The Africanders : $b A century of Dutch-English feud in South AfricaHooker, Le Roy
History
The Africanders : $b A century of Dutch-English feud in South Africa
Hooker, Le Roy
Afrikaners; South Africa -- Politics and government; Transvaal (South Africa) -- History
Notwithstanding their native love of independence, and their protest to
the British throne against the act of annexation, the Africanders of
the Transvaal might have acquiesced in the British rule had they been
fairly treated. There was a good promise of peace at first. The
finances of the country were at once relieved by the expenditure of
English money in liberal amounts. Numbers of the leading Africanders
retained their official positions at the request of the British
commissioner, Sir Theophilus Shepstone. It is only reasonable to
suppose that the people at large would have settled down to permanent
content as British subjects had the affairs of the newly constituted
colony been administered to the satisfaction of the leaders.
But, instead of following a policy dictated alike by wisdom and
righteousness, the very opposite seems to have been the rule observed
in the attempt to govern these new and most difficult subjects of the
British crown. A number of mistakes—so called—were made which, as even
Canon Knox Little admits, were a sufficient justification of the
Africander leaders in plotting and agitating against the British
connection.
The first of these mistakes was the too early recall of Sir Theophilus
Shepstone, who had so deftly managed the bloodless though arbitrary
annexation, who knew the country well and was much respected by the
people. In place of his rule as special commissioner was substituted an
administration under Sir Bartle Frere as governor of Cape Colony and
British High Commissioner for South Africa. There being no
representative government in the Transvaal after annexation, the
administration became, perhaps necessarily, autocratic both in form and
in spirit. Sir William Owen Lanyon, who had been appointed governor of
the Transvaal, was an officer of some renown in dealing successfully
with native uprisings, but proved totally unfit for the delicate
management required in governing the Africanders. He has been described
as haughty and arrogant in mind, indisposed to excuse the rudeness of
the Transvaal farmers, and incapable of tolerating the social equality
so dear to them. His swarthy complexion, also, made against his
popularity, for it suggested the possibility of a strain of black blood
in his veins—a blemish unpardonable in the eyes of any slaveholding
people. Under his rule complaints were ignored, taxes were levied and
peremptorily collected by distraint, and soon the latent discontent
broke out into open and active disaffection.
The second mistake—if it does not deserve a harsher name—was the
failure to institute the local self-government by representatives
promised by Sir Theophilus Shepstone when he proclaimed annexation. The
text of that part of the proclamation reads thus:
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