Читать книгу South Africa and the Transvaal War - Louis Creswicke - Страница 7

Table of Contents

In discussing the events of the past with a view to obtaining light on the development of the present, it is needful, and indeed just, to inquire into the character of the Boers as a race. It is a complex character, with multitudinous lights and shades, so subtle and yet so marked, that they are difficult to define accurately. It is therefore necessary that the opinions of many writers on the subject of the Boer temperament should be taken—of writers who have made it their business to look upon the subject with the eye of the historian rather than the eye of the advocate, and who may be trusted to have given their verdict without passion or favour.

But regarding one fact connected with the case, all writers of practical experience are inclined to agree. They declare that the Boer of the past was a very much finer fellow than the Boer of the present—finer morally and physically; and that in his obstinate determination to resist the march of progress he has allowed himself to suffer deterioration. The reason for this deterioration is not difficult to comprehend. In the first place, as we all know, nothing in creation stands still. We must advance, or we go back. Both in moral and in mental qualities we must maintain our vitality, or practically ossify!

The Boer, from having been essentially a sporting man and a free and a robust tiller of the soil, has come under the influence of schemers, who have played upon his natural avarice, and polished his inherent cunning, till these qualities have expanded to the detriment of those earlier qualities for which the Boer of to-day still gets credit, but which are fast dying out of the national character.

In one respect there has been little change. In the matter of his native piety he remains as he was. The Boer, if one may use a phrase recently coined by Lord Rosebery, is an "Old Testament Christian." No one can describe his race better than the writer who says of the original settlers in 1652, that "they are a mixture in religion of the old Israelite and the Scotch Covenanter." There is some question about Boer hypocrisy, and Dr. Theal says on the subject, "Where side by side with expressions of gratitude to the Creator are found schemes for robbing and enslaving natives, the genuineness of their religion may be doubted." But it must be remembered that in bygone centuries the world's morality differed much from that of the present day, and therefore the Boer, who has not progressed in proportion to the world at large, can scarcely be judged by the ethics of the world at large. To be just, we must look at him as a being apart, and place him always in the frame of the seventeenth century. Some historians declare that the Boer borrowed from the French refugees much religious sentiment. Other authorities—and these, considering the Boer disinclination to expansion, seem to be right—declare that under the French influence he deteriorated.

COLONEL of the 10th HUSSARS.

(H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES.)

Photo by Gregory & Co., London.

He was by nature bloodthirsty and cruel, but these qualities always found for themselves a comfortable apology in the Old Testament. The Boer prided himself on his likeness to the Israelite of old, and his enemies to the Canaanite, whom it was doing God a service to destroy. He kept all the rites of the Church with rigid punctuality. He partook of the Communion (the Nachtmaal) once every three months, and the whole community gathered together from great distances to share it. The observances were made the occasion for rejoicing and merrymaking, for the holding of fairs, the transfer of cattle, the driving of bargains in hide or ivory, or other goods necessary to traders. He has been described by a friend of his people "as, according to his own lights, a citizen pioneer, a rough, God-fearing, honest, homely, uneducated Philistine."

The opinion of his ancient enemy, Cetchwayo, differs, however, from this estimate. Sir Frederick Godson has told us that this potentate informed his brother, who was his captor, that the Boers were "a mean, treacherous people, people who trusted no one, not even each other, and their word was not to be trusted." He had had ample opportunities of forming a judgment by experience. And there are many of us nowadays who are inclined to agree with him. Cetchwayo further asserted that "the British were making the greatest mistake they ever made in befriending them; for if they had not rescued the Boers from him, he would very soon have eaten them all up."

As regards the military organisation of the Boers, it may be described as similar to that of the Republic of Greece or that of mediæval England. Every man, from the age of sixteen to sixty, considered himself a soldier. Every man, when the country demanded his services, was ready to get under arms—to protect his hearth and home in the face of a common enemy.

The country was divided into districts, and these districts were subdivided into wards. To each of these wards was appointed a field-cornet, who had military duties when a commando was called out. The officer who took the chief command of the field-cornets was styled the commandant. This arrangement first originated in the early days of their emigration to the Cape, when the natives, lawless and inimical, were perpetually bursting out without rhyme or reason. Naturally prompt defence became necessary. To many people the Boer appears to be a "first-class fighting man." Certainly he is determined, obstinate, and, in his peculiar fashion, brave. But there are others who can recall events in the battle with Dingaan, in the tragedy of Majuba Hill, which scarcely add to the honour of the Boer as a soldier. It has been said that the Boer prefers to do his fighting without risking his skin, but this may be somewhat unjust. He is ready enough to risk his skin, but he is equally ready that some one shall pay for the risk, and he makes him pay by fair means if he can—if not, by foul.

However, Livingstone knew his man, and thus it was that he wrote of him: "The Boers have generally manifested a marked antipathy to anything but 'long shot' warfare, and sidling away in their emigrations towards the more effeminate Bechuanas, have left their quarrels with the Kaffirs to be settled by the English, and their wars to be paid for by English gold." Obviously their methods of warfare were, to say the least of it, curious. Sometimes they would drive a battalion of friendly natives or slaves in front of them, and shoot down their enemies from behind the shelter of these advanced guards. Occasionally they employed a method similar to that used against the Zulus of Dingaan. According to Livingstone's essay, written in 1853, and not published till after his death, "the Boers approach the Zulus to within 300 or 400 yards, then fire, and retire to a considerable distance and reload their guns. The Zulus pursuing have by this time come sufficiently near to receive another discharge from the Boers, who again retire as before. This process soon tires out the fleetest warriors, and except through an accident, or the stumbling of a horse or its rider's drunkenness, no Boer ever stands a chance of falling into their hands. The Boers report of themselves that they behaved with great bravery on the occasion." In fact they said that they had killed from 3000 to 5000 Zulus, with the loss to themselves of only six men. Mr. Fisher, in his book on "The Transvaal and the Boers," avers that in the subsequent war with the Griquas—who, being the bastard children of the Boers, possess many of their peculiarities—the two opposing parties kept at such ludicrous distances that the springboks quietly grazing on the plains between were frequently shot instead of the combatants.