Limburg in the Netherlands

The developmental stage of borderland Limburg in 1918 and 1919

Ties Brock Bachelor project June 30, 2014 International Political Geography: A Future Without Borders? Instructor: Darshan Vigneswaran Word count: 8399 1

Index

Introduction 3

Paragraph 1 5

Paragraph 2 10

Paragraph 3 15

Paragraph 4 17

Conclusion 25

Bibliography 26

Archival data 29

Figures 33

2

Introduction The catholic Limburg politician Charles Ruijs de Beerenbrouck was appointed Dutch prime minister by Queen Wilhelmina in 1918. This event is generally accepted as the coronation of the Limburg integration in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, that would have come to a close during World War I.1 Just eighty years earlier, between 1830 and 1838, the biggest part of Limburg had been a Belgian province, that only through military violence and international pressure came under Dutch control. As much as Limburg did not feel part of the Holland-dominated state, national authorities and inhabitants of the Northern Netherlands had little interest in the outer province. The region was historically and geographically the most peripheral province in 19th century Netherlands.2

Historical literature suggests that the integration of Limburg in the Netherlands had been just completed in 1918. However, it was at this moment in time that the political position of the borderland was contested by a territorial claim by a foreign state. In the aftermath of World War I, Belgium demanded a large area of the Dutch province as an integral part of its sovereign territory. The Belgian push for Limburg during the years 1918 and 1919 caused a stir in the province. Both provincial and national elites participated in a pro-Dutch campaign in the region. The Limburg attitude differed greatly from 1838, when a great majority of the region had opposed heavily to becoming part of the Netherlands.

In this research project, I answer the question in what stage of development borderland Limburg was in 1918 and 1919. To typify the position of Limburg as a border region, I use the model by Baud and Van Schendel, who argue that borderlands gradually change over time. 3 They present five possible stages in a borderland’s existence: infant, adolescent, adult, declining and defunct.4 Using archival materials, I analyse the reaction of national and regional elites to a possible annexation of Limburg. This research project makes it clear to what extent Limburg was integrated in the Netherlands in 1918 and 1919. This case study is primarily meant to provide a better understanding of the historical development of Limburg as a border region. A second goal is to contribute to further development of the Baud and Van Schendel framework.

In the first paragraph, I elaborate the theoretical framework based on the Baud and Van Schendel model of borderlands. I lay down definitions of key concepts and defend the use of Baud and Van Schendel model within the discipline of border studies. In the second paragraph, I clarify the case selection of this research project. I defend the choice for Limburg as a borderland in 1918 and 1919 as a case study in the Baud and Van Schendel framework. This paragraph also contains a review of 19th century Limburg to track down the development of the border region. In the third paragraph, I

1 “During the war (…) the Limburg population reconciled itself with the Dutch national state”, P.J.H.Ubachs (2000) Handboek voor de geschiedenis van Limburg. Hilversum:Verloren. 364; “During the war, the integration process was completed”, Maria de Waele (1996) 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen. Nationale gevoelens en botsende ambities', Bijdragen tot de eigentijdse geschiedenis 1. 200.See also: Piet Orbons (2001) ‘Limburg vindt zijn vaderland’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 44-47). Maastricht: LGOG.; Thunnis van Oort (2007) Film en het moderne leven in Limburg. Het bioscoopwezen tussen commercie en katholieke cultuurpolitiek (1909-1929). Hilversum: Verloren. 2 Rico op den Camp (1993) ‘Vreemd vaderland. Limburg en de Nederlandse natie in de 19e eeuw’, Spiegel Historiael 28(10). 3 Michiel Baud and Willem van Schendel (1997) ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, Journal of World History, 8(2) 211-42. 4 Ibidem, pp. 223-5. 3

lay down operational terms and methods of this research project. I define operational concepts and defend the use of archival material to answer the central question. In the fourth paragraph, I present the results of this research project. I argue in which stage borderland Limburg was at the time of the Belgian claim for the province in 1918 and 1919. I discuss archival data on which my arguments rely and argue why Limburg was an adult borderland in 1919. I will end with some concluding remarks on the position of Limburg as a borderland within the Netherlands and the study of border regions in general.

4

Paragraph 1

In this paragraph I clarify the theoretical framework on which this research project relies. First, I define key concepts in this study, which are borders and borderlands. I thereafter give a brief introduction of the research field of border studies and argue why the Baud and Van Schendel typology is an apt framework for this case. Finally, I discuss several types of historical developments of borders and borderlands that have been studied in the past.

The concept of borders is key to this research project. In the period of analysis the border between the Netherlands and Belgium is at stake. But what exactly is a border? A general definition of the concept is “a line separating two countries, administrative divisions, or other areas”.5 As Bernhard Struck notes, “the primary associations which this term evokes are usually linearity and restriction, a clear dichotomy between “us” and “them”.”6 Such clear borders, Struck suggests, need general acceptance, symbolic demarcation and administrative control.7 However, such undisputed and clear borders in real life are exceptional. The discipline of border studies suggests that borders are fundamentally variable, dynamic and mutable.8

A second important concept in this study is that of the borderland or border region, the geographic area directly adjacent to a boundary. James Scott describes this concept as “an area that closely reflects the physical, political, and social impacts of state borders.”9 According to Scott, there is generally a cross-border dynamic involved, “that involves cross-border trade, work, co-operation, and other forms of interaction.”10 A borderland often has no clear beginning or end and “describes a fluid rather than a static social space.”11 In opposition to the borderland stands a heartland, in which central political authorities that govern the state are based.

The research field of border studies is concerned with dynamics and development of borders and borderlands. Rather than a specific scientific discipline, border studies is a research area in which humanities and social science scholars participate with “a mutual interest in what happens at, across and because of the borders to nations and states.”12 Border study scholars investigate what happens in and around boundaries as well as the role of borders within global or regional political regimes. In the field, borders are not perceived as static lines but as fundamentally changeable and dynamic political and social phenomena. Wilson and Donnan argue that “the precise correspondence between nation, state and territory that was once assumed is challenged through concepts such as

5 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/border. 6 Bernhard Struck, (2001) ‘Grenzregionen’, in Institut für Europäische Geschichte, Europäische Geschichte Online. Mainz: IEG. 7 Ibidem. 8 Ibidem; Thomas M. Wilson and Hastings Donnan, (2012) ‘Borders and Border Studies’ in Wilson and Donnan, A Companion to Border Studies (pp. 1-25 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press; Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’. 9 James W. Scott (2010) ‘Cross­Border Cooperation in the Periphery of the European Union: Reinterpreting the Finnish­Russian Borderland’, Eurolimes 10, 123-139; Vladimir Kolossov and James W. Scott (2012) ‘Karelia: A Finnish–Russian Borderland on the Edge of Neighbourhood’, in H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen and J.W. Scott eds. The EU–Russia Borderland. New Contexts for Regional Cooperation (pp. 194-210). London: Routledge. 197. 10 Ibidem. 11 Ibidem. 12 Wilson and Donnan, ‘Borders and Border Studies’, 1. 5

border regions, borderlands and border landscapes.”13 The character and dynamics of a border or a border region can change due to action from the political centre as well as from the borderland itself.

Borders change over time, border students Michiel Baud and Willem van Schendel agree, and they present five possible stages in a borderland’s existence: infant, adolescent, adult, declining and defunct.14 The infant borderland exists just after the boundary line has been drawn. National identities are still vague, cross-border social and economic networks are strong, and the possible disappearance of the border seems a serious option to many inhabitants of the region. The second stage is the adolescent borderland. The border has become an undeniable reality, but many people remember the period before it existed. Old networks still form powerful links across the border. In the adult borderland, social networks largely follow the contours of the border. Cross-border social and kin relations are increasingly viewed as problematic. Even new cross-border networks, such as those involved in smuggling, are based on the acceptance of the border. The declining borderland is the result of the border losing its political importance. New cross- or supra-border networks emerge, not posing a threat to the state. Finally, the authors use the term defunct borderland when a border is abolished and physical barriers between the two sides of the border are removed. Border-induced networks gradually fall apart and are replaced by new ones that take no account of the old division.

