The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

Powers asserted in good faith, and with a reasonable show of ability to maintain them, even by rebels, within a state that denounces their assertion as treasonable, are often recognised as being lawful, as well in the interests of humanity, as to give to the alleged rebels an opportunity to make good their pretensions by arms.

The history of our recent civil war discloses the recognition of the belligerent rights of the Confederate States by all nations, including the United States, which wholly denied the lawfulness of the acts of secession which led to hostilities and denounced them as treasonable.

If the flag of the Confederate States could protect its armed citizens against the penalties of piracy while destroying the ships and commerce of the United States, it would be difficult to state a reason why the flag of the International African Association should not protect its ships from capture and condemnation while carrying on peaceful commerce on the Congo. It would be still more difficult for any Christian nation to assign a reason founded in the principles of international law why it should refuse to recognise this flag. The Congo River has been for centuries, and is now, the common resort of the ships and flags of all countries, and it requires a total change of the political conditions in that country to destroy this right, and either to declare the waters and shores of the Congo as being neutral territory or as being under the sovereignty of any one or more of the foreign nations.

These reasons, and others which appear in the papers appended to this report, are a just and sufficient foundation for the declaration by the United States which individualises the flag of the African International Association as a national flag, entitled to our recognition and respect.

The precedents in our own history to justify our recognition of states while in the process of early development are numerous and conclusive. They are cited in the papers appended to this report, and are sustained by many other references which show that in Europe, Asia, and Africa civil power, exerted by commercial associations, and by religious orders, and by propagandas of civilisation, and by groups of Hospitallers, has owned large war fleets and raised armies, fought great battles, levied taxes, and performed every function of government. They did all this without claiming to possess sovereign power as organised nations; and they submitted themselves to the authority of the state after they had prepared the country where they ruled for that final act of establishment of sovereign power, and then they ceased to exist.

It is not necessary to go further in order to find a justification of the action suggested in the message of the President, and of the resolution which the Committee on Foreign Relations recommend as a proper means of carrying into effect this policy concerning the Free States of the Congo.

It is, however, proper to make some examination of the alleged claim of Portugal to the sovereignty of the mouth of the Congo, and of the riparian country as far into the interior as the first falls of Yellalla.

Portugal’s pretensions to this sovereignty are completely refuted by the fact that it has not been heretofore acknowledged by the five great powers whose flags have been flying for more than a century in the country now claimed by that Government. On the contrary, these powers have constantly refused to make any such concession on all occasions since 1786, and some of them previous to that time.

The claim of Portugal, based on discovery of the mouth of the Congo by Diego Cam in 1485, and by his having erected a monument on the shore to testify to his landing there, only establishes its antiquity and not its rightfulness under modern interpretations of the laws of nations.

If the laws of Christian nations give any effect to the discovery by the subjects of a Christian power, of a country inhabited even by savages, they also require that discovery shall be followed by continuous subsequent occupation. If such occupation ceases, it is justly considered as being abandoned, since the only foundation of reason or of justice that can support the occupation of an inhabited country by a foreign power is, that it is better that the savages should have the advantages of Christian instruction and laws, than that they should continue in darkness to rule the country in their own way. If, therefore, the Christian ruler should cease to occupy the country, it must be considered that he abandons his duty, and, with it, the sovereignty of the country.