THE BOER AS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE WAR.
People tell
Of an old savage.
_Omar Khayyam_.
'E 'asn't got no papers of his own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown.
_Rudyard Kipling._
It is with reluctance we approach a subject on which in past years so
much has been written, often falsely. Besides, it is certainly a most
delicate matter to expatiate on the character of any individual or
nation.
We are aware that some of our readers will read the remarks on this
subject--Boer character--with considerable suspicion and distrust. They
may argue that the writers, being of Dutch extraction themselves, are
not likely to give an accurate and dispassionate estimate of the
character of their own people. They may even fear that our national
sentiments might influence and predominate over our judgment, and switch
us off the track of strict impartiality. If there be such, we can only
assure them that we have no intention whatsoever of eulogising and
extolling the race with which we are connected by blood.
[Illustration: EX-PRESIDENT STEYN.
_Photo by Duffus Bros., Capetown._]
In the past the Boers, _i.e._, the Dutch element in the late Republics,
have frequently been described, and as often maligned, by men who were
perfect strangers to them; men who had not taken the least trouble to
study their habits and character so as to arrive at a better
understanding of the people they were trying to describe. Hence the
various contradictory statements and representations of one and the
same people. Alas! that they should ever have been the victims of so
much cheap slander, that some men should have vied with one another in
heaping insult and infamy on their heads, while others conjured up for
themselves a fantastic and outrageous monster, and called that a Boer.
We cannot expect that minds so inflamed and exasperated would do justice
to the Boers. We feel convinced that their character can only be
portrayed correctly and justly by men not animated by hostile sentiments
towards them, but who, having been in touch with them have generously
entered into their feelings and aspirations, and have looked at things
from the Boer standpoint, as well as from their own; men who have had
patience to bear with their infirmities; in a word, by men from their
very midst--such and such only could do justice to their character.
Born and bred among the Dutch, associated with them all our lives, Dutch
ourselves every inch--a fact in which we glory--our relations to the
Boers, specially during the war, have afforded us excellent
opportunities of making an ethnological study of them. During the war
the Dutch population, more especially that portion of it which was
directly connected with the struggle, passed through various phases and
changes of life. Subjected to the most harassing circumstances, one saw
them at their worst, but also at their best. Their virtues, as well as
their vices, were fanned by the breath of war. Many a hidden virtue
sparkled forth, as the dewdrop glistens in the beams of the rising sun.
Many a slumbering vice and latent evil inclination found the regions of
discord and strife a fruitful soil for development.
Now that hostilities have ceased, and the liberties of speech and the
Press are extended once more, not only to such as were or are possessed
of the bitterest of feelings towards the Dutch, but to all British
subjects, we feel constrained to dissipate, if possible, some of the
clouds of slander which encompassed the Boers before and during the war.
Never in the history of nations has an honourable foe been more abused
than the Boers. They have been misrepresented altogether to the world at
large, and to the public in England in particular.
The war-Press, the platform, and even the pulpit, were all arrayed in
martial order against them, and belched forth streams of abuse on two
small states. A warm glow comes over our faces, and the blood begins to
surge swiftly through our veins, as we recall some of the stinging
expressions by which the Boers were stigmatised, and through which the
mind of the English public was more and more inflamed, and all traces of
sympathy with the Boers removed. We do not wish to enumerate these
descriptive terms and phrases, for that would be raking up old scores.
We would rather forget than remember unpleasant words and deeds.
We must, however, direct our attention briefly to the platform and
pulpit, not to mention the Press, which were so successful in exercising
an influence calculated to intensify race-hatred and obstruct the way to
any peaceful settlement of political disputes.
When the Uitlanders in Johannesburg became dissatisfied with the
existing state of affairs, and began to ask for greater privileges, they
betook themselves to the platform. Now the Boers had no objection to
their forming political organizations, or holding public meetings in
which they could agitate for redress of grievances. But what they did
object to, and very strongly, was the blatant manner in which these
Uitlanders referred to their governments and themselves. Instead of
exercising the art of "gentle persuasion" by laying their grievances
before the Transvaal Government in the form of a polite request, and so
achieving their desired object, these Uitlanders resorted to the policy
of _fortiter in re_, the policy of intimidation, by threatening the
Boers with the right arm of the British Empire unless they granted their
requests instantly. When they adopted this method of procedure, they
naturally did not get what they wanted. So they agitated and cried for
redress of grievances until the unhappy war was brought about. Not only
in South Africa, but also in England thousands were misled by these
platform agitators, who were bent on placing the Dutch in a false light
before the civilized world.
And the pulpit, as represented by some ministers not only of the Church
of England, but also of the Nonconformist Churches, ministers of the
gospel of peace on earth and good-will towards man--what an attitude did
it assume! Surely if these clergymen had been as eager to promote peace
as they were zealous to set in motion the waters of strife, they might,
have accomplished a work meriting eternal reward. Alas! that some who
are, or call themselves, followers of the Prince of Peace should have
favoured a war of destruction, and been led to say very hard things and
utter unfounded charges against the Dutch.
To cite only one of many instances, the Rev. Dr. Hertz, writing from
Lourenço Marques, worded his letter thus:--
"We are safe, having left all we possess in the world behind us,
and in all probability shall never see a single thing of it again.
When I found the game the President and his crew were playing I
thought it best to clear out ... The Boers have threatened to kill,
burn, and destroy everything and everybody, _women_ and _children_,
and some of them at least are bad enough to do it. I had the verbal
assurance of the President that I could stay safe and undisturbed,
but he would not put anything in writing. Then they appointed a
committee to give permits, and they would not give me one. And so
it became more and more manifest that they meant to decoy me into
staying, and then hold me at mercy. And what this mercy is may be
seen from the last news from Johannesburg; any one without a
written permit has been condemned to 25 lashes and three months'
hard labour."
Such statements flowing from the pen of a Reverend Doctor were believed
by thousands. Now what is the truth in regard to them? During the
Bishop's absence his residence was specially guarded by order of the
Government. The punishment meted out to some who remained in
Johannesburg without permits exceeded in no case a higher fine than £3
_without_ lashes. As to the Boers' intention of decoying the Doctor to
stay, and then hold him at mercy, we need only remark that he must have
thought more about his own importance than the Boers ever did. His
assertion that the Boers threatened to kill everybody, including women
and children, and that some of them are bad enough to do it, needs no
refutation, for it merits silent contempt.
A feeling of sadness, if not pity, lays hold of one to think that
ministers of the Gospel could actually draw up large petitions, urging
the British Government to prosecute the war vigorously until the
complete subjugation of the Boers was accomplished, which meant either
their entire extermination or the sacrifice of their sacred rights.
