Burt A. The Evolution of the British Empire and Commonwealth From the American Revolution
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Tiro
New Great
Dominions:
Australia and
South
Africa
615
special preserve,
and
the
mining
community
objected
to all
protective
duties as
a
burden
upon
it.
Though
the
Transvaal was
landlocked,
it
was
not at
the
mercy
of
the
coastal
colonies.
It
had
an
alternative
outlet
to
the sea
through
Mozambique,
and
there was a
good
guarantee
that
this
northern
route
would
remain
open,
for
the
Portuguese
could
paralyze
the
Rand
by
cutting
off
its
vital
supply
of native labor.
The customs
union
began
to
crack
in
1906,
when
Natal
denounced
the
convention,
thereby forcing
another
conference
to
revise
the
tariff
in the
fiscal interests
of
Natal
and
the
Cape.
This in
turn was
attacked
by
the Transvaal
on
the
ground
that it
raised the
cost of
living,
and
as
soon as
Botha
took
office
he
declared
his intention
of
denouncing
the
revised convention.
The
railways
likewise threatened to
be
an instrument
of strife in-
stead of
being
a
bond of union.
One
railway
boundary
had
disap-
peared,
Milner
having
early
combined
the
railways
of the
former
republics.
That
left three
competing
systems
serving
the four colonies.
AU
were
state-owned,
and
the
prewar
rivalry
between
the
states
for
the
life-giving
trade
generated
on
the Rand
flared
up
more
intensely
than
ever.
In
this,
as in
the
tug-of-war
over
customs,
the
Transvaal had
a
great
advantage
over
Natal and the
Cape.
Of
the
various lines from
Johannesburg
to
the
coast,
the
shortest was to
Lourengo
Marques.
This
line was
also
the
only
one
that
lay
almost
wholly
within the
Transvaal,
whose revenue
had
therefore
most to
gain
from its
use. The line
to
Durban
was
nearly
as
short,
but
approximately
two thirds of it
belonged
to
Natal,
and the revenue
was divided
accordingly.
The lines
to
the
Cape
ports,
East
London,
Cape
Elizabeth,
and
Cape
Town,
were
much
longer
and
their
ownership
was more
equally
divided.
Mileage,
however,
was not the sole
determining
factor in
channeling
the external
trade of
the
Transvaal. There
was
an
appeal
to
patriotic
sentiment. British trade should
prefer
British
ports,
and
Afrikanders
in
the
north should not
desert their
brethren in the
south.
Then
too
there
was the
old
cutthroat
railway
game
with which
South
Africa was
already
familiar. Rates and rebates
could
compensate
for
distance,
and
so
could
the
manipulation
of
traffic facilities. Such
tricks
could also
offset the effect
of
customs duties
upon
the
direction of
trade.
Early
in
1905,
largely
at
Milner's
behest,
a
conference in
Pretoria
agreed
that
the
prized
trade should
be
distributed
equally
between
the
three
rail-
way systems,
which
would
require
a
renegotiation
of
the
1901
modus
vivendi
with the
Portuguese.
But
rivalry
between
the
Cape
ports
616
CHAPTER
THIRTY-ONE:
blocked
ratification
by
the
Cape
assembly,
thereby
upsetting
the
agree-
ment.
The
dangerous problem,
thus left
unsolved,
became
more dan-
gerous
with the
establishment of
self-government
in
the
Transvaal.
Lord
Selborne,
Milner's
successor
as
high
commissioner,
reported
in
a
famous
memorandum
of
1907 that the
problem
presented
such
a
con-
flict
of
interest
between the
separate
colonies
that
they
could resolve
it
only
by
"arbitration
or
the
sword."
From
this
he
drew
a conclusion
that
others
also had
reached
and
that
was
presented
to
an
intercolonial
railway
and customs conference at
Pretoria
in
May
1908.
The
conclusion
was that the colonies
should
dissolve
their
conflict
in a
political
union.
Of the
many problems
that called
for
the
unifica-
tion of
South
Africa,
that
of the
railways
was
the
most
immediately
pressing;
it
brought
to
a
head a
movement
initiated
by
the Kinder-
garten.
These
remarkable
young
men
early
fell
into
discussing
among
themselves the future of
the
country. They
could
see
no
hope
for
it
unless the
colonies were bound
together
in
a
federation,
and that
very
soon
or it
would be too late.
Presently
a
bright
light
burst
upon
them
as
they
read
the
newly published
Alexander
Hamilton
by
F.
S.
Oliver.
