History of the Zulu war and its originColenso, Frances E. (Frances Ellen)
History
History of the Zulu war and its origin
Colenso, Frances E. (Frances Ellen)
Zulu War, 1879
“Whereas I, Thomas François Burgers, State President of the
South African Republic, have received a despatch, dated the
9th instant, from Her British Majesty’s Special Commissioner,
Sir Theophilus Shepstone, informing me that his Excellency has
resolved, in the name of Her Majesty’s Government, to bring the
South African Republic, by annexation, under the authority of the
British Crown:
“And whereas I have not the power to draw the sword with good
success for the defence of the independence of the State against
a superior power like that of England, and in consideration of
the welfare of the whole of South Africa, moreover, feel totally
disinclined to involve its white inhabitants in a disastrous war,
without having employed beforehand all means to secure the rights
of the people in a peaceable way:
“So, I, in the name and by the authority of the Government and
the people of the South African Republic, do hereby solemnly
protest against the intended annexation.
“Given under my hand and under the Seal of the State at the
Government Office at Pretoria, on this the 11th day of April, in
the year 1877.
(Signed) “THOMAS BURGERS,
“State President.”
A strong protest was handed in on the same date by the Executive
Council, in which it was stated “the people, by memorials or
otherwise, have, by a large majority, plainly stated that they are
averse to it” (annexation).
On April 17th, 1877, Sir T. Shepstone writes to Lord Carnarvon:
“On Thursday last, the 12th instant, I found myself in a position
to issue the proclamations necessary for annexing[60] the South
African Republic, commonly known as the Transvaal, to Her Majesty’s
dominions, and for assuming the administration thereof.” P. P. [C.
1776] pp. 152-56.
His intentions had been so carefully concealed, the proclamation took
the people so completely by surprise; that it was received in what
might be called a dead silence, which silence was taken to be of that
nature which “gives consent.”
It has been amply shown since that the real feeling of the country
was exceedingly averse to English interference with its liberties,
and that the congratulatory addresses presented, and demonstrations
made in favour of what had been done, were but expressions of feeling
from the foreign element in the Transvaal, and got up by a few
people personally interested on the side of English authority. But
at the time they were made to appear as genuine expressions of Boer
opinions favourable to the annexation, which was looked upon as a
master-stroke of policy and a singular success.
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