There were, however, several notable exceptions, men who were not afraid
to speak the truth about their enemies or their country's enemies,
regardless of what others might think or say of themselves, regardless
whether they would be called Boer-sympathisers or pro-Boers. Such men we
shall ever revere and hold in estimation because they dared to speak the
truth, cost what it would.
Thus far we have depicted the Boer character negatively in denying the
unjust and unfounded charges brought against them by callous and
misinformed minds. We do not hesitate to state that they are _not_ a
race of inferior beings, savage and uncivilized. They are not as good as
some have presented them, they are not as bad as others have pictured
them. Who, then, are these men and women who so stubbornly resisted
British power and supremacy for such a long period under such great
disadvantages? What are their main characteristics?
The Boers are the descendants of those pioneers who, for various
reasons, left the Cape Colony between the years 1834-39. These emigrants
or pioneers inspanned their large ox-waggons, bade farewell to their
homes and farms in the Cape Colony and trekked across the Orange River.
They traversed the wide plains of the late Orange Free State and
proceeded to the Drakensberg Mountains. These mountains they crossed and
settled down in Natal. How they were attacked and massacred by the
Zulus, and how they, in their turn, defeated the Zulus and broke their
power, how Natal became a British colony, all this is ancient history.
The pioneers, objecting to English rule, quitted Natal. Some of them
forded the Vaal River and they founded the Transvaal or South African
Republic. Others settled west of the Drakensberg Range and founded the
Orange Free State Republic.
These states were then infested by wild beasts and uncivilized native
tribes. Against these the sturdy pioneers had to contend, and only after
years of suffering, hardship, and bloodshed did they succeed, by their
indomitable spirit, in vanquishing all foes, and so made habitable and
opened up for commerce and civilization the Republics, which the late
war has laid in ruins and ashes, indeed, converted into a howling
wilderness, a land of desolation.
And these pioneers, whence came they, and what is their origin? They are
descended from that race which so valiantly resisted and defied Spanish
tyranny and power for eighty years, and so achieved that freedom of
life, freedom of thought and freedom of belief, from which all Europe
and England herself has derived priceless blessings. They are sprung
from that stock whose courage was not shaken by the flames of funeral
pyres, nor by all the tortures the human mind could devise; men who at
the block betrayed no signs of fear, but faced death, as brave men
ofttimes do, with a beatific smile, to the utter amazement of such as
had to enact the cruel tragedy. These pioneers have in their veins the
best blood of European nations, and their traditions are such as any
nation might be proud of.
With such a history behind them, and descended from such ancestors, it
is not strange that the most prominent feature in the Boer character is
an intense and unconquerable love of freedom. His isolation, his large
farm with outstretched plains or rugged mountains, and his manner of
living, all tend to nourish that love of freedom in his bosom. Above all
things he wants to be free and independent. His history is one long
record of trekking away from British domination, not because he wishes
to be exempted from all control and thus indulge in a lawless life, as
some writers have erroneously maintained, but because he desires a
government of his own. The chief desideratum with the Boer, in regard to
government, is that it shall be his own, and not that of some other
power, be it never so excellent a form of government.
When the Republics were annexed the English thought and hoped that the
Boers would very soon take to the new Government, would be more than
satisfied with the new arrangements, and so forget the privileges which
they had enjoyed under the auspices of their own government. Those who
thought and hoped thus were sadly disappointed. That powerful sentiment
and that strong passion for freedom, seated deep down in the heart of
the Boer, sustained them in bidding defiance to fearful odds for almost
three years. That inborn passion enabled the Boer nation to sacrifice
their all, and to endure for freedom's sake indescribable hardships and
sufferings.
A Boer may not exactly know all that independence includes; he may not
be able to enumerate the benefits accruing from it, but instinctively he
covets it as a jewel of great price.
That this love of liberty and of country amounted to something more than
mere sentiment has been proved conclusively by the war, when the whole
male population rose in arms against the invading foe. Touching, indeed,
it was to behold boys of twelve and grey-headed men of seventy and
eighty years shouldering their rifles and all fighting for one great
ideal. When their homes were burned, families removed, and goods taken
or destroyed, they exclaimed: "Let the British do whatever they please,
let them strip us of everything we hold dear, so long as we are only a
_free_ people. We do not mind being poor; we are prepared, when the war
is over, to live in tents as our forefathers did; but we do not want to
swear allegiance to the despoilers of our country. British subjects!
_No, never_."
And the Boer women, who are the very embodiment of liberty itself, were
they less enthusiastic and determined to be free than their husbands and
sons? Verily not. Words fail us when we want to express our admiration
for these heroines who played so prominent a part in the South African
Campaign, and upon whom the brunt of the war fell. Alas! that this
should have been the case.
In years gone by the wives and daughters of the early pioneers stood by
the side of their husbands and fathers, casting bullets and loading
their flint-lock guns, as the latter bravely repelled the fierce
onslaught of Zulus, Matabeles, and other savage hordes. Many of them
were ruthlessly murdered by these savage tribes. No Africander will ever
forget names such as Weenen (Place of Weeping), Blood Rivier (Blood
River), Vechtkop and Blauwkrants--places where Boer women had
contributed their share of blood, that their children might be free.
Those days were sad and dark; but there were sadder and darker times in
store for the descendants of these pioneer women.
During the war the Republican women proved themselves no less formidable
and brave than in those early days. When their husbands and sons were
called to the front they took upon themselves the entire management of
the farms. So well did they acquit themselves of such an onerous task
that, as long as they were left unmolested, there was no lack of
provisions for man or beast, always enough, and to spare. True, it cost
them much labour and fatigue, for some of them had to tend the flocks,
while others had to plough the fields and reap the crops in the
scorching rays of a December or January sun. They did it willingly and
gladly, so that the men might be free to engage in the struggle.
The enemy, on observing the attitude of the women, determined to strike
a blow at them. They, so reasoned the enemy, had to be removed and
gathered into concentration camps, if there ever was to come an end to
the war. Not so much the men as the women were blamed for the
prolongation of the war. The women first had to be subdued; the flames
of freedom burning in their bosoms had to be extinguished. Hence the sad
story of a war in which the weak and defenceless were made to suffer and
endure so much.
When they were roughly handled and transported in ox-waggons, exposed
for days to wind, sun, and rain, and were piled up in disease-stricken
camps, did they flinch? When they and their children were dying in
scores in these camps, did they beseech the burghers to relinquish the
struggle, or petition the Boer Governments to yield? Verily not. On the
contrary, in spite of their intense sufferings and of the appalling rate
of mortality among them, they continually encouraged the burghers by
sending out messages to them to this effect: "Fight on, don't yield; we
would rather all die in the camp than see you surrender" "Go and fight,"
said one to her husband; "I would rather see you dead, and all my
children dead, than that you burghers should cease the struggle."