Baud and Van Schendel in their model present two key indicators to define the developmental stage of a borderland: national identity and networks and relations. The two scholars provide no definitions of the two concepts, although they suggest culture, language and ethnicity are important indicators for national identity. They argue that states try to impose a "national" culture on inhabitants of borderlands.15 Anthony D. Smith in an influential definition provides five “fundamental features of national identity (…):

1. An historic territory, or homeland 2. Common myths and historical memories 3. A common, mass public culture 4. Common legal rights and duties for all members 5. A common economy with territorial mobility for members”16

A second indicator according to Baud and Van Schendel are political, social and economic networks. They provide no explicit definition of this indicator, but suggest that a broad range of political, social and economic ties play a role, including networks of power, commerce and kinship and social links.

The model presented by Baud and Van Schendel enables a chronologic approach that allows for dynamics of both integration and divergence. The framework makes it possible to explain the development of a borderland within a bigger time frame. The use of the indicators of national identity and political, social and economic networks make sure that diverse borderlands in the modern era can be compared to one another. Baud and Van Schendel affirm that their model “is not completely satisfactory because of its evolutionary and deterministic implications.”17 But they argue

13 Ibidem, 21. 14 Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, 223-5. 15 Ibidem, 234. 16 Anthony D. Smith (1990) National Identity. London: Penguin Books. 14. 17 Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, 225. 6

there is no better instrument available for comparative research on change over time in borderlands. According to Baud and Van Schendel, “we can properly understand the often unintended and unanticipated social consequences of national borders only by focusing on border regions and comparing them through time and space.” The authors therefore stress “the need for comparative historical research into the history of borderlands.”18

Baud and Van Schendel are not the first to note the variable nature of borders. One of the first influential works on modern states and identity is Eric Fischer’s On Boundaries (1949), based on fieldwork in the Italian region of South-Tyrol. The American scholar states that boundaries have a profound and durable impact on human life:

“The longer a boundary functions, especially an international boundary, the harder it becomes to alter it. The transportation net gets adjusted to the boundary, market towns take their specific importance from it, habits of the local population are shaped by it, ideas are moulded under the impact of different educational systems. Once established, boundaries tend to persist through their impact upon the human landscape.”19

Eric Fischer notes that the longer a boundary functions, the thicker it becomes. Even after their eradication, borders live on as an internal boundary of secondary importance. This view is borrowed from S. Whittemore Boggs, who in 1940 argued that any boundary is permeable and in time “a sort of osmosis takes place”.20 According to Minghi, “the economic orientation of a region seems easily changed, while changes in cultural tradition involve the longest time lag.”21

Although these studies suggest that territories sharing state borders integrate internally, there are also cases in which regions in the same state diverge rather than converge. However changeable and dynamic they may be, borders can also show a strong sustainability. According to Wilson and Donnan, “border studies show how resilient and adaptable borders are, in ways sometimes that make them more successful at weathering the storms of global forces than other aspects of their nations and states.”22 When networks maintain themselves for generations, we may speak of what J.W. Cole and Eric Wolf have called a hidden frontier. The two authors in their famous 1974 ethnography showed that two ecologically identical Alpine villages that lied one mile away from one another and had shared political institutions for decades differed greatly culturally and socially. 23 A clear but on the map hidden boundary existed between the two villages, the German-speaking St. Felix and the Italian-speaking Tret.

The concepts of borders and borderlands have a central place in this analysis of Limburg during the Belgian push for the province in the years 1918 and 1919. This project focuses on behaviour of Dutch elites in borderland Limburg and heartland the Netherlands during the Belgian push for the Dutch

18 Ibidem, 212. 19 Eric Fischer (1949) ‘On Boundaries’, World Politics, 1(2)197-98. Cited in Dereje Feyissa and Markus V. Hoehne (2010) 'State Borders and Borderlands as Resources: An Analytical Framework', in Feyissa and Hoehne eds. Borders and borderlands as Resources in the Horn of Africa (pp. 1-25). London: James Currey. 9. 20 S. Whittemore Boggs (1940) On Boundaries. New York: Columbia University Press. 10. Quoted in Julian Minghi (1963) ‘Review Article: Boundary Studies in Political Geography’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53(3). 21 Minghi ‘Review Article: Boundary Studies in Political Geography’, 416. 22 Wilson and Donnan, ‘Borders and Border Studies’, 21. 23 John W. Cole and Eric R. Wolf(1974) The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley. New York: Academic Press. 7

province. The case draws attention to it, because something unexpected happens in the province: unlike eighty years earlier, no big protests emerge after great powers decide that Limburg should be part of the Netherlands. In what stage is borderland Limburg in 1918 and 1919?

8

Figure 1. Research object: the Dutch province Limburg in 1918 and 191924

24 Excerpt from W & A.K Johnson (1912) ‘Belgium and the Netherlands’ in The Royal Atlas Of Modern 9

Paragraph 2

In this paragraph, I present the case of borderland Limburg in 1918 and 1919 as a case study within the Baud and Van Schendel framework. I explain why and how the province in these days can be viewed through the Baud and Van Schendel lens of historically developing borderlands. I thereafter argue what kind of case study this is.

First, I explain which border and which borderland I am studying. The border in this case is the Dutch- Belgian state boundary that separates the Dutch province of Limburg from the Belgian provinces Limbourg and Liège.25 The borderland is the Dutch province of Limburg, that will be discussed extensively in this paragraph. Baud and Van Schendel call the borderland on both sides of the Dutch- Belgian border since 1830 a quiet borderland, in which state, elites and population all welcome the creation and existence of the border.26 Although this might be true for the late 20th century, it is definitely not during the first years of the border. Between 1830 and 1838, Belgium and the Netherlands had a highly escalated conflict about the dominance of the area and the same goes for the period of this research project.

Figure 2. A political division of current-day Limburg, 1785-179427

Geography. Edinburgh: W & A.K Johnson. Retrieved from http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~37656~1210646. 25 For a visualisation of borders and borderland, view Figure 1. 26 Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, 227. 27 Publications de la Société Historique et archéologique dans le Duché de Limbourg (1903), retrieved via http://www.ppsimons.nl/stamboom/kaart_limburg1785-1794-3.htm. 10

The history of Limburg as a borderland goes back to the beginning of the 19th century. During those days, Limburg as a territorial unity had only just been invented. Until the French occupation of the area in 1794 the region was a political patchwork under the command of dukes and princes. Some parts of the later province were under command of the Dutch Republic, but others were territories of Austria, Liège, Gulik, Kleef and Prussia.28

After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 a great deal of the French-dominated Limburg came in the hands of the just installed Dutch king William I. On the Congress of Vienna in 1815 the Southern Netherlands became part of the new Dutch Kingdom, that would only live for fifteen years. After the Belgian Revolution in 1830, the Limburg area came under Belgian sovereignty. Only the capital Maastricht remained controlled by Dutch troops, as a “Gibraltar on the Meuse”.29 After this separation the status of Limburg remained uncertain until 1838, when under international pressure the Limburg area east of the Meuse was added to the Netherlands.30 Few inhabitants seemed to be happy with this decision.31 The agrarian economy and early industrialization seemed to better fit with the Belgian economy, and catholic practices in both area were highly similar. At the same time Limburg had political bounds with Germany on the state level: it was a duchy of the German Confederation until its eradication in 1867.32 Only since that year Limburg is a recognized province of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.33 It seems that Limburg in the 1830’s and 1840’s corresponds with what Baud an Van Schendel call an infant borderland: national identities were vague, cross-border social and economic networks were strong, and the possible disappearance of the border seemed a serious option.34

Limburg nor the Netherlands really liked the eradication of the border between the two regions in 1838. The Northern provinces had little interest in the small piece of land and Limburg integrated only very slowly in the Netherlands.35 In daily life the neighboring countries were more important than Holland. Limburg maintained intensive economic relations with its neighboring countries Belgium and Germany. Many inhabitants of Limburg worked in Germany, for example in the brick industry. The first Limburg railways connected Maastricht with cities abroad: in 1853 a connection with Aachen was established, in 1856 a connection with Hasselt and in 1861 with Liège. Only in 1866 a railway between the city and Eindhoven was completed.36 The use of the German Mark and the Belgian Frank in Limburg underscores the economic ties with both countries.37

Limburg also had a special place in the Dutch state culturally and linguistically. During the 19th century, many inhabitants of the province did not speak Dutch, especially in the South and East of

28 Figure 2; P. Orbons (2001) ‘De Franse tijd 1794-1814. Nieuwe grenzen, nieuwe wetten’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 12-17). Maastricht: LGOG. 29 Ubachs, Handboek voor de geschiedenis van Limburg, 282 30 Ibidem, 283. 31 Piet Orbons and Lou Spronck, (1966) ‘Limburgers worden Nederlanders. Een moeizaam integratieproces’, Publications de la société historique et archéologique dans le Limbourg 52, 31-53. 32 M.G. Spiertz (1966) ‘Limburg uit de Duitse bond’ Publications de la société historique et archéologique dans le Limbourg 52, 11-29. 33 Ubachs, Handboek voor de geschiedenis van Limburg, 367. 34 Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, 223-5. 35 Van Oort, Film en het moderne leven in Limburg, 26. 36 Ibidem. 37 Ibidem, 25. 11

Limburg. Some Limburg members of Parliament understood Dutch but did not speak it. 38 In Maastricht French remained a current language, especially in upper class. Newspapers in Heerlen, Kerkrade and Sittard were published in German, some of them until 1914. Masses and choirs in churches in the South-East were held in German until the beginning of the 20th century.39 The man on the street spoke his own dialect, varying from town to town.

