for blacks in Cape Colony and Natal. IOTL, prior to the Boer War, blacks could attain political office in the British colonies, and only when the Union of South Africa was created, did apartheid become the norm in Anglo-African areas as well Afrikaans areas.

I don't believe Natal followed the Cape Franchise, nor did S Rhodesia later on.
 
If the Boer republics are never brought into the Imperial fold, arguably life will be better for blacks in Cape Colony and Natal. IOTL, prior to the Boer War, blacks could attain political office in the British colonies, and only when the Union of South Africa was created, did apartheid become the norm in Anglo-African areas as well Afrikaans areas.

Nonsense.

Learn some South African history before you come speak rubbish here.
 
Now, this is fun:

Joubert is winning the election. Let's put it at 1883.

Joubert was a hard-liner at that time. Would it have put Transvaal at odds with Britain sooner?

It was only later he started to "mellow" a bit.

Joubert as the leader of Transvaal and OFS in 1880's? Yes?

Ivan


Ivan - if we run with your idea - how do you think an earlier conflict between Transvaal and the British would unfold? Do you think the OFS would assist?
 
Okay I'll bite, why is it nonsense?


Well, for one Natal ran a very restricted franchise, more similar to the Afrikaner Republics than the Cape, secondly, despite the fact that the Cape had a more generous franchise it still very much was committed to White racial privilege, just in a different way. There was also a reasonably consistent effort by elements in the Cape prior to the Second South African War to restrict non White voting and opportunity
 
Well, for one Natal ran a very restricted franchise, more similar to the Afrikaner Republics than the Cape, secondly, despite the fact that the Cape had a more generous franchise it still very much was committed to White racial privilege, just in a different way. There was also a reasonably consistent effort by elements in the Cape prior to the Second South African War to restrict non White voting and opportunity

What he said.

There seems to be a consistent belief on this forum (and probably generally) that the Boers and Afrikaners were more racist than their British counterparts.

They were, in fact, no more racist than probably any other white people around the world at the time.

Many of the laws which formed the basis for apartheid were passed between 1910 and 1924, when South Africa probably had its most Anglophile government.
 
What he said.

There seems to be a consistent belief on this forum (and probably generally) that the Boers and Afrikaners were more racist than their British counterparts.

They were, in fact, no more racist than probably any other white people around the world at the time.

Many of the laws which formed the basis for apartheid were passed between 1910 and 1924, when South Africa probably had its most Anglophile government.


We also have to remember that Britain, by the late 19th century, very much let the local parliaments legislate their own way, even when London had reservations about particular actions. They very rarely intervened in "loyal" parliaments
 
Top