Another woman was so disappointed and disgusted at the surrender of her
husband, that when he arrived at the concentration camp where she was
confined she would have none of him, and quitted the camp the same
night, making her escape to the Boer lines. Such women are the mothers
of the next generation. Was it quite prudent on the part of the British
to tempt them to rear their children in bitter hatred of the English
race?
This liberty-loving feature in the Boer character has been beautifully
described in the _Leek Times_:--
"The old man, the youth and the stripling, are offering their
hearts' blood as a sacrifice; nor do they think the sacrifice too
great, strengthened and urged on by all they believe to be the
highest and holiest in religion and principle. The Boer will fight
on, giving his last drop of blood and his last breath for his
freedom. And the women-folk of his land are bearing their share of
this task; they do not shrink; they are helping their fathers,
brothers, and sons in this fight. They think no distance too great
to travel, no burden too heavy to carry. The wife, with her little
children round her knees, bids her husband a tearful but brave
God-speed. The mother, as she gazes with a full heart on the boy
who is as the apple of her eye, bids him go forth and fight in
Freedom's Holy War. The lass bids her lover take his stand for all
that she thinks worth having, esteeming him something less than a
coward if he fails to the fight. Woe betide the oppressors when the
women of a nation take up the quarrel."
Ah! thou mighty Christian England, who hast always prided thyself on
being the most liberty-loving of all the Powers that be, how couldst
thou have crushed the liberty of two small states? How couldst thou have
torn so mercilessly the noble passions and aspirations of being free and
independent from the Boer hearts? Hast thou verily extinguished by
force the highest and holiest ambitions of a free-born people? Can the
mountain torrent rushing down the valley be stemmed in its onward
course? If patriotism is the ideal of a race that nourishes the most
indestructible of all passions, then ye have indeed contended against an
indestructible element of the Boer nature.
Next to and quite as prominent as this all-absorbing passion for freedom
is the _religious trait_ in the Boer character. As a people they are
distinguished from all other nations by their religiosity. Remembering
that they are the offshoot of men and women who perished in France,
Holland, England and elsewhere for their faith, one does not wonder that
they are religious. The religion of the Boer forms part and parcel of
his very existence. His mind is imbued with the words and thoughts of
Holy Writ. On a Sunday you will find him with his family, as a rule,
attending service in his little chapel. If he cannot go to church, he
will gather his family, increased sometimes by the presence of
neighbours, round the family altar, and there he will read his Bible,
sing his Psalms, bend his knees and lift up his heart in prayerful
adoration to the God of his fathers.
Attachés, correspondents, and foreigners who fought on the side of the
Boers were struck much by the simple piety, the religious ideas and
sentiments of the Boers. Early in the morning and late at night their
camps would resound with hymns. In this enlightened twentieth century,
however, it has become the fashion to scoff and sneer at everything
which savours of religion, so much so that it seems incredible to most
that the Boers, as a people, can still be devout and God-fearing.
Civilization with its concomitant vices has assumed the garb of
Christianity, having its form and semblance, but missing its spirit and
power. Such as are animated by the spirit of Christian religion and are
endowed with its power are derisively called hypocrites. We shall
willingly admit that there are many hypocrites among the Boers. But are
they not found among all nations? To say that all religious Boers are
hypocrites is utterly false.
When the English entered upon the contest with the Republics they
evidently did not reckon with this religious factor of the Boer
character. They did not know that the Boer would be supported as much by
his religious sentiments as by his love of freedom to fight to the
bitter end. Had they not been animated by such a fervent belief and
childlike trust in Providence, they would have abandoned ere long a
struggle which, regarded from a human standpoint, must have seemed
hopeless to them. But they believed that their cause was a holy and just
one, and that the God of Battles, the God of their forefathers, would
ultimately crown their efforts and sacrifices by sending them a glorious
deliverance. When the enemy desecrated their churches, ill-treated their
pastors, and stabbed their flocks, cattle and horses, they were not
disheartened, but said to themselves: "God in Heaven does behold, and He
shall vindicate the cause of the just as well as that of defenceless
creatures." Such deeds the religious Boer regarded with awe and
aversion, and made him more determined than aught else not to surrender
to those who perpetrated them.
The national anthems of the late Republics admirably express these two
features of the Boer character. The following is a free translation of
the Transvaal Volkslied, which may serve to illustrate the sentiments
which have dominated the Boers ever since their national existence:
TRANSVAAL VOLKSLIED.
Right nobly gave Voortrekkers brave their blood, their lives, their all;
For Freedom's right, in Death's despite, they fought at duty's call.
Ho! Burghers, high our banner waves, the standard of the free,
No foreign yoke our land enslaves, here reigneth liberty.
'Tis heaven's command, here we should stand,
And aye defend the Volk and land.
What realm so fair, so richly fraught with treasures ever new;
Where Nature hath her wonder wrought, and freely spread to view!
Ho! Burghers old, be up and sing, God save the Volk and land,
Then, Burghers young, your anthem ring, o'er veldt, o'er hill, o'er strand.
And, Burghers all, stand ye or fall
For hearths and homes at country's call.
With wisdom, Lord, our rulers guide, and these Thy people bless,
May we with nations all abide in peace and righteousness.
To Thee, whose mighty arm did shield Thy Volk in bygone days--
To Thee alone we humbly yield all glory, honour, praise.
God guard our land, our own dear land,
Our children's home, their Fatherland.
A third distinctive mark in the Boer character, regarded from a military
point of view, is his fearlessness, so strikingly displayed in several
battles. That the Boers proved themselves brave during the war goes
without saying.
Those who prophesied a speedy termination of the war in favour of the
British thought that lyddite-shells and dum-dum bullets, when applied to
the Boer, would at once scatter them far and wide, and so intimidate
them that they would kneel and sue for mercy and peace. To their great
disappointment they found the Boers stubbornly and gallantly resisting
the most determined onslaught of the British forces, repelling them as
often with disastrous results.
We admired, in friend or foe, no other quality more than
bravery--bravery as distinguished from recklessness. We had respect for
brave foes, and when the fortunes of war entrusted such as
prisoners-of-war to our care, we always treated them with the courtesy
gallant men deserve.