This
penetrating
study
of
how Americans had formed
a national
union
in
spite
of
great
difficulties seemed to
point
the
way
for South
Africans.
Under the
leadership
of
Lionel
Curtis,
who for
this
purpose
resigned
from
the civil
service,
the
group
threw all its
energies
into the
cause
of union.
Curtis'
pen
quickly produced
two books that
soon had a
profound
influence in
shaping
the new South
Africa.
They
presented
a
full and
compelling
argument
for
federation,
and
a
study
of its
successful
operation
in other lands.
The
next
step
was
to
get
the two white
races
to
study
the
question
seriously.
Therefore with tireless
energy
Curtis
and
his associates
traveled
through
the
four
colonies,
organizing
Closer
Union
Societies,
holding
conferences,
and
enlisting
the
support
of
local
people.
As
there was
no
South
African
newspaper
or
magazine
that
circulated
throughout
the
country
or
represented
more
than
a
sectional
point
of
view,
they
filled the
gap by
establishing
a
monthly
organ
of
their
own,
The
State,
with
Philip
Kerr
as editor.
He
is
reputed
to have
made
it
"the most
important
factor in
creating
the
public
opinion
that
carried
the
Union
through."
3
Meanwhile
on
the
persuasion
of
Jameson
and
with
the
consent of
all
the
governments
concerned,
Lord
Selborne
issued his
famous mem-
3
The
Round
Table,
March
1941,
p.
202.
Two
Neiv Great
Dominions: Australia
and South
Africa
617
orandum,
which
strongly
advanced
the
case for
a
national
government.
Though
it
was
not
known
publicly
at the
time,
Curtis
and his
fellows
had
a
good
deal to
do with the
preparation
of
this
important
document.
When
the
customs
and
railway
conference
assembled
in
May
1908,
Smuts
moved
a
series
of
resolutions,
which
were
quickly passed,
declar-
ing
that
an
early
union
of
the
South
African
colonies
under
the
British
Crown was
essential,
and
inviting
their
legislatures
to
appoint
delegates
to
a
national convention
which
would
frame
a draft
constitution.
This
turn
of events
brought
such a sense of
relief to
the
country
that
within
two
months the four
legislatures accepted
the
invitation.
The national
convention,
which met at
Durban
in
October
1908
and
in the
following
month
adjourned
to
Cape
Town
where
it com-
pleted
the draft
constitution,
was dominated
by
the
Transvaal
delega-
tion.
In
addition to
representing
the wealthiest
though
not
the
most
populous
state,
it was
by
far the
best
organized
and
prepared.
It alone
had
composed
all
internal
differences
on
the
main
questions
to
be con-
sidered.
It
alone
was
accompanied
by
a staff
of
expert
advisers. It
alone was
armed
with a
constitution
already
drawn
up,
the work
of
Smuts
and the
Curtis
group.
As
the
other
delegations
had no definite
plan
of their
own,
they
had to be
content
with
offering
amendments,
which the
convention threshed out
or
threw
out
until
it
reached
a
final
agreement.
The
result was
submitted to
the
four colonial
legislatures,
some of
which
proposed
further amendments.
In
May
1909
the con-
vention
disposed
of
these in
a
short final
session
at Bloemfontein. The
revised draft was then
approved
by
the
legislatures
of the
Transvaal,
the
Orange
River
Colony,
and
the
Cape,
and
by
a
referendum
in
Natal.
In
September
of
the
same
year,
it was
enacted
in
London.
The
speed
with which the
South
African
constitution
was made
and
adopted
offers
a
striking
contrast with
Canadian and Australian
experi-
ence.
It
reflects
the
greater
sense of
urgency
felt
by
South
Africans,
and
it
is all the
more remarkable
because
they
could
get
little
guidance
from what had been
done in either
of
those
dominions
or
in
the
United States.
The South African
constitution
differs
fundamentally
from
the
American, Canadian,
and
Australian
constitutions in
that it
is not
a
federal
one. The
uniting
colonies retained
their
identity
as
provinces,
each
with its own
government
but
possessing
no
independent
authority.
The
decision
to establish
a
unitary
form
of
government
was made
by
the
convention
at
the
very
outset,
though
until
only
a
few
months
pre-
viously
almost
all South
Africans
had
taken
for
granted
that
their
618
CHAPTER
THIRTY-ONE:
country
too
would
be a
federation. It then
seemed
the best
they
could
hope
for.