However, literature suggests that during the last 25 years of the 19th century, the process reversed and slowly a Dutch-national feeling emerged in the province.40 There is no research on the developmental stage of the borderland in this time frame, but national Dutch identity and in-state relations and networks clearly grew stronger. The impact of the Dutch state manifested itself and the memory of the Belgian dominance faded. Van Oort notes that the disclosure of the mines around the turn of the century led to a growing interest from Holland in the province. The integration of political, economic, social and cultural relations increased the connectedness of Limburg with the Netherlands. The industrialization of Limburg increased this process. The coal mine industry increased Limburg’s importance to the rest of the country and intensified the involvement of The Hague in the region. The state mining company De Nederlandsche Staatsmijnen brought engineers to the deep south and workers followed in their wake.41

During World War I (1914-1918), historians suggest the integration process was completed. The Dutch Limburg population was happy to stay out of the war, as opposed to the Belgian people. The contacts with the Liège and Belgian Limburg region were broken down and the region focused on the North.42 The mining production grew due to a shortage of energy supplies from abroad. Moreover, border closures made a stronger orientation on the Netherlands inevitable. Military mobilization intensified contact between Limburg and the rest of the Netherlands, because soldiers from Limburg were encamped in different regions and vice versa.43

Through a study on national identity and political networks and relations I define which type of borderland Limburg was in 1918 and 1919. An opportunity of research is the Belgian claim for the province, that may be viewed as a critical test for the borderland. The position of Limburg in the Netherlands was questioned when Belgium demanded the territories of Dutch Limburg and Zeelandic Flanders in the aftermath of World War I. In Limburg Belgium claimed the area ´stretching the right bank of the Meuse to Roermond, including Maastricht´.44 At the Versailles peace conference the great powers were to decide on the fate of Limburg. Several conditions were favourable for Belgium. The allied forces had sympathy for Belgium, that had endured great losses during WWI,

38 Piet Orbons (2001) ‘Limburg in isolement’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 36-43). Maastricht: LGOG. 39 Peter Nissen (2000) ‘Constructie en deconstructie van het katholieke Limburg’, in Ad Knotter and Willibrord Rutten eds., Maakbaar Limburg. De constructie van een samenleving in een eeuw van uitersten (pp. 79-95). Maastricht: Sociaal Historisch Centrum voor Limburg. 40 Orbons and Spronck, ‘Limburgers worden Nederlanders’; Van Oort, Film en het moderne leven in Limburg; De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’. 41 Van Oort, Film en het moderne leven in Limburg, 26. 42 De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’, 200. 43 Orbons ‘Limburg vindt zijn vaderland, 1914-heden’. 44 Limburger Koerier (February 13, 1919) ´België eischt Zuid-Limburg’, cited in Judtih Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? Limburg en de reacties op het Belgisch annexionisme (1918-1919). Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit. 106. 12

while the Netherlands had lost goodwill by letting the German troops return homeward through their territory and giving asylum to the former German emperor William II. However, because the right of self-governance played a big role, the Limburg population could influence the outcome by showing their wish to either stay with the Netherlands or become a part of Belgium. This makes for a research opportunity to investigate how borderland Limburg expressed its national identity and how political, economic and social relations were structured.

During WWI, the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had carefully explored strategies to win the hearts and minds of the Dutch Limburg population for Belgium after an armistice. The sorrow over the territorial loss of 1839 had all the while been living on in the Ministry. On 17 January 1919 the Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs Hymans sent a memorandum to the great powers involved in the peace negotiations at Versailles. He urged them to review the 1839 treaty to provide Belgium with strategic territory in the both Dutch provinces. 45 Only so would Belgium be able to prevent another violation of its neutrality.46 On 4 June 1919 the great powers stated that territorial changes were not an option, which blocked the Belgian wish to annex Limburg. The Netherlands did not perceive the annexationist threat as over and continued to be aware of a Belgian push for the Limburg region.

This case works within the Baud and Van Schendel framework because there is a historical development of a borderland at play. In 1830 and onwards, Limburg is an infant borderland that has just been created by the drawing of the Dutch-Belgian border. National identities were vague and cross-border networks were strong. During the Belgian claim for Limburg in 1918 and 1919, the indicators of national identity and political, social and economic relations can be studied. In this way the research project forms a zoom-in to a crucial moment in the development of the Limburg borderland. The research shows in what stage borderland Limburg was during the years 1918 and 1919. In this way, this research is what Bryman calls an exemplifying case study, also called a representative or typical case study. Such a case “exemplifies a broader category of which it is a member”.47 This case nonetheless has its own complexity and particular nature. Bryman states that a case study cannot be representative “so that it might yield findings that can be applied more generally to other cases.” 48 This case study is primarily meant to provide a better understanding of the historical development of Limburg as a border region.

A second goal is to contribute to further conceptualisation of the Baud and Van Schendel framework. The research project is a test of the functioning of their model. Moreover, it provides specific suggestions how the development of borderland functions. By an investigation of elite behaviour in 1918 and 1919, I check how national identity and social and political networks work among local elites. Through an examination of the way elites responded to the foreign annexation plans, I suggest which dynamics play a role in the development of a borderland in the framework of Baud and Van Schendel.

45 De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’, 200. 46 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 106. 47 Alan Bryman(2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 56. 48 Ibidem, 55. 13

Paragraph 3

In this paragraph, I clarify how I answer the question in what stage of development borderland Limburg was in 1918 and 1919. I explain how I translate the Baud and Van Schendel framework to operational definitions. I defend the use of elite behaviour as a means to track down national identity and political relations and networks and defend the use of historical documents to do so.

To define the stage of development of Limburg in 1918 and 1919, I analyse national identity as well as networks and relations between the region and the heartland of the Netherlands. I do so by an analysis of Limburg elite behaviour related to the Belgian annexation plans in the years 1918 and 1919. I choose for a focus on elite behaviour for three reasons. First, there is data available for such an approach. As Judith Gulpers emphasizes, it is impossible to ninety years later trace back what the common inhabitant of Limburg thought of the Belgian annexation movement.49 It is however possible to study elite behaviour through primary sources, which are well documented in the Maastricht archives of Regionaal Historisch Centrum Limburg (RCHL). Second, I expect that elites played a big role in the formation and expression of national identity and political, economic and social relations. Baud and Van Schendel note that elites strongly influence the development of border regions: “When borderland elites were well integrated into networks of state power, they could become important allies of the state in its efforts to control borderland society.”50 Both scholars note that elites can also form a power base of opposition against the state. 51 Third, the study of elites fits within the domain of political science.

Elites thus is a key notion in this research project. John Higley defines the concept broadly as “persons who, by virtue of their strategic locations in large or otherwise pivotal organizations and movements, are able to affect political outcomes regularly and substantially.”52 As in this case, they are not only top politicians, civil servants or senior military officers, but also leaders of social organizations such as churches and civil associations. In this research project, I look into elites in both borderland Limburg and the heartland of the Netherlands. Due to reasons of source availability and relevance discussed later in this paragraph, I choose for a focus on Queen’s Commissioner Van Hövell tot Westerflier.