We often admired the valour displayed by our opponents. On certain
occasions the British forces performed the most daring and heroic feats
of which mortal men are capable. We saw officers and soldiers rushing
and marching, as it were, into the very jaws of death. Though exposed to
a storm of bullets, which consumed them like a withering fire, they
would press on, often dropping down as wheat before the scythe. Such
determination and bravery called forth the admiration of our men. There
is, however, a difference between valour as displayed by the British and
valour as displayed by the Boers. Without wishing to rob the British
officer and soldier of their martial honours, which they may well
deserve, having earned them at so great a cost, yet, in comparing Boer
and Briton, we must bear in mind that the Boer had had no military
training whatsoever, and was never subjected to military discipline. He
hardly knew the importance and necessity of obeying orders promptly and
implicitly. When he attacked or charged the enemy's stronghold or
positions he did so, as a rule, of his own accord, not under any
compulsion, but spontaneously and voluntarily. The British soldier, on
the other hand, had all the advantages and sometimes disadvantages of
military discipline. He had been taught to obey orders, whether it meant
death to him or not. Besides, the soldier was backed up by thousands and
tens of thousands of comrades on every side, while batteries of naval
guns and Armstrongs were at his rear, under cover of which he could
charge or retreat. No beating of drums, or symphonies of martial music,
or great numbers inspired and urged the Boer on to the performance of
heroic deeds. With rifle in hand and limited supply of cartridges he
often had to face overwhelming odds. And when these odds threatened to
outflank him, he was called by some a coward for retreating and not
allowing himself to be captured. Instinctively he knew it was better to
retreat--
"For he who fights and runs away
May live to fight another day."
Some maintain that the Boers are only brave when lying behind huge
boulders, or entrenched in strong fortifications, from whence,
concealed, they can pour a deadly fusillade on the approaching enemy.
There may be an element of truth in this charge, but as a generalization
it is utterly false. To stamp the Boers as cowards in general is to rob
the British Army of much of its honour and so discredit their work in
South Africa. The best answer to and the most persuasive argument
against this assertion is to be found in the construction of the
multitudinous forts, trenches, sangars, blockhouses, etc., by the
British in South Africa. What is their significance? The most
inobservant traveller in South Africa must be struck by the network of
fortifications erected almost throughout the length and breadth of the
country. Could the English have given the Boers a better testimonial of
gallant behaviour than these? Surely blockhouses and bulwarks are not
required for cowards, for they would never approach them.
It is hardly necessary to say that all Boers were not brave; there were
many timorous ones among them. No army in the world is composed entirely
of brave and fearless characters. We often sustained losses and
sometimes disasters because the burghers retreated when they should have
stood or charged. The victory would have often been theirs had they
resisted a little longer. But apart from this, have they not proved to
the enemy in particular and to the world in general that they are the
children of chivalrous nations, of men who knew no fear? Have not the
British forces sustained some of their greatest losses when these
untrained peasants led the charge? We need only refer to a few of the
many battles fought during the war to show what these simple untrained
farmers did accomplish--battles which certainly merited for them the
attribute of being brave.
(1) On the 30th of November, 1899, General De Wet, who was then only
Assistant Commandant, led 200 men up Nicholson's Nek, a hill which was
then in the possession of the enemy. After an engagement which lasted
five hours, the British hoisted the white flag. General De Wet
personally counted 817 prisoners-of-war, while 203 were lying on the
battlefield either dead or wounded. Here the English were in possession
of the hill, _i.e._, of the best positions, and vastly outnumbered the
Boers.
(2) In the great battle of Spion Kop, which lasted eight days, the Boers
were placed under the most terrific bombardment, and were constantly
attacked by large numbers of the enemy--yet they warded off these
attacks gallantly. On the night of the 23rd of January the English under
cover of darkness scaled the mountain--Spion Kop--and were thus in
possession of the key to Ladysmith. It was evident to the Boer generals
that Ladysmith would be relieved if Spion Kop was not retaken. As soon
as it became light the mountain was stormed from different directions by
the Boers, who were determined, if possible, to wrench it from the grasp
of the British. Both parties displayed amazing bravery. Boer and Briton
fell side by side, staining the grass with their blood, and bespattering
the stones and rocks with their brains. At dusk more than half of the
mountain was in possession of the Boers. During the night the English
evacuated it, and once more the Boers commanded over the entire
mountain. It cost them 35 killed and 170 wounded, but their objective
was achieved. Again the _British_ were in command of the mountain, and
were continually reinforced. After Spion Kop was retaken, no more white
flags were hoisted by the Boers. On the contrary they lamented the loss
of so many precious, innocent lives. The Rev. R. Collins, a chaplain
with General Warren's Brigade, made the following statement _re_ the
attitude of the Boers after the battle:--
"I venture to think it a matter of considerable importance to draw
attention to the attitude of the Boers whom we met during the
carrying out of our duties on these three days. For my part I
confess that the deepest impression has been made on me by these
conversations, and by the manly bearing and straightforward
outspoken way in which we were met.
"There were two things which I particularly noted. As there was no
effort made to impress us by what was said (they spoke with
transparent honesty and natural simplicity, and in nearly all cases
the conversations were begun by us), so there was a total absence
of anything like exultation over what they must consider a military
success. Not a word, not a look, not a gesture or sign, that could
by the most sensitive of persons be construed as a display of their
superiority.
"Far from exultation there was a _sadness_, almost anguish, in the
way in which they referred to our fallen soldiers. I can best
convey the truth of this statement, and show that there is no
attempt at exaggeration in using the word anguish, by repeating
expressions used, not once, but again and again by great numbers as
they inspected the ghastly piles of our dead--'My God! what a
sight!' 'I wish politicians could see their handiwork,' 'What can
God in Heaven think of this sight?'"
By such a spirit was the Boer animated when he achieved some of his most
brilliant successes. He did not fight for honour and glory. He fought
at duty's call as a patriot in a great cause.
(3) A few weeks prior to the battle of Spion Kop the Boers made their
famous, though unsuccessful, attack on Platrand, known as Waggon Hill to
the English, a hill situated three miles south of Ladysmith. This hill
was occupied by the British, and formed as it were the key to Ladysmith.
For it was practically impossible to bring about the fall of Ladysmith
so long as the British were on Platrand. A council of war accordingly
decided to attack the enemy on the hill on the night of the 5th of
January, and, if possible, expel them from it.
The Rev. J.D. Kestell, who accompanied the Boer forces, gives the
following striking description of the attack--a description which
conveys to the mind of the reader something of the awfulness of war, as
well as of the courage and heroism displayed by Boer and Briton alike:--
"On the summit the hill is level, and round about its crest runs a
cornice, to use an architectural term, of great rocks, which we
call a krantz in the Africander language. The British forts were
built immediately above this krantz.