Indeed
no
country
has
ever
adopted
federation when
the
component
states
were
willing,
for the sake
of
unity,
to
surrender
all
their
independence;
and as late as
February
1908
South
Africans
generally
were
still
thinking
in
terms
of
a
very
limited
surrender,
a
loose
federation.
Then the South
African
Party
ousted
Jameson
from
office,
and
at once
Smuts
wrote
Merriman,
the new
Cape
premier,
say-
ing
that the
time
had come to
push
for federation.
Merriman
leaped
at
the
proposal
and
replied
that
"the nearer
to
unification the better."
Federation
was
only
a
partial
cure
for
the
grave
evils
inherent in
con-
tinued
political
disunity,
and fear
of these evils
was
giving
the
move-
ment
such
momentum
as
to
suggest
the
possibility
of
driving
straight
on to
get
a
more
thorough
cure
in a
more
perfect
union.
Moreover,
the
divisions that
cut
deepest
in
South
Africa
were not
territorial
but
racial
between
Dutch
and
English,
and
between
white and
black
and
these
racial
cleavages
had
little
relation to
intercolonial
boundaries,
which
were
largely
artificial
and
accidental.
When the
Transvaal
delegation
proposed
union rather than
federa-
tion,
their
Cape
colleagues
were
ready
to
fall in with
the
idea.
The
colony they represented,
being
the
oldest
and
the
most
populous,
had
least to
fear from such
a
merger.
The
two little
colonies
had
naturally
more
reason
to fear
that
they
would be
submerged.
But
Orange
River
Colony
was
placated
by
the
restoration
of its
old
republican
name,
Orange
Free
State,
and
by
the
thought
that
Afrikanders
outnumbered
English
South
Africans
in
the
whole
country.
This
very
thought,
how-
ever,
made
Natal
apprehensive
of
jeopardizing
its
peculiarly
English
character.
When its
delegates
returned
home,
they
were
regarded
as
traitors. It
alone
demanded
federation,
which
the
other
three
rejected.
Therefore
Natal
came
face to
face
with
the
necessity
of
deciding
whether
to
go
in
with
them
or
stay
out.
Either
alternative
had its
obvious
dangers,
and
the
government
of
Natal
was
so
fearful
of
making
the
wrong
choice
that
all it
could do
was to
order a
referendum.
The
result
was a
surprisingly
large
majority
for
joining
the
other
colonies.
In the
structure
of
the
central
government,
South
Africa
bears a
family
resemblance
to
Canada
and
Australia,
with
its
governor
general,
its
two houses
of
parliament,
and its
cabinet
system.
The
South
African
Senate
was
constituted
much
more like
the
Australian
than
the
Canadian,
with
each
province,
irrespective
of
size,
having
the
same
number of
senators
eight
and
all
elected.
Their
election,
however,
was
made
indirect,
the
electors
being
the
representatives
of
the
province
Two New
Great
Dominions:
Australia and South
Africa
619
in the
lower
house of
the
national
parliament
and the
members
of
the
provincial
council,
to
be
noted
later,
voting
as
one
body.
In
addition
to
these
thirty-two
elected
senators,
the constitution
provided
for
eight
to
be
appointed
as in
Canada
but
holding
their seats
for
only
ten
years,
the
term
of
the
elected
senators;
and it
required
four of
these
eight
to
be
chosen
mainly
for
"their
thorough
acquaintance, by
reason
of their
official
experience
or
otherwise,
with the reasonable
wants
and wishes
of
the
coloured races."
The
allocation of
seats
in
the lower
chamber,
the
House of
Assembly,
is
roughly
in
proportion
to
the
European
male
adult
population.
As a
sop
to
the
two smaller
provinces,
they
were
originally
much
overrepresented.
But the
constitution
provided
for the
progressive
correction
of this
inequality.
4
The South Africans
copied
the
Australian
device of
a
joint
session
to
break deadlocks
between
the
two
houses but
eliminated the
requirement
of
a
prior
dissolution.
The
final decision
therefore
comes
sooner in
South
Africa,
and
it is more
weighted
against
the
upper
house,
which
is
little
more
than
one
quarter,
instead of one
half,
the size of the lower house.
The
structure of the
South
African
provincial governments
is
entirely
unlike that
of
the
Canadian
provinces
or the Australian
states.
It
is a
distinct South
African creation.
The
chief
executive officer is
an
administrator
appointed
by
the central
government
and
responsible
to
it. His
position
is
comparable
to
that of a
governor
who
really
governs.
In
place
of
the
old two-chambered
legislature
there is an
elected
provincial
council which sits
for
three
years
and
cannot be
dissolved
during
this
period.