To define the developmental stage of Limburg in the Baud and Van Schendel model, I study how elites in 1918 and 1919 score on national identity and political links with the centre. National identity in this case is defined by the extent in which elites articulate and stimulate that Limburg with the

49 Gulpers (2003) Elfde kind of Assepoester? 112. 50 Baud and Van Schendel, ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, 217 51 Ibidem, 218 52 J. Higley, (2010) ‘Elite Theory and Elites’ in Kevin Leicht and J. Craig Jenkin, Handbook of Politics (pp. 161- 176). New York: Springer. 163. 14

Netherlands shares “fundamental features of national identity (…):

1. An historic territory, or homeland 2. Common myths and historical memories 3. A common, mass public culture 4. Common legal rights and duties for all members 5. A common economy with territorial mobility for members”53

To trace the extent of political, economic and social relations that provincial elites maintained with the rest of the Netherlands, I analyse the correspondence they carried with political and social leaders and representatives in other parts of the country. I study the extent in which local and national elites cooperate in reactions on the Belgian annexation plans. The choice for elite political ties to indicate political, social and economic relations and networks means that important factors as kinship and economical networks are omitted from this indicator as noted by Baud and Van Schendel, but this is inevitable due to time and money restrictions in this research project.

The elites I investigate are local, regional and national politicians and important societal actors centred around the Queen’s Commisioner Eduard van Hövell tot Westerflier, who was appointed by Queen Wilhelmina as head of the Limburg province in September 1918. 54 Van Hövell held this position until his death in 1936. In his function the politician was chairman of both the legislative and executive branches in the province and the representative of the national state. Van Hövell was born in 1877 in an aristocratic catholic family in Twello, followed secondary education in Maastricht and studied law in Utrecht. Before being appointed Queen’s Commissioner, he had been mayor of Culemborg and Breda. Van Hövell had a key position in the province, having major ties with the national government as well as local politicians and civil society organisations. The correspondence of this major provincial politician is well documented and accessible in the RCHL. To define the national identity and political networks of elites, I use the data this archive provides, supported by several historical researches on primary sources, notably by Judith Gulpers and Maria de Waele. Gulpers in Elfde kind of Assepoester? traces the arguments of advocates of annexation and agents defending the status quo. She does so by an archival research on media coverage of the pro- and anti-annexation campaigns in 1918 and 1919, since the press was the most important medium for campaigners and public to interact with one another.55 De Waele in 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’ writes about the political relations between the Netherlands and Belgium in the interwar period.

The research of the Queen’s Commisioner’s archive and other primary sources is an unobtrusive research method, which means it is a “method of observation that directly removes the observer from the set of interactions or events being studied”.56 There is no reactivity. However, the investigated elites store their own archives, so that self-supporting files may have a greater chance of

53 Smith, National Identity, 14. 54 W.J.M. Klaassen (1989) 'Hövell van Wezeveld en Westerflier, Eduard Otto Joseph Maria baron van (1877- 1936)', in Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland. Deel III (pp. 262). Den Haag: Huygens Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis. 55 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 103-4. 56 N.K. Denzin (1970) The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine. Cited in Bryman, Social Research Methods, 309. 15

being saved for history than compromising or unwelcome materials. Nonetheless, the rule that archival materials are only freely available for research after 75 years contributes to the reliability of the documents. In the next section, results of the study of these archival data will be discussed. The behaviour of elites around Van Hövell during the Belgian claim of Limburg in 1918 and 1919 show what kind of borderland the Dutch province in this crucial period was.

16

Paragraph 4

In this paragraph, I answer the question in what stage of development borderland Limburg was at the time of the Belgian claim for the province in 1918 and 1919. I present the results of an analysis of the archives of Queen’s Commissioner Van Hövell, supported by several other primary sources and historical researches on the period. The national identity expressed by the elites and the political networks connecting regional and national elites suggest that Limburg was an adult borderland. Data show that local elites in pro-Dutch campaigns actively articulated and stimulated the idea that Limburg shared with the Netherlands a historic territory, common myths and history, a common culture, legal rights and duties and a common economy. At the same time, borderland elites worked together within national and regional political networks to oppress the idea that Limburg should become Belgian.

In political elite behaviour related to the Belgian claim for Limburg in 1918 and 1919, two separate fields of action can be distinguished: actions related to pro-Dutch initiatives on the one hand and actions on pro-Belgian initiatives on the other. In the next section, I discuss results of archival data research on the two fields. A big part of Limburg elites expressed a Dutch national identity. On the other hand, local, provincial and national authorities worked together to suppress any pro-Belgian movements. Only very few members of regional elites articulated a Belgian national identity. The collaboration of borderland and heartland political and social elites in promoting Dutch identity and suppressing pro-Belgian initiatives define Limburg in 1918 and 1919 as an adult borderland.

Limburg elites participated actively in pro-Dutch campaigns during the years 1918 and 1919. Political authorities, but also religious leaders and civil society organizations organized events to articulate and stimulate the idea that Limburg shared a national identity with the Netherlands. These actions clearly show the expression of Dutch identity in Limburg among elites. Some initiatives have a strong regional character, while in others close political relations with the Dutch heartland are visible. An important pro-Dutch initiative installed in 1918 is a Limburg committee meant to show the world that Limburg shared with the Netherlands a national identity, including a common territory and common rights and duties. The committee is a project of borderland elites: there seem to be few major political relations with heartland elites involved. Lieutenant J. Graafland on 8 December 1918 became secretary of the ‘Voorlopig Anti-annexionistische Comité’ [Provisional Anti-annexationist Committee], which he founded with archivist A.J.A. Flament, judge G. Testa and politician F.I.L. Janssen. The committee presented itself the next day with an appeal to the population, undersigned by many Limburg notables, under whom judges, community council members and industrials.57

On December 18, 1918 out of the the provisional committee the permanent ‘Limburg bij Nederland’ [Limburg in the Netherlands] was grounded. At the start, 27 members were part of the organisation.58 Although prime minister Ruijs de Beerenbrouck became honorary president of the committee, the initiative held few ties with national elites. However, up until the first months of 1919, almost all Limburg notables became part of this movement, including high representatives of the catholic church. The Roermond judge and politician Frans Bolsius was installed as vice

57 Gulpers (2003) Elfde kind of Assepoester? 108. 58 Provinciaal Comité “Limburg bij Nederland”. Folder 183, Commissaris van de Koningin in Limburg (CvdK) archive, Regionaal Historisch Centrum Limburg (RHCL), Maastricht. 17

president.59 Founding member G. Testa wrote all parochial churches letters to encourage the pastors to get the local notables to form a local committee. On 9 February, there were thirteen of those local committees, on 19 February there were 25.60 The committee was meant to coordinate foreign and domestic pro-Dutch propaganda and express the wish of the Limburg population to stay part of the Netherlands. To financially support these actions, the fund ‘De Limburgsche Stuiver’ was founded.61

The committee organised a petition to show the government and the peace making powers in Versailles the wish of the Limburg population to stay part of the Netherlands. The petition distributed by the committee in February 1919 was signed by many inhabitants of Limburg.62 On 8 April 1919 the petition in four books was handed to Queen Wilhelmina in Huis ten Bosch. According to the inscription, 172.442 autographs were collected. According to president of the committee J. Janssen, the result was ‘satisfactory’ at best. However, according to letters to Queen Wilhelmina and Buys de Beerenbrouck, only 65 people had refused to sign on principles.63 After 1919 the committee entered quiet waters. President J. Janssen in 1920 wrote to Van Hövell “that this committee has not yet laid itself to rest, but (…) will keep up resounding the slogan “Limburg in the Netherlands” at appropriate times and in appropriate occasions.”64

During 1918 and 1919 provincial and national elites organised a number of manifestations and political rallies to underscore and celebrate the national Dutch identity of Limburg. The rallies mark a collaboration between central authorities in The Hague and local political en social elites. Archival data on these events suggest that they both indicate a national Dutch identity among Limburg elites and strong political relations between Limburg and national elites.

Some of the manifestations were organised by local elites, such as royalist festivities organised by the municipality of Kerkrade on August 30 and 31 and September 1 in 1919. The municipality organized ‘Oranje-feesten’ to celebrate the birthday of Queen Wilhelmina.65 The choir of school children sang four songs, under which the Limburg anthem and the Dutch and former Dutch anthem. The fourth

59 A.M.J.A. Berkvens, H.J.J.M. Bruggen, R.M.L.M. Magnée (2013) Rechtspraak in Roermond: van Soevereine Raad naar Rechtbank Limburg (1580-2012) Hilversum: Verloren. 167. 60 Ibidem. 61 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 108. 62 De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’, 203-4. 63 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 110. 64 Letter by J. Janssen (1920). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 65 Gemeente Kerkrade (1919) ‘Programma voor de Oranje-Feesten’. Folder 184, CvdK archive, RHCL. 18

song was called ‘We want to keep Limburg’. The text expresses an explicit Dutch national identity, the inseparability of the Dutch territory and the Limburg wish to stay part of the Netherlands:

We want to keep Limburg In spite of any alien violence We remain loyal to Holland, Yes, loyal forever!

