A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriationStuart, James
History
A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriation
Stuart, James
Dinuzulu, approximately 1868-1913; Zulu Rebellion, 1906; Zululand (South Africa) -- History
The gravity of the assault on the police at once impressed itself on
the Government, already alive to the necessity of detecting and dealing
promptly with any tendencies towards actual hostility.
Ministers communicated with the Governor, who, at the time, was
temporarily residing in Durban. Sir Henry McCallum returned to
headquarters and discussed the situation with the ministry, when it was
decided immediately to call out a portion of the Active Militia to deal
with the outbreak, and to proclaim martial law over the whole Colony.
The Militia were accordingly mobilized on the 9th February, and martial
law proclaimed on the 10th.
This calling out of troops and application of martial law have been
frequently discussed, different opinions being expressed. Some good
people, especially those living beyond the borders of the Colony,
although knowing very little of the facts, came to the conclusion
that there was no spontaneous rising at all, but that such hostility
as had occurred was due to the Government having goaded the Natives
by a reckless display of force into arming, more in self-defence than
for any other purpose. As this point is of importance, amounting
almost to an accusation of tyrannous practice or, at least, of being
panic-stricken, an attempt will be made to set forth some of the
principal reasons that induced Ministers to advise a resorting to such
measures.
The Natives at several of the magistracies, _e.g._ Mapumulo, Durban,
Pietermaritzburg and Empandhleni (Nkandhla), had already behaved with
insolence and defiance, particularly at Mapumulo, where the Government
had been openly defied by Natives in large numbers when attempting
to collect the poll tax. And yet, not only had the tax been imposed
on all Europeans and Asiatics, but a very liberal concession had been
made exclusively to Natives, viz. that those already liable for the hut
tax would be exempt altogether from paying poll tax. This, in itself,
was evidence of a desire to be fair and reasonable. Notwithstanding
this the Natives, as shown by numerous records, generally assumed
an attitude of disrespect and defiance. In so doing, they acted
hastily and recklessly, owing largely, no doubt, to the difficulty
of understanding the exact effect of the law. It was enough that it
was extra taxation, and appeared to put a premium on the already
increasing independence of youths. No allowance whatever was made
for the _bona-fide_ straits the Government was in for the want of
revenue, nor yet for the fact that the additional burden would not,
after all, exceed one shilling per head per annum on the total Native
population.[101] Chiefs, aided and abetted by their adherents, made
attempts to combine against the Government. At Mid-Illovo, European
farmers felt obliged to go into lager, whilst others prepared to do
the same at such places as Highflats, Ixopo and Richmond. It will, no
doubt, be conceded that defiance in any community calls for firm and
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account