The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

Portugal did not exert continuous or exclusive authority on the Congo for any great while; her possessions there, as well as those of the other Christian powers, fluctuated with the supply of slaves, the capture or purchase of which was the chief inducement to these settlements. They all followed up the supply of slaves from the interior of Africa, along the coast, according to its abundance, as the fishermen visit different localities in search of better fishing grounds.

In 1786, disputes having arisen between France and Portugal, as to the sovereignty of the latter over the mouth of the Congo, under the mediation of the King of Spain, Portugal conceded the point that her rights in that country were not exclusive. Since that time England has repeatedly denied, in the most formal and solemn manner, that Portugal had any sovereignty or suzerainty over the Congo country. None of the great powers claimed such sovereignty for themselves, nor have they conceded it to Portugal; their occupancy has not been such as implied any right to rule the country, but only such as was necessary to carry on trade. That is equally free to all nations. In the papers appended to this report, and especially in the valuable testimony of Earl Mayo, based upon his personal observations in the Congo country in 1882, we find the most conclusive proof upon all the points above stated, and unquestionable evidence that Portugal’s northernmost boundary on the West Coast of Africa, south of the Equator, for many years past, has been the river Loge.

The attitude of Great Britain towards the pretensions of Portugal to the sovereignty of the Lower Congo has been that of decided, frequent, and stern denial, accompanied with distinct orders to her fleets to repel any advance of Portugal to assert her authority north of Ambriz. This record, so repeatedly reaffirmed, is by no means changed by the fact that Great Britain may now be ready to admit Portugal, in alliance with her, to sovereign rights in the Lower Congo. Her change of policy cannot change the facts, especially when Great Britain obtains from Portugal the cession of Wydha in consideration that she will acknowledge the rights of Portugal to the sovereignty of the Lower Congo. Great Britain has also made treaties with fifteen tribes in the Lower Congo country, paying no attention to Portugal’s claims of sovereignty there.

In like manner France has disregarded these pretensions, and has made treaties with tribes north of the Congo. De Brazza, an enterprising explorer, went into that region of Africa as an agent of the African International Association, and also as an agent of the French Government, and was supported with money from the French treasury. He made these treaties in the name of France, and the Chamber of Deputies has ratified them. In view of these facts it can scarcely be denied that the native chiefs have the right to make treaties. The able and exhaustive statements and arguments of Sir Travers Twiss, the eminent English jurist, and of Professor Arntz, the no less distinguished Belgian publicist, which are appended to this report, leave no doubt upon the question of the legal capacity of the African International Association, in view of the laws of nations, to accept any powers belonging to these native chiefs and governments which they may choose to delegate or cede to them.

The practical question to which they give an affirmative answer, for reasons which appear to be indisputable, is this: Can independent chiefs of savage tribes cede to private citizens (persons) the whole or part of their states, with the sovereign rights which pertain to them, conformably to the traditional customs of the country?

The doctrine advanced in this proposition, and so well sustained by these writers, accords with that held by the Government of the United States, that the occupants of a country at the time of its discovery by other and more powerful nations have the right to make the treaties for its disposal, and that private persons, when associated in such country, for self-protection or self-government, may treat with the inhabitants for any purpose that does not violate the laws of nations.

The following incidents, mentioned in Bancroft’s History of the United States, show how much we owe, as a people, to the early recognition of these doctrines:

“MASSACHUSETTS

“One day in March, 1621, Samoset, an Indian, who had learned a little English of the fishermen at Penobscot, entered the town, and, passing to the rendezvous, exclaimed in English, ‘Welcome, Englishmen!’ He was the envoy of Massasoit himself, the greatest commander of the country, sachem of the tribe possessing the land north of Narragansett Bay, and between the rivers of Providence and Taunton. After some little negotiation, in which an Indian who had been carried to England acted as interpreter, the chieftain came in person to visit the Pilgrims. With their wives and children they amounted to no more than fifty. He was received with due ceremonies, and a treaty of friendship was completed in few and unequivocal terms. Both parties promised to abstain from mutual injuries, and to deliver up offenders; the colonists were to receive assistance, if attacked; to render it, if Massasoit should be attacked unjustly. The treaty included the confederates of the sachem; it is the oldest act of diplomacy recorded in New England; it was concluded in a day, and was sacredly kept for more than half a century.”—(Bancroft’s History of the United States, p. 210.)

“The men of Plymouth exercised self-government without the sanction of a royal charter, which it was ever impossible for them to obtain.”—(Ibid., p. 213.)