And no one will hurt Limburg! And no one will separate Limburg! Our Limburg cheers along: For the Netherlands, hooray66

The brochure accompanying the festivities in Kerkrade united anti-communist, royalist and nationalist motives. It expressed the idea that Limburg shared with the Netherlands a territory, a common culture and legal rights and duties. According to the text, at a communist revolution attempt in 1918, the young men of Limburg hastened to the north to guard Queen Wilhelmina: ““Don’t touch our Queen!” That was their word. That is the word of the whole people of Limburg, that swore true to His Queen and only recognizes Her and will only recognize Her as his true monarch.”67 The civil society was well represented in the local manifestations in Kerkrade. On August 31, the birthday of Wilhelmina, the Royal Marshals, horse riding clubs, cycling associations, music groups, singing groups, youth associations, an Orange-committee, the citizen’s guard, the police and 75 other groups joined in a defile. The organising committee awarded prizes ranging from 10 to 50 guilders to the most beautiful cars.68

Elites also organised manifestations on the provincial level. On December 8, 1918 a tribute to the Royal House and the government was organised in Maastricht. According to Queen’s Commissioner Van Hövell, ‘it shows that Limburg is and wants to remain a Dutch province.’69 The manifestation for the house of Orange turned to be a gathering of 15.000 protesters, opposing the annexation of Limburg to Belgium. The motto of the day was: “We DESIRE, we REQUIRE, we WANT nothing but to remain what we are: DUTCH and again DUTCH.”70

Throughout the province such rallies with a strong pro-Dutch character took place, often organized by roman catholic organizations. National songs, pictures of the Queen, telegrams to The Hague and speakers throughout the province underscored the national unity. Gulpers notes that 112 of the 123 Limburg communities were mentioned in anti-annexationist rallies, local committees, telegrams in media and brochures. Not only community councils sent telegrams, but also football clubs, choirs, cycling clubs and schools.71 Civil society was also present in pro-Dutch statements in provincial media. On December 10, 1918 the Limburger Koerier presented an appeal named ‘Aan de

66 Ibidem. 67 Ibidem. 68 Ibidem. 69 Limburger Koerier (December 9,1918) ‘Maastricht’s antwoord’; ‘Nieuws uit Maastricht’, cited in Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 110. 70 Manifestation (December 8, 1918). Cited in De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’, 203. 71 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 110. 19

Limburgsche bevolking’ [To the Limburg population]. It was signed by trade unions and employers' organisations Limburgsche Landbouwbond, the R.K. Werkliedenbond, the R.K. Middenstandsbond and the R.K. Werkgeversbond. The organisations warned for the annexationist movement and called for gatherings “where a strong protest can resound and our adherence to the Netherlands can be expressed”.72

Even Queen Wilhelmina came to Limburg to demonstrate for the unity of the state. On 1 March 1919 an important anti-annexationist rally took place, in which Wilhelmina participated. Van Hövell said the visit should carry the character “of the loyalty and devotion of Limburg to queen and country”.73 After the rally, she on March 3, 1919 sent Van Hövell the following telegram:

“It is an urgent need to me, having been returned to The Hague, to say the population of Limburg heartfelt thanks for the wonderful proofs of patriotism which it has displayed. With thousands of voices has again been said that this beautiful region forms an inseparable whole with the Netherlands. Closer than ever are the ties that bind us to one another.”74

In the 1919 Queen’s Speech, Wilhelmina said: “My thoughts go out to Limburg [...], in whose faith and devotion the solidity and strength of our national unity unequivocally expressed themselves.” 75

At the time of the annexationist threat, elites in the Dutch heartland also initiated manifestations to underscore the territory, culture and history that Limburg shared with the Netherlands. Member of the Second Chamber Bongaerts on 6 February initiated the ‘Nationaal Comité tegen de Annexatie’, which organized a rally for national unity. Another national manifestation was organized by the the Dutch cultural and linguistic organisation Algemeen Nederlandsch Verbond (ANV) on 14 March in Tivoli, Utrecht. ANV secretary and treasurer B. de Gaay Fortman asked Queen’s Commisioner Van Hövell to send all Limburg mayors the request to attend the manifestation. “The meaning is a worthy, impressive expression of our national togetherness, so purely a Dutch interest, not a tribal interest (…) A catchy and of the day would be, if from each province a male and female resident in regional clothing would gather around the Dutch flag, to symbolize the unity of the Netherlands.” 76 During a rally in The Hague on 13 September, according to professor of history Blok, ‘the audience stated that inhabitants of Limburg and Zeeland are just as dear to them as the other Hollanders’.77 Limburg elites distributed these statements of unity by heartland actors. In September 1919 mayors throughout Limburg spread big posters with two statements of support from Holland. The first was an excerpt of a motion accepted by attendants of the September 13 rally in The Hague. The public said to be “outraged by the efforts of the Belgian annexationists to move the ruling powers into violation of Dutch rights and borders out of selfishness”. 78 The second was a transcript of a telegram

72 Limburger Koerier (December 10, 1918) ‘Aan de Limburgsche bevolking’, cited in Gulpers,Elfde kind of Assepoester? 108. 73 Limburger Koerier (February 28, 1919), no title, cited in Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 111. 74 Queen Wilhelmina to Van Hövell (March 3, 1919). Folder 184, CvdK archive, RHCL. 75 Queen Wilhelmina (September 16, 1919), cited in De Rijnbode (September 19, 1919) 1. 76 De Gaay Fortman to Van Hövell (March 3, 1919). Folder 184, CvdK archive, RHCL. 77 Limburger Koerier (February 28, 1919); Ibidem (March 3, 1919), ‘Nieuws uit Maastricht. Het Koninklijk bezoek’, cited in Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 110. 78 Officieele bekendmaking (September 24, 1919). Folder 184, CvdK archive, RHCL. 20

by general Snijders, stating “we are all Dutchmen, with unbreakable loyalty attached to each other and we stand together right in front of an unblemished Fatherland."79

Next to pro-Dutch initiatives and actions, regional and national elites in 1918 and 1919 were also involved in actions with regard to pro-Belgian initiatives. In the dealing of regional elites with pro- Belgian initiatives, a pro-Dutch and anti-Belgian sentiment was paramount. There were barely any members of the regional elite that expressed a Belgian national identity. The elite behaviour on pro- Belgian initiatives generally marked an attitude of control and repression. Regional political authorities cooperated with national ministerial agents to track down pro-Belgian propaganda. This marks for political cooperation between the borderland and the heartland.

Among the Limburg elite, there were several proponents of Belgian annexation, such as local politician Gilissen from the commune of St. Pieter, member of the Second Chamber Henri van Groenendael and a certain baron in Meerssen. 80 However, they were outnumbered by elite members opposing Belgian annexation of Limburg. Gulpers notes that supporters of annexation were by far a minority in 1918. De Waele notes that Dutch inhabitants who dared to stick their neck out for the Belgian annexation were countable on the fingers of one hand.81 According to Bank and Van Buuren, the political and social elite, supported by the catholic church, was in great majority loyal to the Dutch state.82 The pro-Dutch newspaper Limburger Koerier said 98 percent of the Limburg population wished to remain Dutch.83 However, according to national agent and detective Cappel, sent to Limburg to map the annexationist movement, around 25 percent of the Valkenburg population would support the Belgian case.84 According to Van der Heijden there were annexationist groups in Valkenburg and Maastricht, but no true annexationist movement.85 Belgian-minded people had the society ‘Cercle d’Union’ as a meeting point.

