Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:05:27.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Extension of British Rule to Anlo (South-East Ghana), 1850–1890

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

D. E. K. Amenumey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Anlo is in South-East Ghana. During the pre-colonial period she made herself thoroughly hated by her neighbours. Thanks to this unpopularity, when Denmark and later Britain decided to subdue Anlo, each found ready allies amongst Anlo' s neighbours.

In 1850 Britain ‘acquired’ jurisdiction over Anlo from Denmark. This proved a false start. Britain withdrew in 1859. In 1874, however, jurisdiction was resumed. Even now the extension of jurisdiction was piecemeal. Initially only the coastal area within the range of the artillery of the fort at Keta was under any semblance of jurisdiction. Anlo tended to ignore the colonial administration. In 1885 and 1889 there was armed resistance which took some time to crush.

Nevertheless, this time British jurisdiction had come to stay. Over the years it extended in scope and intensity. By 1890 when Britain had demonstrated her ability to enforce compliance with her laws, Anlo became a regular part of Britain's colony of the Gold Coast.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 99 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Isert, P. E., Voyage en Guiné e et dans les Isles Caraibes en Amé rique (Paris 1793), p. 35.Google Scholar

2 Public Record Office T.70/ 1563, letter from Governor and Council to Committee, 20 June 1791, P.R.O. T.70/ 1565 (I), letter from William, Robert to John, Gordon, 29 03 1792.Google Scholar

3 Reindorf, C. C., The History of the Gold Coast and Asante (Basel, 1951: Ist ed. 1889?), 146–51.Google Scholar

4 Colonial Office 96/ 25, no. 3821 of Feb. 1852.

5 C.O. 96/ 47, no. 18667 of 28 June 1860.

6 C.O. 96/ 25, no. 11180 of 18 Oct. 1852.

7 C.O. 96/ 25, no. 6319 of Apr. 1852.

8 C.O. 96/ 25, no. 6320 of 23 Apr. 1852.

9 C.O. 96/ 25, no. 11180 of 18 Oct. 1852.

10 C.O. 96/ 27, no. 1800 of 19 Jan. 1853.

11 C.O. 96/ 27, no. 291 of 30 Nov. 1853.

12 C.O. 96/ 34, no. 8099 of 15 Aug. 1858.

13 C.O. 96/ 47 no. 4883 of 9 Mar. 1858.

14 Haertter, G., ‘ Einige Bausteine zur Geschichte der Evhe-Stä mme’. In Beiträ ge zur Kolonialpolitik und Kolonialwirtschaft, III. (1901– 1902), 470.Google Scholar

15 C.O. 96/ 43, no. 3979 of 9 Mar. 1858.

16 C.O. 96/ 47, no. 6882 of 25 May 1860.

17 C.O. 96/ 49 of 4 July 1860.

18 C.O. 96/ 70, no. 1312 of 2 Jan. 1866.

19 The general ‘ histories’ of the Gold Coast have usually misrepresented Anlo' s side of the picture in the recounting of these events. For an analysis of the economic and political background of these events. Amenumey, cf. D. E. K., ‘The Ewe people and the coming of European rule 1850– 1914’, unpublished M.A. thesis (London, 1964).Google Scholar

20 C.O. 96/ 222, no. 8105 of 23 June 1874.

21 C.O. 96/ 112, no. 8607 of 26 June 1874.

22 Kimble, D., A Political History of Ghana 1850– 1928 (Oxford, 1963), 12.Google Scholar

23 C.O. 96/ 850, of 28 Dec. 1870.

24 C.O. 96/ 112, no. 10245 of 5 Aug. 1874.

25 Minutes on dispatch of C.O. 96/ 112, no. 8105 of 23 June 1874.

26 C.O. 96/ 115, no. 4861 of 23 Mar. 1875.

27 C.O. 96/ 123, no. 4159 of 9 Mar. 1878.

28 Amenumey, , op. cit. 90–5. The seaboard of Somé, Aflao, was Ceded in 1879. Attempts to acquire cessions further east failed.Google Scholar

