The Case for Norwegian Independence

Today’s installment concludes Norway Establishes Independence,
with a short selection from Letter to the Independent by Bjornstjerne Bjornson.

Bjornstjerne Bjornson (1832-1910) was an impassioned political leader for Norwegian independence who played a central role in these events.

If you have journeyed through all of the installments of this series, just one more to go and you will have completed five thousand words from great works of history. Congratulations! For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in Norway Establishes Independence.

Time: 1905
Place: Scandinavia

It is possible that the way in which the Norwegians put an end to the union with Sweden may not meet with general approval. But this, it seems to me, is of secondary importance, for the dissolution of the Union is a happy event, as well for Sweden as for Norway. It was the only means for bringing about a good understanding between the three Scandinavian peoples. It is true that for the moment the Swedes are decidedly opposed to such an understanding. But circumstances are stronger than men. What is happening in the far East puts time on our side, and we can wait till the right moment comes for the consummation of this greater union.

Nearly eighty years ago an English trader was engaged in smuggling at Bodo, on our northwest coast. By means of false documents and untrue statements he persuaded the British Minister of Foreign Affairs to demand damages from Norway for the seizure of his merchandise and the imprisonment of his employees. Thereupon the London Foreign Office took such a decided stand that the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs was weak enough to yield and Norway had to pay. Never was perpetrated an unfairer act, and when the whole matter was unraveled the reprehensible conduct of the Swedish Foreign Office in caring, or rather in not caring, for our interests became so glaring and the comments thereon of the Norwegian officials were so full of indignation that an end was demanded of this Swedish tutelage. On every hand in Norway the question was now asked whether a free state should not conduct its own foreign affairs, especially as in this affair Sweden had assumed a degree of authority per mitted neither by the Norwegian Constitution nor the Act of Union.

Let me now enumerate some of the claims advanced by Norway, but disputed by Sweden. We asked that equal importance be given to the two kingdoms in the great seal of state; that Norway should have her own flag; that in Norway the name of that country should come first in all official documents; that the Governor of Norway should not be a Swede, for this post filled otherwise than by a Norwegian reduced our country to the rank of a province. One by one the Swedes yielded on all these points, but not without long resistance. While Norwegians were admitted to the diplomatic and consular services of the Union, we could not secure what we had most at heart — viz., the conduct of our own foreign affairs. Finally, a mixed commission made up of Swedes and Norwegians was appointed to settle this and other matters in dispute between the two countries. This commission sat from 1839 to 1844, but accomplished nothing. Sweden refused to grant our demands. A second mixed commission sat from 1865 to 1869, but with no better results. The Swedes made it a condition before they would make any concessions on other points that Norway accept the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Norwegian Storthing refused. In 1885 the Swedish Parliament regulated by law the conduct of our Norwegian foreign affairs, which up to then had been a royal prerogative and which now was put absolutely in the hands of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Stockholm. We saw in this act a direct violation of our rights. To our reiterated demand that we be allowed to participate in the conduct of the nation’s foreign policy we were always given the same reply — viz., that we must recognize the Swedish Minister in these matters. In 1895 came together another mixed commission, which was divided into several factions and which accomplished no practical results. Finally, an abortive effort was made to give to each country a consular service of its own. This time the proposal came from Sweden. But at the last moment she imposed conditions which a free country could not accept. The patience of Norway was now worn out.

To these various causes of discontent should be added the embarrassing situation often occasioned in Norway by the intrusion of the King and Swedish Government into our home politics when these were not to the taste of Sweden. More than once our Government has had to complain of the King’s interference, quite without our request, with the growth of the parliamentary regime in our country based on universal suffrage. From the moment when, in 1821, we abolished all titles of nobility, down to 1884 when we rejected the absolute 1 veto power of the King, the governing classes of Sweden have tried to exert an uninvited influence in our nation. I

The most natural explanation of the troubles born of the Union is that the two peoples are very different and not suited to go hand in hand. The demand of the majority of the Norwegian people had long been as follows: Complete independence in the union, or separation. In the state to which things were come everybody was saying: We shall never obtain complete independence in the Union, so the Union must be dissolved. The means adopted to bring about this disruption may not have been the best, but since this was the system adopted, we are all one to defend it.

The Norwegian Storthing decided to vote the bill concerning our having an independent consular service. Our constitution gave the Storthing the perfect right to do so. The bill was carried unanimously and submitted to the King for his approval. The members of the Cabinet were unanimous in advising the King to sign it. But he refused, adding that it would now be impossible for him to constitute a new Ministry in Norway, the former one having resigned. He also refused to go to Norway. Thereupon the Storthing declared that a constitutional sovereign without a Ministry was no longer a reigning monarch, and as the Union was based on a common sovereign, it had now ceased to exist. Everybody in Norway accepted this view, and but one official refused to obey instructions emanating from the new order of things.

The spirit of the Norwegian nation is indubitably republican, and yet, in order to give the dynasty and the sister kingdom a proof of our esteem, we asked King Oscar to permit one of his family to become King of Norway.

Never was a revolution — for this was one — brought about more peacefully, and never has a revolution been based on a more noble motive. We do not desire war; on the contrary, we wish to surmount an obstacle in the way of a good understanding between two peoples. Our effort is not to divide, but to unite. When the three northern nations — Denmark, Sweden, and Norway — all enjoy perfect independence, then will they be in a condition to seek mutual support in a wider union and a brotherly solidarity.

This ends our selections on Norway Establishes Independence by two of the most important authorities of this topic:

• Norway by Henry Seton-Karr.
• Letter to the Independent by Bjornstjerne Bjornson.

Henry Seton-Karr began here.

This site features short and lengthy pieces on all aspects of our shared past. Here are selections from the great historians who may be forgotten (and whose work have fallen into public domain) as well as links to the most up-to-date developments in the field of history and of course, original material from yours truly, Jack Le Moine. – A little bit of everything historical is here.

More information on Norway Establishes Independence here and here and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history