At
the first
meeting
after
each election
its
members
have to choose
four
persons,
not
necessarily
from
among
themselves,
to
form,
with the administrator
as its
head,
an executive
committee.
The
administrator
and
any
other
member of this committee
who
is
not a
member of
the
provincial
council
have the
right
to
partici-
pate
in
the
deliberations of the
provincial
council
but
not to vote in it.
The
council has
authority
to
legislate
and
levy
taxes,
but
every
measure
it
passes
has effect
only
when
it receives
the assent
of the central
government,
and then
only
as
long
and as
far
as it is
not
repugnant
to
an act of
the Union
parliament.
The
provincial
council
is
thus
a
sort
of
glorified
county
council,
and
the
provinces
are but
the
ghosts
of the
former
self-governing
colonies.
4
By
requiring
an
automatic
redistribution
of seats
after each
quinquennial
census,
beginning
in
1911,
and
by
prescribing
that no
seat should be
taken
from a
province
until the
membership
of
the
House,
originally
121,
reached
150,
a
size that
has
since
been
attained
and was to
remain fixed until
the
Union
parliament
decreed
otherwise.
620
CHAPTER
THIRTY-ONE:
The
judicial
administrations of
the
uniting
colonies
were
fused
into
one
system.
The
highest
court
in each
colony
was
continued
as
a
pro-
vincial
division
of
the
Supreme
Court
of South
Africa,
from
which
appeal
lies
only
in
the
Appellate
Division
of
the
Supreme
Court. From
this
body
the
constitution barred
all
appeals
to
the
Privy
Council save
by
special
leave of the
latter.
The
Supreme
Court
of South
Africa,
unlike
the
corresponding
courts
of
Canada
and
Australia,
has
been
little
troubled until after
World
War II
by
constitutional cases
because
South
Africa has
a
unitary,
not
a
federal,
form of
government
and its
parliament
was
endowed
with almost absolute
authority.
In
point
of
power
the South African
parliament
offers
a
marked
contrast to the
parliaments
of Canada
and
Australia.
The
legislative
authority
that
was
divided between
them
and the
provincial
or
state
legislatures
was
concentrated
in
the
Union
parliament.
In
addition,
it
was
given
complete authority
to amend the
constitution
by
ordinary
legislation
or
by
a
two-thirds
majority
of
the two
houses
sitting together.
The
more difficult method was
prescribed
for
any change
in the
estab-
lishment
of Dutch
and
English
on an
equal
footing
as
official
languages
of the
Union,
and for
any
alteration of
the
franchise based on
race or
color.
The
section
(152)
imposing
this
restriction was
itself
likewise
"entrenched"
to
protect
the other
"entrenched
clauses."
5
The franchise
was the
thorniest
question
that
the
convention
had
to
handle.
The
two
ex-republics
had
white
manhood
suffrage
and
would
make
it
uniform
throughout
the
Union.
The
other
two
colonies
objected
strenuously.
They
had
a
property
qualification
that
excluded
poor
whites.
Natal
also had
special
laws that
denied
the
franchise to
Indians and to
all but a
negligible
number
of
colored
people.
The
Cape
too
had
an
additional
requirement,
but
this
was an
educational test
that
was
applied
without
regard
to race.
The
Cape
was the
only
one
of
the
four
colonies
in
which
the
right
to
vote
did
not
depend
on
tide
color
of
a
man's skin.
Here
there
were
some
15,000
nonwhites
on
the
electoral
roll.
Here
too
nonwhites
were
eligible
for
election
to
the
legislature,
though
none
of them
had
ever
sought
a
seat.
The
Cape
was
proud
of
its
enlightened
policy
of
equal
rights
for
all
civilized
men,
and
believed that
the
only way
of
salvation
for
the
whole
country
was
to
follow this
lead. But
the
Cape
could
not
impose
its
system
on
the
5
These
also
covered
other
matters,
but
with
a
time limit
that
has
long
since
expired.
For
example,
no
province
was to have its
representation
in
the
House
of
Assembly
reduced
by
a
redistribution
of
seats
until
they
numbered
150.
Two New Great
Dominions:
Azistralia and
South
Africa
621
other
colonies,
nor
could
they
force
theirs
upon
the
Cape.
Therefore,
after
a
tough
struggle,
the
convention
agreed
to
leave
the
varied fran-
chise
as it
stood
and
to
bar
non-Europeans
from
standing
for election
except
to the
provincial
councils
of the
Cape
and
Natal.