"At about 10 P.M. we left the laager in order to climb the hill at
half-past 2 A.M. Having reached Neutral Hill, we left our horses
there and proceeded on foot. It was very dark, and all was still as
death. We walked forward slowly and spoke only in whispers, and yet
our progress was not so silent but that we feared we should be
heard. In the silence of the night the slightest rustle of tree or
shrub sounded loud in our ears, and the thud of our feet on the
loose stones seemed to me like the tramp of a troop of horses. The
enemy, thought I, would certainly become aware of our approach long
before we could even begin to climb the hill. But it seems after
all that I was mistaken, and that the sentry did not discover us
until we had approached very close. At three o'clock we reached the
deep dongas at the foot of the hill, and the foremost men passed
through. In about twenty minutes we had climbed almost two-thirds
of the hill, when we heard a beautiful voice ringing out in the
morning air: 'Halt! Who goes there?'
"No answer came from us. We continued climbing. A moment passed,
and then the silence was broken by a crash of a volley. Then
another and another. Everywhere, above and in front of us, the
flashes of the rifles leapt forth into the darkness, and the sharp
reports followed in such quick succession as to give the impression
of Maxims firing. All of a sudden I saw a great jet of flame, and
instantly the thunder of a cannon broke upon the startled air, and
presently behind us I could hear the shrapnel bullets falling on
the ground.
"Then many of those who had not yet begun to climb the hill turned
and fled; but others rushed upwards, and rapidly approached the
cornice of rocks, whence the heavy firing issued. Silence was now
unnecessary, and everywhere voices were heard encouraging the men.
"At half-past three we reached the reef of rocks and boulders, and
presently I heard that two burghers had already been wounded, while
another lay motionless, but it was as yet too dark to see who it
was.
"Before long it became light, and some of the burghers charged the
forts that were just above the ledge of rocks. They overpowered the
soldiers there, and took them prisoners, but were forced to fall
back to the escarpment of rocks immediately, on account of the
heavy fire directed on them from the other forts. And now the roar
of the cannons and rifles became terrific. This was especially the
case with the ceaseless rattle of small-arms. One could with
difficulty distinguish separate reports. All sounded together like
one continuous roar, and awoke an echo from the Neutral Hill that
sounded like the surging of a mighty wind.
"We found ourselves under a cross cannon-fire. The shells from one
of our guns flew over our heads, and exploded just in front of us
on the forts, so that we were often in danger of being struck by
our own shells; and the projectiles of the English were hurled in
an opposite direction on our cannon forts and on the burghers on
Neutral Hill.
"Gradually we began to see in what a terrible position we were. How
terrible the firing was! It never ceased for a moment; for if the
burghers did not rush out from time to time, to assail the forts,
the English charged us. This alternate charging was taking place
every now and then, and it was during these attacks that the pick
of our men fell. Whenever a sangar was charged, a destructive fire
was directed on our men, and then some gallant fellows would always
remain behind struck down.
"It was a fearful day--a day that no one who was there will ever
forget. The heat, too, was unbearable. The sun shot down his
piteous rays upon us, and the higher he rose the hotter it became.
It was terrible to see the dead lying uncovered in the scorching
rays; and our poor wounded suffered indescribable tortures from
thirst. And there was nothing to give them--only a little whisky
which I had got from an English officer, who had been taken
prisoner. I gave a little of that--only a few drops--to every
wounded man. Not only the wounded--all of us suffered from thirst.
Long before midday there was not a drop of water left in our
flasks. So intolerable was the thirst that there were burghers who
went down to the dongas below in search of water, where there was
none, and where they knew that almost certain death awaited them.
"How slowly, too, the time dragged on! 'What o'clock is it?'
someone asked. It was then only ten o'clock, and it seemed as if we
had been fighting more than a day, for up to that moment the firing
had continued unabated.
"Twelve o'clock passed, one o'clock, two o'clock--and still the
fire was kept up; and still the burning rays of the sun were
scorching us. Clouds! But they threw no shadow over us. Everywhere
small patches of shadow chequered the hills and valleys, but they
seemed to avoid us. But a black mass of cloud is rising in the
west, and we know that everything will soon be wrapped in shadow.
Nearer and nearer to the zenith the clouds are rising. What is that
deep rumbling in the distance? Thunder! Nearer and nearer it
sounds, and presently we hear it overhead above the din of the
musketry and the boom of the cannon. How insignificant the crash of
the cannons sounds now. It is as the crackle of fireworks when
compared with the mighty voice of God!
"We got more than shadow from the clouds. At five o'clock great
drops splash on the rocks. Presently the rain fell in torrents, and
I could wash the blood of the wounded from my hands in it.
"It was now just when the rain was descending in sheets of water,
and the thunder-claps were shaking the hills, that the enemy
redoubled their efforts to drive us off the ledge, and our men had
to do their utmost to repel the determined onslaught. Had they been
driven down the hill, every burgher fleeing for his life would have
formed a target for the enemy. The fight was now fiercer than at
any time during the day. It was fearful to hear the roar of the
thunder above and the crash of the rifles below. But the enemy did
not succeed in driving us off. We remained there two and a half
hours longer. Meanwhile we had been able to quench our thirst.
Streams of water dashed down through the rocks, and we drank our
fill. These streams of water came from the forts a few yards above
us, and were red in colour. Was it red earth, or was it the blood
of friend or foe that coloured the water? Whatever the cause, we
were so thirsty that nothing would have kept us from drinking.
After the English had done their utmost to drive us from the hill,
and been baffled in their attempts, they returned to their forts,
and the firing subsided for a short time.
"At last the sun set, and at half-past seven we withdrew. We had
been on the hill for sixteen hours, under a most severe fire, and
now we retired; but we were not driven off by the Devons with
levelled bayonets, as I have read in an English book. We were not
driven off the hill. We held it as long as it was light, and when
twilight fell and no reinforcements came, we considered it useless
to remain there. Including the Transvaalers we had lost 68 killed
and 135 wounded."
(4) One instance more to show that the Boers behaved gallantly not only
under cover or when scaling mountains or hills occupied by the enemy,
but also when they met the foe on the plain without any cover at all.
Lord Methuen's column, 1,500 strong, was charged in broad daylight on
the open veldt by about 700 burghers. The whole convoy with four
Armstrong guns was captured. Besides this the enemy lost 400 in killed
and wounded, and 859 prisoners of war, including Lord Methuen himself,
who was wounded in the leg. The Boer casualties amounted to 9 killed and
25 wounded. Do not such engagements prove that the Boers could hold
their own not only behind stones and in trenches but also on the plain?