The Comité de Politique Nationale, a rightwing-nationalist Belgian pressure group, during peace talks at Versailles tried to move the great powers into organizing a referendum in Limburg, in which the population could speak for themselves. At the same time all kinds of brochures were spread throughout the province, like a copy of a 1838 petition in which the citizens of Weert asked for a reunion with Belgium. The annexationist movement according to Gulpers bled a slow dead, although the Comité de Politique Nationale campaigned for the annexationist Second Chamber member Henri van Groenendael in 1921. Even in 1927, after the demise of the Dutch-Belgian treaty by the First Chamber, pamphlets and billboards were spread in some parts of Limburg in which the Belgians greeted their ‘lost Limburg brothers’.86 Pro-Belgian newspaper De Kronijk wanted Limburg to become

79 Ibidem. 80 2e Divisie Marechaussee to Van Hövell (June 10, 1921). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 81 De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’, 203. 82,J. Bank and M. van Buuren (2000) 1900: hoogtij van burgerlijke cultuur. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. 23. 83 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 112. 84 Rob P.W.J.M. van der Heijden, A.S.M. Patelski en F.H.M. Roebroeks (1993) ‘Valkenburg in 1919 in de ban van België?’, Historische en heemkundige studies in en rond het Geuldal 3, 186. 85 Van der Heijden, ‘Tijden veranderen: Limburg tussen Nederland en België’, 118-9. 86 Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 107. 21

Belgian because “the change would benefit the main ideological and material interests, and second because of aversion to the increasing Hollandisation of Limburg”.87

Regional and national political authorities worked together to keep a close watch on pro-Belgian dissidents in Limburg. On May 27, 1919 the secretary general of the ministry of internal affairs asked Van Hövell about local politician Gilissen, who had been voted into the municipal council of St. Pieter. Gilissen had been depicted in media as being “annexationist”. The ministry wonders “if possibly with the term annexationist is meant advocate of the annexation of St. Pieter to the municipality of Maastricht.”88 Van Hövell answers that this is not the case. Gilissen is known as an “advocate of the well-known incorporation within Belgium”.89 The Queen’s Commisioner adds that the local politician has not signed the pro-Dutch petition “as a means of protest against the subordination of Limburg to the other Dutch provinces.”90

The multi-level collaboration in the surveillance of annexationist initiatives is shown clearly in the investigation of Joseph Ledoux, who was suspected of spreading pro-Belgian propaganda. Queen’s Commisioner Van Hövell worked together with the Ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs, the Royal Marechaussee and the Roermond mayor to keep track of the whereabouts of Ledoux and his accompanies. The secretary general of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on May 23, 1921 asks Van Hövell to investigate the spreading of annexationist propaganda by Jos Ledoux and a certain doctor Crolla. 91 On May 3 the Dutch envoy in Brussels reported to his minister that Ledoux had recently had a meeting with a Dutchman in the Belgian capital on behalf of the Comité de Politique National. Ledoux would have told him that the committee had bought the newspaper Het Zuiden with the goals “1. make propaganda for the candidature of Mr.Dr. H.A.G. Groenendaal at the next election for the Second Chamber, 2. to keep the pro-Belgian spirit in Limburg alive.”92 A letter from the Royal Marechaussee to Van Hövell shows that the authorities keep a close watch on Ledoux. The gendarmerie force provided the Queen’s Commisioner with the names of interested parties in the pro-Belgian newspaper Het Zuiden, among whom member of the Second Chamber Groenendaal, a baron from Meerssen and the aforementioned local politician Gilissen. 93 The Roermond mayor later that summer provided a full profile of Ledoux, including his familial and financial situation and a list of dubious affairs in which the pro-Belgian activist had been involved earlier. 94 It is unclear what remained of Ledoux, but the investigations shows a collaboration between different political authorities in both borderland and heartland to suppress whoever challenged the unity of Limburg within the Netherlands.

In July 1919 local authorities inform Van Hövell that pro-Belgian flyers have been found in several towns in Limburg. Among them are pro-Belgian statements of the Weert municipal council and

87 De Kronijk (May 7, 1919) ´Onze houding in de Limburgsche Quaestie´, cited in Gulpers, Elfde kind of Assepoester? 104. 88 Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken to Van Hövell (May 27, 1919). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 89 Van Hövell to Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (May 31, 1919). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 90 Ibidem, Quoted text in Dutch: “bij wijze van protest tegen de achterstelling van Limburg bij de andere Nederlandsche provinciën onder meerder opzicht.” 91 Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken to Van Hövell (May 23, 1921). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 92 Gezant in Brussel to Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (May 3, 1921). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 93 2e Divisie Marechaussee to Van Hövell (June 10, 1921). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 94 Mayor of Roermond to Van Hövell (May 3, 1921). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 22

Meerssen notables, dated 1838. The mayor of Weert has been informed and copies have been sent to the anti-annexationist committee.95 A month later Van Hövell writes the Mayer of Grevenbicht to call for an investigation, because Belgians would have stolen two flags: “I consider it absolutely necessary (...) that a further accurate investigation into the matter is set”.96 Even deep in the 1920s, local and national authorities closely monitored pro-Belgian actions in Limburg. Van Hövell writes the minister of interior affairs in 1927 about annexationist handbills that on April 24 have been distributed by airplane over Maastricht and surroundings. But Van Hövell is not very worried about the propaganda: “It seems to me that, especially in view of the way in which the Limburg population assesses these acts, as little weight has to be attached to the event as recently has happened in Roosteren and Susteren.”97 In the same year, flyers had been distributed in Roosteren, Susteren and Hunsel. 98

Pro-Belgian handbills, distributed in Limburg in 192799

The mayor of Schaersbeek on June 14, 1922 sent a worried letter to the Queen’s Commisioner in Maastricht. The band “Aloysiana” was to organize a festival on July 2 and had spread program posters framed with the Belgian national colors and weapons. The mayor’s name was on the program, which according to him “could lead to misrepresentations and unpleasant complications by the press.” The mayor said he protested immediately to the board of the band, which agreed to withdraw the programs immediately and replace them with others.100 The mayor of Heer writes Van Hövell on June 25, 1927 about an encounter between a cabinetmaker and a representative of a furniture factory in his town. The first reported to the authorities that the latter expressed clear pro- Belgian views in their conversation. According to the letter, he would have said: “residents of Sittard

95 To Van Hövell (Juli 18, 1919). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 96 Van Hövell to the mayor of Grevenbicht (August 21, 1919). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 97 Van Hövell to Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Landbouw (May 5 1927). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 98 Van Hövell to to Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Landbouw (April 16, 1927); 2e Divisie Marechaussee to Van Hövell (June 28, 1927). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 99 Handbills, Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 100 Mayor of Schaersberg to Van Hövell (June 14, 1922). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 23

have asked us to send the placards, which they themselves would stick to walls” and "soon lists will circulate, which pro-Belgians can sign.” The mayor gave the name and address of the pro-Belgian activist to Van Hövell.101

Data on elite behaviour on pro-Dutch and pro-Belgian initiatives during the Belgian claim for Limburg in the years 1918 and 1919 show that borderland and heartland elites collaborated in articulating and stimulating the Dutch identity of Limburg. The expression of a shared territory, culture, history and common rights and duties between borderland Limburg and the Dutch heartland and the existence of close political relations between borderland and heartland elites define Limburg in 1918 and 1919 as an adult borderland. Some pro-Dutch initiatives, such as the provincial committee “Limburg bij Nederland” and local manifestations as in Kerkrade were mostly locally or regionally organized, while others marked a cooperation between regional and national elites. In both types of initiatives, civil elites as church leaders and labor organisations played an important role. Limburg and The Hague authorities also worked together closely in suppressing pro-Belgian agents. Between 1838 and 1918, Limburg developed from an infant to an adult borderland.

101 Mayor of Heer to Van Hövell (June 25, 1927). Folder 183, CvdK archive, RHCL. 24

Conclusion

In this research project I studied the developmental stage of borderland Limburg during the Belgian claim for the Dutch province in 1918 and 1919. To typify the stage of Limburg as a border region, I used the model by Baud and Van Schendel, who argue that borderlands gradually change over time. I analysed borderland and heartland elites behaviour related to the Belgian annexation plans in the years 1918 and 1919. An analysis of the archives of Queen’s Commissioner Van Hövell, supported by several historical researches of primary sources in the period, shows that Limburg was an adult borderland.

Borderland and heartland elites in 1918 and 1919 collaborated in articulating and stimulating the Dutch identity of Limburg. Regional elites in majority expressed the notion of a shared territory, culture, history and common rights and duties between borderland Limburg and the Dutch heartland. Some pro-Dutch initiatives, such as the provincial committee “Limburg bij Nederland” and local manifestations as in Kerkrade were mostly locally or regionally organized, while others marked a cooperation between regional and national elites. In both types of initiatives, civil elites as church leaders and labor organisations played an important role. Only a small minority in provincial elites expressed a Belgian national identity and initiated pro-Belgian actions. Borderland and heartland authorities worked together closely in suppressing these initiatives.