The
provinces,
however,
were
denied
the
control that
they
had exercised as self-
governing
colonies over
their
respective
franchises.
Reviewing
the
South
African
constitution,
one
can
see various
fea-
tures
that
suggest
federalism.
It
designated
Pretoria as
the executive
capital,
Cape
Town
as
the
legislative
capital,
and Bloemfontein as the
judicial
capital.
It
transformed the
several
colonies
into
provinces,
it
gave
them
equal
representation
in the
Senate
and the
two smaller
ones
a
disproportionately
large
number
of
seats in
the
House
of
Assembly,
and it
continued
in
the
provinces
the
existing
colonial differences on
the
controversial
question
of
political
rights
enjoyed
by
nomvhites.
But
all
these
concessions
to
colonial
particularism,
necessary
as
they
were
for
the
unification
of
South
Africa,
are
no more
than
shadows
of
federalism.
The
Union
of
South
Africa
was
proclaimed
on
31
May
1910.
It
was a
fitting
birthday
because
it
was
the
anniversary
of the
Peace
of
Vereeniging,
signed
exactly
eight
years
before.
CHAPTER
XXXII
Dominion
Nationalism
OF
THE
VARIOUS
FORCES
that
have
shaped
and
still
govern
the
world
of
today,
one
of
the most
powerful
is nationalism.
During
the last
quarter
of
the
nineteenth
century
and
the
opening
years
of
the twenti-
eth,
it
became
the dominant
political
influence
in western
civilization
and,
spreading
beyond,
began
to
undermine
western
control
of the
rest
of
the
world.
Within
the
British
Empire
its
growth
was most
pronounced
in
the
great
dominions,
in
Ireland,
and
in
India.
Nationalism,
which
people
commonly
take for
granted,
is
a
mysteri-
ous
thing,
a subtle
psychological
power
that defies
exact
analysis.
What
binds
the
members
of
a
nation
together
is
a
feeling
that
they
have
something
precious
in common
that
distinguishes
and
separates
them
from
any
other
people.
Of
what
does this
prized
possession
consist?
One
possible
element
is
race,
sometimes
regarded
as so
important
that
a
myth
of
racial
unity
has
been created
for
national
purposes.
But
race
is
not
an essential
component.
Most
nations
are
racial
mixtures
and
different
nations
may
have the same
racial
heritage.
A
more
usual
and
much
more
potent
element
is
language,
which likewise is not essential
though
it comes
near to
being
so.
Though
bilingual
and
multilingual
nations
exist,
these
are
exceptions
whose national
unity
is
always
handi-
capped
and sometimes
seriously
strained
by
internal
linguistic
division,
particularly
when
one
language group
tries
to
force its own
tongue
on
the
rest of
the
nation for the
sake of closer national
integration.
On
the
other
hand,
many
nations
speak
the same
tongue
as
others,
but
there is
a natural
tendency
to
develop
national variations of a
common
language,
and sometimes
this
tendency
has
been
artificially
cultivated
for
national
reasons.
Irishmen have
gone
even
further.
They
have
revived
a dead
tongue
out of
national revulsion
against
England.
Other
elements,
such
as
religion,
or
government,
or
country,
or
culture,
have
Dominion
Nationalism
623
also contributed
to
the
making
of
national consciousness.
Yet,
on
the
parallel
of race
and
language,
not
one of
them is
essential.
The
precious
something
is
a
compound
as
variable,
as
elusive,
and
as
mysterious
as
that
which
makes a
particular
man
fall
in love
with
a
particular
maid.
Their
parents
and friends
may
wonder
what
they
see
in each
other
that
is so
exclusively
attractive,
and
so is it
with
nations.
The
average
American
finds it
difficult
to
understand
why
Canadians,
who seem
to
be
so like
himself,
should
prefer
to remain a
separate
nation,
for
their
preference
is
fundamentally
instinctive
rather than
rational.
The idea
that
Canada
should
join
the
United States
is
repel-
lent
to
Canadians
though
natural to Americans
for
the obvious
reason
that
the
greater
would
absorb the lesser
body,
and
self-preservation
is
the
first law
of
a
nation's
existence and
self-aggrandizement
is
the
second.
Nationalism
operates
by
external
repulsion
as
w
r
ell as
by
internal
attraction,
thus
resembling
the
magnet
with
its
opposite
and
insepa-
rable
poles,
for
the
pulling
together
that makes a
nation is
essentially
a
pulling together
against people
outside itself.