Lord Methuen's column was not the only one which was attacked and taken
on the exposed veldt. Some of the most brilliant achievements of the
Boers were accomplished when they were altogether exposed to the enemy's
fire and had to take the offensive. Was it then arrogance and vainglory
which prompted them to offer battle to one of the great Powers of the
world? Arrogance and vainglory would not have stood the test, but would
soon have vanquished like morning clouds before the rising sun. There
must have been some other cause. What was it?
Here, then, the reader has another reason why the Boers fought so long.
As a people they are brave, and thus scorn the very thought of
surrendering like cowards. They chose to die as _men_, and the memory of
those who fell as such shall ever be dear and sacred to us.
"For how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods?"
Another trait in the Boer character is his wonderful resourcefulness and
his ability to cope with difficulties. It was as much this phase of his
character as his patriotism, religiosity and valour which enabled him to
continue the struggle so long. If the Boers had not been so wonderfully
resourceful, and understood so well how to lighten their burdens and
solve their problems, they never could have held out so long.
Surrounded on almost every side by British dominions, with all imports
cut off, they were bound to fall back on their own limited resources.
When these were exhausted, they had to plan some way out of the
difficulty. And so ingeniously did they contrive to find the wherewithal
for the prosecution of the war, and the necessaries of life, that it
must have appeared hopeless to the enemy at times that the Republicans
should ever be reduced to such an extremity that they could help
themselves no longer.
And this is the way they planned. When their boots wore out, men were
appointed to tan hides and make boots; even the women busied themselves
in this kind of work. When there was a great scarcity of soap,--an
article used also by Boers,--the women boiled a serviceable substance
with the help of the ashes of various weeds. When the British began
destroying the mills everywhere mills were mounted on waggons and
carried off on the approach of the enemy. When tobacco failed the
burghers, Nature made provision once more. Leaves of different kinds of
trees were taken, dried and soaked in a weak solution of tobacco
extract, and when dry these leaves answered the purpose of tobacco. The
fine handicraft of great-grandmothers in the spinning of wool was
revived. The women-folk, constructing spinning-wheels from old
sewing-machines, spun wool beautifully, and knitted socks and other
articles as fine and as strong as any that can be bought in shops. When
the English took or burnt all their vehicles they reconstructed others
from the remnants of the burnt ones. One woman was seen with a cart in
which two plough wheels were placed. It looked strange, but answered the
purpose well enough. When salt was not to be had for love or money,
wells were dug in the pans and salt water was found, from which, by a
process of evaporation, salt was obtained. In this manner one problem
after the other was solved. As to their clothes, overcoats were made of
sheep-skins, and some burghers wore complete suits made of leather. The
worn-out clothes were patched with soft leather and then they were said
to be "armoured." Besides this there was the "shaking out" process, as
it was called by the burghers. The Boers thought that they were quite
justified in exchanging clothes with Tommy Atkins whenever he was
captured; for the English had destroyed and burnt theirs as often as
they could. As we had no means of import, and as the enemy had burnt our
clothes, who shall condemn our action, however humiliating it might have
been to the soldier or costly to the British Government to provide
outfits for both parties? Necessity knows no laws. In the same way the
burghers were provided with rifles, ammunition, horses, saddles, bridles
and other necessaries by the British. When their ammunition first ran
short, many were not a little concerned about it, and thought that that
would ultimately compel them to surrender. But the English were kind
enough to supply them, so that after each fight, as a rule, they had
enough to commence another with. Towards the latter part of the war the
English were fought and often beaten with their own arms. So, as far as
that was concerned, the Republics could have prolonged the war
indefinitely, or at least as long as they were being supplied by the
British Government. Does this often happen in the history of wars--a foe
lashed by its own weapons?
In his social intercourse the Boer is kind-hearted, tender and
hospitable. He loves to be kind--to be hard and cruel is contrary to his
nature. Owing to his soft and gentle disposition he sometimes brought
disaster and ruin upon himself during the war. Traitors and renegades
were mercifully spared, and these notorious beings were instrumental in
bringing about his defeat. In times of peace kind-heartedness no doubt
is a virtue of intrinsic worth; in times of war it cannot always be
exercised.
In outward appearance the Boer may be, and sometimes is, somewhat stern
and uncompromising; but those who have gained his confidence and known
him best have invariably discovered behind and at the bottom of this
seemingly forbidding exterior a softness of disposition and a tenderness
of heart which brooks no rivalry. Men who have taken the Boer character
second-hand, or have not taken the trouble to enter into his feelings or
obtain his friendship, have often been misled by his quiet phlegmatic
demeanour, which at times verges on stolidity. They have described him
as being sour, morose and unkind. To such he appeared a sort of
obstreperous, cantankerous being, who simply delights to quarrel with
every man he meets--especially if an Englishman came in his way.
Needless to say he is nothing of the sort.
During the war we were several times struck by the gentle nature of the
Boers. They are indeed not that blood-thirsty, war-loving race which
some have imagined them to be. We make bold to say that there is nothing
which they so much dislike and abhor as shedding blood and inflicting
torture and misery on humanity. They are essentially a peace-loving
race, and will never indulge in war unless compelled by circumstances
over which they have no control.
The British officers and soldiers who fell into their hands during the
war can bear evidence from personal experience that the average Boer is
dominated by kind and gentle sentiments. He treated the wounded soldier
and the prisoner-of-war with kindness. He would share his last drop of
water with the wounded, bandage his wounds to the best of his ability,
and would extend to him all the medical attendance at his command.
Major J.B. Seely, Conservative M.P. for the Isle of Wight, who served
with the Hampshire Yeomanry for many months in the Transvaal, confirmed
the above statements in a letter to the _Times_ in the following way:--
"During the seventeen months that I have served in South Africa I
had, perhaps, rather exceptional opportunities of learning how our
wounded were treated by the Boers. On two different occasions men
under my command who were dangerously wounded were attended with
the greatest kindness and care by the Boers; and the wounded men
themselves begged me to thank those who had been so good to them.
On both occasions the general in command of the column conveyed his
thanks either personally or by letter. I have spoken to many
officers and men who have been left sick or wounded in the hands of
the Boers, and in no single instance have I heard anything but
gratitude expressed for the treatment they had received. In the
intense excitement of hand-to-hand fighting it may be difficult to
differentiate between the wounded and unwounded, but the relatives
and friends of those now fighting may rest assured that English
left wounded on the field will receive from the Boers no less care
and kindness than wounded Boers have invariably received from the
English."
