Trending
The Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) had become a thorn in President William McKinley's side.
Britain was fighting for control of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic -- two small countries in Southern Africa. These independent states were governed by Boers, descendants of the Dutch who had arrived there during the early 1800s.
The U.S. had been on friendly terms with the Orange Free State since 1871, when the two countries signed the Convention of Friendship and Commerce and Extradition. However, President McKinley could not afford to offend Britain. In "William McKinley and His America," H. Wayne Morgan explained that Britain and the U.S. were negotiating a treaty that would allow the U.S. to build a canal in Central America. McKinley needed to stay on Britain's good side -- at least until a new treaty had been signed.
Yet, according to Morgan, some Americans believed the Boers were fighting for their independence from Britain and wanted McKinley to support them. On March 16, 1900, the New York Times reported that a mass meeting in support of the Boers was held at Cooper Union in New York. One of the speakers asserted, "None of our Revolutionary heroes fought more desperately than the Boers are fighting now. I demand that this Government do for those republics what France did for us, and what we did for Venezuela, Mexico and Cuba." McKinley's refusal to aid the Boers made him unpopular with mass meeting attendees, who cheered his political opponent and started "hissing" when McKinley's name was mentioned. This conflict was worrisome in an election year, but the president remained determinedly neutral.
On March 16, the New York Times reported the Boer presidents had asked McKinley "to offer intervention with a view to a cessation of hostilities." Effectively, they wanted America to fight alongside them. McKinley had no intention of entangling his country in another war, but he did offer to mediate the conflict. When Secretary of State John Hay communicated this proposal to the British, however, he accidentally suggested the U.S. was willing to support the Boers militarily if no compromise could be reached.
Thankfully, the Times reported, the British understood that McKinley only meant to offer mediation. They refused his offer politely but firmly, informing the world that they did not need anyone's help in South Africa. A serious international incident was avoided.
Nevertheless, the English were offended.
In an article published March 18, the Los Angeles Times reported, "Members of the (British) government privately display pique that, of all the powers, America should have consented to assume what one official designated as the 'ungracious role of suggesting some form of interference.'"
The British were upset with McKinley; pro-Boer Americans were upset with McKinley; and a presidential election was on the horizon.
Still, McKinley needn't have worried about his chances of re-election. On March 21, the New York Times reported that the Republican State Convention of Arkansas had instructed its delegates to renominate McKinley. On March 22, The Washington Post reported that Louisiana's delegates also renominated McKinley. That same day, the Los Angeles Times commented, "Few intelligent men of any party have the hardihood to deny that the re-election of McKinley is practically a foregone conclusion."