29 Kimble, , op. cit. 304.Google Scholar

30 C.O. 879/ 4, section 32, no. 100 of 14 July 1873, Enclosure— Kendall' s report of 11 June 1873.

31 C.O. 96/ 112, no. 10245 of 5 Aug. 1874.

32 C.O. 96/ 115, no. 8277 of 24 June 1875.

33 C.O. 96/ 141, no. 15046 of 24 July 1882.

34 C.O. 96/ 115, despatch of 10 July 1875.

35 Redwar, Hayes, Comments on Some Ordinances of the Gold Coast Colony (London, 1909), pp. 146–147.Google Scholar

36 C.O. 96/ 115, dispatch of 10 July 1875.

37 C.O. 96/ 127, no. 1887 of 22 Oct. 1879.

38 C.O. 96/ 127, no.711 of 18 Dec. 1879.

39 C.O. 96/ 120, no. 3740 of 20 Feb. 1877.

40 C.O. 96/ 128, no. 1394 of 6 Dec. 1879.

41 C.O. 96/ 19603 of 11 Nov. 1879; C.O. 96/ 128, no. 393 of 3 Dec. 1879.

42 C.O. 96/ 130, no. 5318 of 12 Mar. 1880.

43 C.O. 96/ 134, no. 2153 of 4 Jan. 1881.

44 C.O. 96/ 157, no. 9162 of 29 Apr. 1884.

45 C.O. 96/ 182, no. 19145 of 22 Aug. 1887.

46 C.O. 96/ 135, no. 21995 of 17 Nov. 1881.

47 The idea has gained currency thanks to the fact that A. B. Ellis, under whose comissionership the incident occurred, wrote an ‘ account’ of it in his West African Sketches (London, 1881). 272–89.Google Scholar His account is incorrect. His general thesis that there was a revolt by Anlo and an attack on the government because of his zeal in preventing smuggling is not quite true. His thesis has been repeated by Claridge, , op. cit. II, 204 ff., and has been accepted hitherto as ‘ fact’. Ellis' s account is quite different from the picture that emerges from the Colonial Office documents.Google Scholar

48 Ellis, , op. cit. 255. He claimed he had increased the revenue from £ 200 to £ 1,200 p.a. and was consequently cordially hated. Even the missionaries offered daily prayers for his removal.Google Scholar

49 C.O. 96/ 124, no. 15179 of 28 Oct. 1878.

50 C.O. 96/ 124, no. 15181 of 30 Oct. 1878.

51 C.O. 96/ 527, no. 16369 of 18 Apr. 1878. Enclosure Ellis, to Hay, 9 11 1879.Google Scholar

52 C.O. 96/ 125, no. 15594 of 5 Nov. 1878, Hay' s report, also C.O. 96/ 127, no. 16309 of 18 Nov. 1878, Justice Jackson' s report.

53 Ibid., Hay' s report.

54 Ibid.

55 C.O. 879/ 22, section 283, no. 107A of 3 Oct. 1884.

56 C.O. 879/ 22, section 296, no 24 of 31 Dec. 1884.

57 Ellis and Claridge gloss over the fact that it was necessary to lure Lima to the coast from Anyako, where he had been residing.

58 C.O. 879/ 21, section 280, no. 82 of 19 Jan. 1885.

59 C.O. 90/ 180, no. 9903 of 11 Apr. 1887.

60 On failing to collect any positive evidence to convict Lima, he was detained as a political prisoner till 1893.

61 C.O. 872/ 21, section 280, no. 87 of 14 Dec. 1885: Dudley' s report.

62 C.O. 879/ 21, section 28, no. 84 of 1 Feb. 1885: Parr' s report.

63 C.O. 879/ 21, section 280, no. 87 of 14 Feb. 1885: Dudley' s report.

64 Ibid.

65 C.O. 879/ 21, section 280, no. 86 of 6 Feb. 1885.

66 C.O. 879/ 22, section 294, no. 76 of 10 Mar. 1885.

67 C.O. 96/ 166, no. 12307 of 6 May 1885.

68 It was alleged that he had acquired 100 rifles and ammunition from pro-German elements in Little Popo.

69 C.O. 96/ 174, no. 13018 of 14 June 1880.

70 Confidential dispatch, Colonial Secretary to Inspector General, no. 108/ 89 of 12 Apr. 1889.

71 C.O. 96/ 174, no. 13018 of 14 June 1880.

72 C.O. 96/ 202, no. 14724 of 15 June 1889.

73 Ibid.

74 C.O. 96/ 202, no. 11885 of 23 Apr. 1889.

75 C.O. 96/ 203, no. 17041 of 29 July 1889.