Such is the testimony of men who came in contact with the Boers at a
time when one would expect that the demoralizing and hardening
influences of war had removed every vestige of gentleness.
We never heard the Boers use strong and abusive language towards
prisoners-of-war. On the contrary they would converse with them in a
most genial and friendly spirit; so much so, that the onlooker could
scarcely distinguish between Boer and Briton, friend or foe. Now when
the Boers behaved thus towards their prisoners-of-war they only did
what they ought to have done. When a man is captured or wounded he is no
more an enemy in the literal sense of the word, and should not be
treated as such. Military precautions must necessarily be taken to
prevent the escape of prisoners, but, apart from that, men forced to
surrender should neither be regarded nor treated as criminals, but as an
honourable foe deserves. In making these remarks we do not infer that
our wounded were not well attended to by the enemy. In most cases we
believe they were. We shall not comment on the treatment extended to our
prisoners-of-war. In the latter stage of the war we believe there was
room for improvement, especially when natives were taken up in the
British ranks. These natives treated our men shamefully at times, and
went even so far as to commit the most brutal murders.
Not only did the burghers treat their prisoners-of-war well, but the
Boer officers under whose immediate control they were placed dealt, as a
rule, very kindly and leniently with them. Some of the more prominent
Boer officers, such as General De Wet and others, have been accused
occasionally of having ill-treated prisoners-of-war. Most of these
charges on examination proved groundless.
Mr. Erskine Childers, in a letter to the _Times_, expressed himself on
this matter as follows:--
"It is time that a word was spoken in opposition to the idea that
General C. De Wet is a man of brutal and dishonourable character.
Those who, like myself, have served in South Africa, fought against
him, and frequently met men who have been prisoners under him,
look, I believe, with shame and indignation on the attempts made to
advertise and magnify such incidents as the alleged flogging and
shooting of peace envoys, so as to blacken the character of a man
who, throughout the war, held a reputation with our troops in the
field of being not only a gallant soldier, but a humane and
honourable gentleman. We may deplore the desperate tenacity of his
resistance. Our duty is to overcome it by smashing him in the
field. We gain nothing but only lose our self-respect by slandering
him.
"His whole career gives the lie to such aspersions. It was in May
of last year, ten months ago, that he first gained prominence.
Since then he has fought scores of engagements with us, some
successful, some unsuccessful, never with a suspicion of
dishonourable conduct. He has had at one time or another some
thousands of our men in his hands as prisoners-of-war. Many of them
I have myself met. At second or third hand I have heard of the
experiences of many others. I have never heard a word against him.
When men suffered hardships they always agreed that they could not
have been helped. But, on the other hand, I have heard many stories
showing exceptional personal kindness in him over and above the
reasonable degree of humanity which is expected in the treatment of
prisoners-of-war.
"I believe this view of him is universal among our troops in South
Africa. It makes my blood boil to hear such a man called a brigand
and a brute by civilian writers at home, who take as a text the
reports of these solitary incidents, incomplete and one-sided as
they are, and ignore--if, indeed, they know of it--the mass of
testimony in his favour."
This testimony about De Wet, as well as other Boer officers, has been
substantiated by scores of letters from other officers and privates.
The relation of the Boers to the coloured races in South Africa, and the
treatment of the latter, have been a cause of much offence and
misunderstanding. It is generally, though mistakenly, held that the
Boers ill-treated the natives, and that in the most brutal and
tyrannical manner. Such unwarranted assertions had furnished one of the
various flimsy excuses for war in South Africa. The natives had to be
protected! They were slaves, and must be liberated. Therefore--war! That
natives have sometimes received bad treatment at the hands of their
masters we shall candidly admit. In such instances the law-courts of the
country stood open to them, where justice was at all times meted out to
the guilty party.
On the whole, we maintain that the treatment of inferior races by the
Boers contrasts very favourably with that by the British. The Dutch have
always expressed themselves very strongly against the policy of placing
the natives on a footing of political equality with the whites, because
morally, intellectually, and industrially they are decidedly their
inferiors.
Those who, like the American Bishop Hartzell, argued that the British
cause ought to win, since the Boers do not equal the English in just
treatment of inferior races, would do well to consider the following
facts:--
(1) In the strip of East African coast--a British Protectorate--which
faces Zanzibar _the full legal status of slavery_ is maintained, and
fugitive slaves have even been handed back to their owners by British
officials.
(2) In Zanzibar and Pemba the manumission of slaves presided over by Sir
Arthur Hardinge is proceeding slowly, and many thousands are still in
bondage.
(3) In Natal the _corvée_ system prevails, and all natives not employed
by whites may be impressed to labour for six months on the roads.
(4) In Bechuanaland, after a rebellion some years ago, natives were
parcelled out among the Cape farmers and indentured to them as virtual
slaves for a term of five years.
(5) Under the Chartered Company in Rhodesia the chiefs are required,
under compulsion, to furnish batches of young natives to work in the
mines; and the ingenious plan of taxing the Kaffir in money rather than
in kind has been adopted, so that he may be forced to earn the pittance
which the prospectors are willing to pay him.
(6) In Kimberley what is known as the compound system prevails. All
natives who work in the diamond mines are required to "reside" under
lock and key, day and night, in certain compounds, which resemble
spacious prisons. So stringent is the system that even the sick are
treated within the prison yard. On no pretext whatever is a native
allowed to leave his compound.
During these months of incarceration the natives are separated from
their women-folk and families. The consequence is one of the most
striking and shocking features of the compound system. A number of the
lowest, drink-besotted, coloured prostitutes, estimated at about 5,000,
have collected at Beaconsfield, where, so to speak, they constitute a
colony, occupying a revolting quarter of the township. When the natives
come out for a short spell these unhappy women receive them. It is, no
doubt, convenient from the standpoint of the company to have them there,
for it probably prevents the natives from going away. This moral cancer
is one of the direct and inevitable outcomes and concomitants of the
compound system.
(7) The South African Dutch contribute more money annually to native
mission work than the South African English. The English missions in
South Africa are supported chiefly by funds from England. The largest
and most handsome churches for natives in South Africa are those built
by the Dutch. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa has more
representatives in the foreign mission field than all the other English
denominations in South Africa together.
If necessary, more facts bearing on this subject of native treatment
could be adduced. One could, for example, point out how the aboriginal
Tasmanians and Australians have been almost completely extirpated; how,
in the name of civilization, thousands of Dervishes have been mowed down
in Egypt, and how South African soil itself has been stained from time
to time by the blood of Zulus, Basutos, Matabeles and other coloured
races, who became the victims of British, and _not Boer_, arms.