Nothing
can rouse the
national
sentiment of
a
people
more
quickly
or
fiercely
than a
first-class
quarrel
with
another
nation.
"My
country
right
or
wrong
11
is the
natural
language
of
nationalism,
for
it is
of the
essence
of nationalism
to exalt
the
nation in
the
hierarchy
of human
values,
placing
it at
the
top.
Taking
the
world as
a
whole,
one
may question
whether
the
noble
brotherhood within
the
nation
has
been worth
the
price paid
for
it
in
the
accentuation of
the
differences between
nations.
National sover-
eignty
has
become a
commonly
accepted
ideal
which,
unless it
is
severely qualified,
spells
international
anarchy.
Within
the British
Empire,
nationalism was
more or
less
tempered
by
a
reluctance,
rooted in
sentiment
and
interest,
to sever
the British
association
or
even
to
weaken
it. This
reluctance was
naturally
most
marked in
the
parts
of the
overseas
empire
inhabited
by
people
who
sprang
from
the British
Isles.
In
addition to
being
British
originally,
these colonies
got
self-government
before
they
developed
the
conscious-
ness of
a
separate
nationality
in their new
environment. The
situation
was
complicated
in
Canada
and
South
Africa
by
the
presence
of the
French and
the
Boers,
who,
being
of
alien
stock
brought
under
British
rule
by conquest,
had
awakened
nationally
out
of
resentment
against
this
rule
before
self-government
was
introduced.
But
if
each
of
these
two dominions
developed
a
dual
nationality
which
distinguished
them
from
the
dominions
peopled
wholly
from the
British
Isles,
all
the
624 CHAPTER
THIRTY-TWO:
dominions
were new
countries,
and all
free
to
go
their own
way
without
any
restraint
imposed
by
Britain.
Ireland was
different,
and India
much
more so. In
contrast to
the
dominions,
Ireland was
an
old
country
with
a
glorious early
history
and
a
grievous
later
one. The Irish
were
a
conquered people
long
held
in
subjection,
and
by
the
nineteenth
century they
did
not
have
even
a
subordinate
government
of
their
own. Their nationalism
was a
struggle
for
self-government;
it was so
compromised by
the
existence
of a
Protes-
tant
minority population,
transplanted
from
Great Britain
centuries
before
and
forming
a solid block
in
the
northeast
of
the
island,
that
Ireland
split
completely
instead
of
following
the
example
of
Canada
and
South Africa. Indian
nationalism
was
also
a
reaction
against
foreign
rule established
by conquest,
and it too
split
the
country;
but
in other
respects,
as we
shall
see,
it
bears
little
resemblance
to
Irish
and
less to dominion
nationalism.
The first
dominion to
develop
a
national
consciousness
was
Canada,
partly
because it
was the
oldest,
the
biggest,
and
the
wealthiest,
and
partly
because it
lay
cheek
by
jowl
with
the
United
States.
None
of
the
others
ever
had such a
close
and
powerful
neighbor.
Though
the
federa-
tion of
British North
America
was
conceived
and
born in fear
of
the
United
States,
the
people
of the
uniting
colonies were
not
yet
a
nation.
There was
much talk
among
them
that
they
would
now form a
nation,
and
there
was
no
little
pride
in the
anticipation
of
such
an
achievement.
In this
talk and
this
pride,
we
may
see
the
first
conscious
stirring
of
Canadian
nationalism.
It was
soon
quickened
by
the
enormous
terri-
torial
expansion
of 1870
and
1871,
effected with an
eager eye
to fore-
stall the
United
States. But
the
new
dominion
could not
hope
to
survive,
much
less
become
really
united,
so
long
as it
depended
upon
the
United States
for
communication
between
its
parts.
The
only
all-
year
communication
between the
Maritime
Provinces
and
Quebec
was
through
Portland,
Maine;
there
was
no
coming
and
going
between
Ontario
and
Manitoba
except
through
Chicago
and St.
Paul;
and the
only
way
from
central
Canada
to
British
Columbia
was
across
the
con-
tinent
on
American
railways
and
up
the
coast
on
American
vessels.
Under such
conditions,
the
pull
of
the
great
republic
upon
each
of
these
widely
separated
parts
would
slowly
but
surely
tear
the
dominion
asunder.
That
was
why
one
of
the
terms
of
federation
bound
the
Canadian
government
to
build a
railway
that
would
join
Halifax
with
Quebec,
Begun
in
1867
and
completed
in
1876,
the
Intercolonial
Railway
was