The results of this research project on elites show that between 1838 and 1918, Limburg developed from an infant to an adult borderland. Under threat of Belgian annexation in the aftermath of World War I, elites showed themselves firmly embedded in state power structures and expressed a clear Dutch identity. A valid explanation for their active pro-Dutch behaviour during 1918 and 1919 is that they had everything to lose from a border change. Limburg mayors, councilmen, the King’s Commisioner and even the prime minister held solid positions of power within the Dutch political framework and had no prospect on similar appointments in the Belgian territory. As Baud and Van Schendel indicate, elite behaviour seems to play a big role in the development of borderlands. Further studies comparing borderlands with elites both loyal and disloyal to the heartland could show more about elites dynamics in border regions.

To define the developmental stage of a borderland, Baud and Van Schendel suggest the indicators of national identity and political, economic and social relations. The first indicator is clearly visible in the period of research, but due to time and funding restrictions, I have not been able to provide a full investigation of the second indicator. A valuable further research could comprise factors like economic linkages, kinship links or migration movements to provide a better understanding of the state of border region Limburg. An interesting study could be a comparison with other Dutch borderlands or the Belgian borderland at the other side of the border.

Global elites at the Versailles peace conference in line with regional elites in Limburg in 1919 determined that the province remain Dutch. Although the region still holds particular cultural, linguistic and political characteristics, it remains an integral part of the national state of the Netherlands. The years 1918 and 1919 formed a crucial period to decide so. The development of the region from an infant to an adult borderland in the eighty years before cleared the way for the province to remain Dutch. According to this research project, borderland elites played an important role. 25

Bibliography

Bank, J. and M. van Buuren (2000) 1900: hoogtij van burgerlijke cultuur. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

Baud, Michiel and Willem van Schendel (1997) ‘Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands’, Journal of World History, 8(2) 211-42.

Berkvens, A.M.J.A., H.J.J.M. Bruggen, R.M.L.M. Magnée (2013) Rechtspraak in Roermond: van Soevereine Raad naar Rechtbank Limburg (1580-2012) Hilversum: Verloren.

Brown, Chris (2001) ‘Borders and identity in international political theory’, in Mathias Albert, Yosef Lapid and David Jacobson eds., Identities, Borders and Orders (pp. 118-9). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Bryman, Alan (2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Camp, Rico op den (1993) ‘Vreemd vaderland. Limburg en de Nederlandse natie in de 19e eeuw’, Spiegel Historiael 28(10).

Cole, John W. and Eric R. Wolf (1974) The Hidden Frontier: Ecology and Ethnicity in an Alpine Valley. New York: Academic Press.

Denzin, N.K. (1970) The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.

Fawcett, Charles B (1918) Frontiers: A Study in Political Geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Feyissa, Dereje and Markus V. Hoehne (2010) 'State Borders and Borderlands as Resources: An Analytical Framework', in Feyissa and Hoehne eds. Borders and borderlands as Resources in the Horn of Africa (pp. 1-25). London: James Currey.

Fischer, Eric (1949) ‘On Boundaries’, World Politics, 1(2) 196-222.

Gulpers, Judtih (2003) Elfde kind of Assepoester? Limburg en de reacties op het Belgisch annexionisme (1918-1919). Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit.

Heijden, Rob P.W.J.M. van der (1992) ‘Tijden veranderen: Limburg tussen Nederland en België. De reacties in Nederlands-Limburg op het Belgisch annexionisme van 1918-1919’, Maasgouw, 111, 102- 167.

Heijden, Rob P.W.J.M. van der, A.S.M. Patelski en F.H.M. Roebroeks (1993) ‘Valkenburg in 1919 in de ban van België?’, Historische en heemkundige studies in en rond het Geuldal 3, 176-202

Higley, J. (2010) ‘Elite Theory and Elites’ in Kevin Leicht and J. Craig Jenkin, Handbook of Politics (pp. 161-176). New York: Springer.

Holdich, Thomas H. (1916) ‘Political Boundaries’, Scottish Geographical Magazine, 32, 497-507.

Holdich, Thomas H. (1916) Political Frontiers and Boundary Making. London: Macmillan.

26

Klaassen, W.J.M. (1989) 'Hövell van Wezeveld en Westerflier, Eduard Otto Joseph Maria baron van (1877-1936)', in Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland. Deel III (pp. 262). Den Haag: Huygens Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis.

Kolossov, Vladimir and James W. Scott (2012) ‘Karelia: A Finnish–Russian Borderland on the Edge of Neighbourhood’, in H. Eskelinen, I. Liikanen and J.W. Scott eds. The EU–Russia Borderland. New Contexts for Regional Cooperation (pp. 194-210). London: Routledge.

Michaelsen, Scott J. and David E. Johnson eds. (1997) Border Theory: The Limits of Cultural Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Martínez, Oscar (1994) Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Minghi, Julian (1963) ‘Review Article: Boundary Studies in Political Geography’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53(3) 407-428.

Nissen, Peter (2000) ‘Constructie en deconstructie van het katholieke Limburg’, in Ad Knotter and Willibrord Rutten eds., Maakbaar Limburg. De constructie van een samenleving in een eeuw van uitersten (pp. 79-95). Maastricht: Sociaal Historisch Centrum voor Limburg.

Oort, Thunnis van (2007) Film en het moderne leven in Limburg. Het bioscoopwezen tussen commercie en katholieke cultuurpolitiek (1909-1929). Hilversum: Verloren.

Orbons, Piet (2001) ‘De Franse tijd 1794-1814. Nieuwe grenzen, nieuwe wetten’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 12-17). Maastricht: LGOG.

Orbons, Piet (2001) ‘Limburg in isolement’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 36-43). Maastricht: LGOG.

Orbons, Piet (2001) ‘Limburg vindt zijn vaderland’, in Jos Venner ed., Geschiedenis van Limburg. Deel II (pp. 44-47). Maastricht: LGOG.

Orbons, Piet and Lou Spronck (1966) ‘Limburgers worden Nederlanders. Een moeizaam integratieproces’, Publications de la société historique et archéologique dans le Limbourg 52, 31-53.

Scott, James W. (2010) ‘Cross­Border Cooperation in the Periphery of the European Union: Reinterpreting the

Finnish­Russian Borderland’, Eurolimes 10, 123-139.

Spiertz, M.G. (1966) ‘Limburg uit de Duitse bond’ Publications de la société historique et archéologique dans le Limbourg 52, 11-29.

Smith, Anthony D. (1990) National Identity. London: Penguin Books

Struck, Bernhard (2001) ‘Grenzregionen’, in Institut für Europäische Geschichte, Europäische Geschichte Online. Mainz: IEG.

Ubachs, P.J.H. (2000) Handboek voor de geschiedenis van Limburg, Hilversum: Verloren. 27

Waele, Maria de (1996) 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen. Nationale gevoelens en botsende ambities', Bijdragen tot de eigentijdse geschiedenis 1, 193-212.

Whittemore Boggs, S. (1940) On Boundaries. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wilson, Thomas M. and Hastings Donnan (2012) ‘Borders and Border Studies’ in Wilson and Donnan, A Companion to Border Studies (pp. 1-25 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28

Archival Data

Commissaris van de Koningin in Limburg archive, Regionaal Historisch Centrum Limburg, Maastricht.

Folder 183

Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken to Van Hövell (May 27, 1919).

Quoted text in Dutch: “of wellicht ten deze met den term annexionist bedoeld kan zijn voorstander van de aanhechting van St. Pieter aan de gemeente Maastricht.”

Van Hövell to Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (May 31, 1919).

“niet als voorstander van de aanhechting van St. Pieter aan de gemeente Maastricht, doch als voorstander van de bekende inlijving bij België.”

To Van Hövell (Juli 18, 1919).

Van Hövell to the mayor of Grevenbicht (Aug. 21, 1919).

“Ik acht het volstrekt noodzakelijk (…) dat een nader nauwkeurig onderzoek ter zake wordt ingesteld.”

Gezant in Brussel to Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (May 3, 1921).

Mayor of Roermond to Van Hövell (May 3, 1921).

