In the Shadow of DeathKritzinger, P. H. (Pieter Hendrick)
History
In the Shadow of Death
Kritzinger, P. H. (Pieter Hendrick)
South African War, 1899-1902 -- Personal narratives
When the enemy adopted such tactics, the Boers had to counteract their
proclamations by circulating others. Now in doing that the
non-combatants were placed between two fires. They had to serve two
masters in carrying out the instructions of proclamations diametrically
opposed to each other. The man who was ingenious enough to act a double
part, who could steer clear of Charybdis and Scylla, alone evaded
trouble. There were, however, not many who succeeded in pleasing or
duping both parties for any length of time.
The Boer proclamations levelled at those of the English made it
specially irksome to the Colonists, who were finally encompassed by a
host of proclamations. When they failed to obey the English
proclamations they were fined, cast into gaol, and treated as criminals.
When they obeyed the English, and consequently violated the Boer
proclamations, they had to undergo the penalty, fines, corporal
punishment, and even death, imposed by the Boers. The English said:
"This do, and thou shalt live"; the Boers: "This do not, and thou shalt
live."
As far as possible the Colonists were left unmolested on their farms by
the Boers, who expected them, as non-combatants, to remain strictly
neutral. The English proclamations, on the other hand, converted these
non-combatant farmers into scouts, and often into spies. They had to
give the enemy every information concerning the Boer commandoes--as to
their strength, the condition of their horses, the number of unarmed
burghers, of servants, their movements and plans, as far as they could
discover these, etc., etc. In some instances they were commandeered to
take upon themselves the dangerous responsibility of acting as guides to
the British columns, and were then dismissed to return to their farms
and pose as non-combatants. This the Boers could not tolerate, and had
to prevent by forbidding it through counter-proclamations, which the
enemy laughed to scorn. The unfortunate farmer could not similarly
slight and ignore them. He _had_ to obey them, or abide the
consequences.
When the Colonists were subjected to vexations of such a serious nature,
and when the British persisted in rigorously enforcing their
proclamations, the position of the Colonists became untenable and drove
them into rebellion. Had the military authorities exercised greater
wisdom and more common sense, so many British subjects would not have
fallen away. There were colonial rebels who never, never would have
lifted a rifle, whose loyalty was beyond all questioning, but the
pressure laid upon them by proclamations so numerous, onerous and odious
in character, forced them to fight for or against the Boers. To do the
former would be disloyal and treasonable, to acquiesce in the latter
would be violating the dictates of conscience. Was it the fault of the
Colonists that they were placed in such an awkward position?
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