Remembering all this and much more, we claim that England has no right
to cast the first stone at the Boer in regard to the treatment of
coloured races.
The Boer's nature does not admit of such tyrannical actions of which he
has constantly been accused. His native servants are treated almost as
members of his own family, and often serve him voluntarily for several
years in succession.
[Illustration: THE LATE COMMANDANT DANIE THERON.
_Photo by Duffus Bros., Capetown._]
Mr. Chamberlain in a Parliamentary Debate has expressed himself on this
matter as follows:--
"Members of Parliament appear to be under the impression that the
Boers in the Transvaal were fierce and unjust aggressors, and that
they dispossessed the natives of their territory and brutally
ill-treated them afterwards. I wish honourable members would
read the papers before they came to this rash and inconsiderate
conclusion. The absolute reverse of that was the fact."
The Boers, as a people and as individuals, are thoroughly hospitable,
indeed we do not hesitate to affirm that no nation is more hospitable.
To meet them, dwell in their midst, associate with them and know them,
is to like, if not to love them.
The respectable traveller that lights on a Boer farm will invariably
receive a cordial welcome. The farmer will politely invite him to his
house, and will try to make his guest feel quite at home. Should it be
late in the day, the guest will be expected to stay the night. A plain
but substantial supper will fall to his share. The best bedroom and most
comfortable bed will be at his disposal for the night, while his horses
will receive every attention. In the morning he will be invited to
breakfast before setting out on his day's journey. Should the traveller,
on leaving, offer to pay the farmer for the night's accommodation, the
latter will, as a rule, decline to accept any payment, nay, will regard
it rather as an insult to be offered payment for his hospitality.
Callous and unappreciative characters have abused such hospitality, and
construed it as a mark of ignorance on the part of the Boer. He is, so
they say, hospitable and ready to entertain _because_ he is so stupid
and ignorant. There may be a grain of truth in this assertion, but to
attribute Boer hospitality exclusively to this is as false as it is
mean.
"... I never want to meet kinder, more hospitable, and more
comfortable people than the Boers. True, some of them are poor and
ignorant, but the general run of them live comfortably, rear their
families well and with fair education. They are the reverse of what
we have been taught to consider them. It will be a happy day for
Australia when our pastoral country is settled by as fine a class
of people."
Thus wrote a Queensland officer, Major Spencer Browne, while Mr. R.H.
Davis, an Englishman who had resided for some time in Pretoria, offers
the following testimony:--
"I left Pretoria with every reason for regret. I had come to it a
stranger, and had found friends among men whom I had learned to
like for themselves and for their cause. I had come prejudiced
against them, believing them to be all the English Press and my
English friends had painted them--semi-barbarous, uncouth,
money-loving, and treacherous in warfare. I found them simple to
the limit of their own disadvantage, magnanimous to their enemies,
independent and kindly."
The trait that we admire and cherish most in the Boer character is their
hospitality. We shall ever gratefully remember how kindly our burghers
were received by many a colonial farmer, such as the Van der Merwes of
Toutelboschkoek and Bamuur, Calvinia district, the Therons of Rietpoort,
Richmond, the two Miss Van der Merwes of Badsfontein, Murraysburg, and a
host of others whose names we cannot mention here, as well as
non-combatant farmers of the late Republics. Weary and worn out by the
fierce and unequal contest we were often refreshed at their tables, and
were so invigorated by their kindness and hospitality that, after a
brief respite, we could once more resume the struggle with fresh
determination and revived energies.
Never shall we forget the kindness shown to us personally during the
years of strife. And here we would express our sincere thanks to all
such as alleviated so greatly the burdens war had imposed upon
us--alleviated these by friendly sympathies, which found expression in
deeds of kindness and love, and that at a time and in circumstances when
the sword of Damocles was suspended over their heads, for to give an
enemy a drop of cold water was then considered a great crime!
The Boers are _passionately fond_ of their homes and families. The
little cottage, with the garden, the flocks and herds--in these they
take pleasure. To accumulate and hoard up wealth is not their sole
ambition or ideal of life. If they possess enough to live comfortably,
give their children a fair education and meet their bills, they are
content.
Now this passionate devotion to their homes and families, however
commendable a virtue it may be, proved most detrimental to their best
interests when the waters of strife were set in commotion. Nothing was
so trying to the Boers than to be separated from their families for
months and months. Up to the commencement of the war the Boer farmer
hardly knew what it meant to be away from his family for a long time.
Owing to this strong attachment to, one might almost say weakness for,
their homes, the burghers often insisted on obtaining leave of absence
to visit their families, and that at times when their services were most
needed on the battlefield.
This love of home and property must account for a great number of
voluntary surrenders to the British. When the enemy entered the
Republics the farmers had to choose between surrender or sacrificing
hearth and home, property and all they had--entrusting these to the
mercy of the foe. Many, be it said to their honour, deliberately chose
to sacrifice all rather than their independence. Others lay down arms,
to protect or save, as they thought, their families, homes and property.
Sadly and bitterly were they disappointed; for their homes were still
burned, and their families confined in the concentration camps.
These, then, are some of the more striking features of the Boer
character. To summarize them in one sentence: the Boer loves his Country
and Freedom, his Bible and Rifle, his Neighbour and Family.
Are these not qualities which recommend themselves as worthy of
admiration? Are they not indications of much that is noble and good,
even though the foe be vanquished? Do not the English pride themselves
in possessing these very qualities, qualities which, they say, have made
them a great and mighty nation? Be it so; let them gently deal with the
Boer, who is possessed of these noble attributes in common with
themselves. We hope that they will treat their new subjects with due
consideration. What a happy day will it be for South Africa when Boer
and Briton, through the length and breadth of that blood-stained land,
have learned the secret of living as friends and brothers, respecting
one another, as befits Christian people. Will that happy day ever dawn,
or is South Africa doomed to be a land of discord? Let us hope that the
unhappy past will gradually be effaced from the memory of both Dutch and
English. Let the English Government exercise discretion in introducing a
South African policy which shall tend to reconcile and unite, not
embitter and sever.
What about the faults and defects of the Boer? some may be asking. While
commenting on the different phases of the Boer character, we have
alluded to and admitted many of these; for they are many. There is
indeed much which we lament in the character of our people, and which we
would, if it were possible, gladly alter or improve upon. Not all of
them are good patriots, saints and heroes. Neither are all resourceful,
kind-hearted, hospitable, and attached to their homes. There were
"National Scouts," traitors, renegades, among the burghers! Among the
women there were, alas! some, not many, who yielded to temptation. Such
characters are found among all nations. Among the Boers they formed a
small minority, and were the exceptions and not the general rule.