“dat zekere Josef LEDOUX, Nederlander, wonende te Roermond, Neerstraat, zich voor eenige dagen in opdracht van het Comité de Politique National gewend heeft tot een Nederlander te Brussel, aan wien hij meende vertrouwen te kunnen schenken. LEDOUX deelde onder geheimhouding mede, dat het “Comité” het dagblad “Het Zuiden” voor de som van fl. 20.000.- had aangekocht.Het doel was, 1e bij de volgende verkiezingen voor de 2e Kamer propaganda te maken voor de candidatuur van Mr.Dr. H.A.G. van Groenendaal, 2e de stemming ten aanzien van België in Limburg levendig te houden.”

Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken to Van Hövell (May 23, 1921).

“Naar mij werd medegedeeld zouden een tweetal personen, in Uwe provincie wonende, annexionistische propaganda voeren en wel Jos Ledoux Jr. te Roermond en Dr. Crolla, geneesheer vroegen in Nederlandschen, thans in Belgischen dienst. Ik heb de eer U.H.E.G. te verzoeken hiernaar een onderzoek te willen instellen en mij, kan het zijn spoedig, met den uitkomst daarvan op de hoogte te stellen.”

2e Divisie Marechaussee to Van Hövell (June 10, 1921).

Mayor of Schaersberg to Van Hövell (June 14, 1922).

“Bij het verschijnen der programma’s van dit feest (…) blijkt mij, dat deze omlijst zijn met de Belgische nationale kleuren en wapens. Zoals begrijpelijk heb ik hiertegen onmiddellijk bij het Bestuur der voormelde Fanfare geprotesteerd en heb ik gelijktijdig laten onderzoeken, welke de aanleiding hiervoor is geweest.” “Het Bestuur heeft mij toegezegd de bedoelde programma’s terstond te laten intrekken en door andere vervangen.” “In verband met het voorkomen van mijn naam op meergenoemd programma, hetgeen voor de pers aanleiding zou kunnen geven tot onjuiste

29

voorstellingen en onaangename verwikkelingen, heb ik gemeend het vorenstaande ter Uwer kennis te moeten brengen.”

Handbills (1927)

Van Hövell to to Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Landbouw (April 16, 1927).

Van Hövell to Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Landbouw (May 5 1927).

“Het komt mij voor, dat, vooral ook met het oog op de wijze, waarop de Limburgsche bevolking deze daden beoordeelt, aan het gebeurde even weinig gewicht behoeft te worden gehecht als onlangs te Roosteren en te Susteren is geschied.”

Mayor of Heer to Van Hövell (June 25, 1927).

“ingezetenen van Sittard hebben ons gevraagd de plakkaten te sturen, dan zouden zij ze zelf wel opplakken”; “binnenkort circuleeren lijsten, waarop de belgisch gezinden kunnen teekenen”.

2e Divisie Marechaussee to Van Hövell (June 28, 1927).

Folder 184

Gemeente Kerkrade (1919) ‘Programma voor de Oranje-Feesten’.

“Zanghulde van de Schooljeugd van kerkrade aan H.M. Koningin Wilhelmina ter gelegenheid van de Oranje-Feesten – 1 September 1919 op het Marktplein

1. Wilhelmus van Nassouwe 2. Limburg mijn Vaderland 3. Wij willen Limburg hou’en

Wij willen Limburg hou’en Elk vreemd geweld ten spijt Wij blijven Holland trouwe, Ja, trouwe voor altijd ! En niemand Limburg deren zal! En niemand Limburg scheiden zal! Ons Limburg jubelt mee: Voor Nederland, hoezee Door hechten band verbonden, Aan ’t oud Oranjehuis, Blijft Limburg ongeschonden En trouw aan ’t Vorstenhuis! En niemand Limburg deren zal! En niemand Limburg scheiden zal! Ons Limburg jubelt mee: Voor Nederland, hoezee

30

4. Wien Neêrlandsch Bloed”

“De jonge mannen van Limburg snelden naar ’t Noorden en als een lijfwacht stelden zij zich rond haren troon; “Raak niet aan onze Koningin!” Dat was hun woord. Dat is het woord van heel het volk van Limburg, dat trouw gezworen heeft aan Zijne Koningin en Haar alleen erkent en Haar alleen steeds zal erkennen als zijne wettige vorstin.”

Queen Wilhelmina to Van Hövell (March 3, 1919).

“Het is mij eene dringende behoefte in de residentie teruggekeerd de bevolking van Limburg diepgevoelde dank te zeggen voor de schitterende bewijzen van vaderlandsliefde welke zij heeft afgelegd. Door duizende stemmen is thans opnieuw vertolkt dat dit schoone gewest een onverbrekelijk geheel met Nederland vormt. Hechter dan ooit zijn de banden die ons allen aan elkander binden. Wilhelmina.”

De Gaay Fortman to Van Hövell (March 3, 1919).

“De bedoeling is een waardige, indrukwekkende belydenis onzer nationale samenhoorigheid, zuiver dus een Nederlandsch belang, niet een stambelang (…) Een pakkend slot van den dag zou kunnen zyn, indien uit elke provincie een mannelyk en een vrouwelyk inwoner in gewestelyke keedy, geschaard om de Nederlandsche vlag, de eenheid van Nederland symbolisch vertoonden.”

Officieele bekendmaking (September 24, 1919).

“diep verontwaardigd over de pogingen der Belgische annexionisten om uit eigen baat de thans oppermachtige volken te bewegen tot schending van Nederlandse rechten en grenzen.”; “Wij zijn allen Nederlanders, die met onverbreekbare trouw aan elkander verbonden zijn en staan samen pal voor een ongeschonden Vaderland.”

Folder 185

Provinciaal Comité “Limburg bij Nederland”.

Letter by J. Janssen (1920).

“Mogelijk interesseert het u te vernemen dat dit Comité nog niet ter ruste is, maar bij de gewijzigde omstandigheden der laatste maanden ook in de toekomst zich onledig zal houden met op gepaste tijdstippen en bij daarvoor geschikte gelegenheden de leuze “Limburg bij Nederland” te doen weeklinken. Hoogachtend, J. Janssen."

Newspaper articles cited in Gulpers, ‘Elfde kind of Assepoester?’

Limburger Koerier (December 9, 1918) ‘Maastricht’s antwoord’; ‘Nieuws uit Maastricht’ 110.

31

“wijl er uit blijkt, dat Limburg is en wil blijven een Nederlandsche provincie.”

Limburger Koerier (December 10, 1918) ‘Aan de Limburgsche bevolking’ 108.

“waar een krachtig protest kan klinken en onze aanhankelijkheid aan Nederland betuigd kan worden”.

Limburger Koerier (February 28, 1919), no title. 110.

“de aanwezigen getuigen dat de Limburgers en Zeeuwen hen even lief zijn als de andere Hollanders”; “van de trouw en verknochtheid van Limburg aan vorstin en vaderland”

Limburger Koerier (March, 3 1919), ‘Nieuws uit Maastricht. Het Koninklijk bezoek’ 110.

De Kronijk (May 7, 1919) ´Onze houding in de Limburgsche Quaestie´, 104.

“wijl de verandering voor de voornaamste ideële en stoffelijke belangen beter ware, en op de tweede plaats uit gevoelsafkeer van de toenemende verhollandiseering van Limburg”

Limburger Koerier (September 16, 1919), ‘De betooging in Den Haag’ 111.

Other sources

Manifestation (December 8, 1918). Cited in De Waele, 'België en Nederland tussen twee wereldoorlogen’, 203.

“Wij BEGEEREN, wij VERLANGEN, wij WILLEN niets anders dan te blijven wat wij zijn: NEDERLANDERS en nog eens NEDERLANDERS.”

Queen Wilhelmina (September 16, 1919), cited in De Rijnbode (September 19, 1919) 1.

“In innige gemeenschap met Mijn gansche volk gaan Mijne gedachten uit naar Limburg […], in wie[ns] trouw en aanhankelijkheid de hechtheid en de kracht onzer nationale eenheid ondubbelzinnig tot uitdrukking kwamen.”

32

Figures

Figure 1. W & A.K Johnson (1912) ‘Belgium and the Netherlands’ in The Royal Atlas Of Modern Geography. Edinburgh: W & A.K Johnson. Retrieved from http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~37656~1210646. Last visited on June 30, 2014.

Figure 2. Publications de la Société Historique et archéologique dans le Duché de Limbourg (1903), retrieved via http://www.ppsimons.nl/stamboom/kaart_limburg1785-1794-3.htm. Last visited on June 30, 2014.

33