History of the Zulu War

by Alexander Wilmot

One of the most able newspapers in South Africa echoes the sentiments of Lord Glenelg, Dr. Philip, and Bishop Colenso. It declares against annexation, and also against interference with the usages of the native chiefs. It is said that to rule the Zulus through their chiefs is the policy of her Majesty's Ministers. The extraordinary admission is added that "order will be found better than caprice and the law better than individual notions of right." Surely we must admit that the rule of chiefs is purely a rule of absolute caprice, and that the history of Cetywayo's government specially proves it. The will of the monarch is the law of the land, and bloody sacrifices constantly connected with witchcraft are purely the effects of cruel and avaricious caprice. The entire history of South Africa shows the folly and cruelty of the policy advocated by the enemies of Sir Bartle Frere. No careful student of Cape history can fail to see that the Glenelg plan of non-annexation was most disastrous, while it was only when the power of the Gaika and Gcaleka chiefs had been finally taken from them—and not till then—that the people of this country, whites as well as blacks, could hope to be finally released from the fearful curse of recurring thefts, bloodshed, and wars. In fact history teaches plainly that to secure peace, prosperity, and happiness to all the people of Southern Africa it is absolutely necessary: (1.) To secure territorial guarantees, such as those justly acquired in a war of defence by Sir Benjamin D'Urban. (2.) To create a firmly knit and strong confederation of colonies and states in which the Queen and just laws shall be supreme, to the exclusion of witchcraft and the caprice of chiefs.

Incidentally, we may be permitted to illustrate what is really meant by this "rule of chiefs." Every one knows that diabolical and wholesale slaughter is a characteristic of the rule of all Zulu potentates. Dingaan, Panda, Cetywayo, are all alike in this particular. It is the system as much as the men that we have to blame. Perhaps there is no more distinguishing proof of constant cold-blooded and revolting cruelty arising directly and constantly from the rule of chiefs than in the administration of the laws of witchcraft. One example out of hundreds is sufficient. Missionaries from time to time publish most revolting cases, but they are all of the same type, and merely as a sample we refer our readers to the one alluded to by Mr. Godlonton, at page 99 of his "Case for the Colonists." The son of a chief was sick, and a man of property was immediately selected for torture and death, simply because the witch-doctor said that it was under his evil influence that the sick man was suffering. He begged and prayed for instant death, but of course that boon is never granted. First of all the victim was held to the ground, and several men pierced his body all over with Kafir needles, two or three inches deep. The victim bore this with extraordinary resolution, and his tormentors became tired, complaining of the pain it gave their hands, and of the needles or skewers bending. By this time a fire was kindled, into which large square stones were placed to heat. His wife having first been cruelly beaten and ill-treated, the victim was brought to the fire, laid on his back, with his feet and hands tied to pegs driven into the ground. When the stones became as hot as possible, they were placed upon his groin, stomach, and chest. Then the scorching and broiling of the body went on, the stones occasionally slipping off, and being immediately replaced and held on by sticks. These awful tortures lasted from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., when the unfortunate victim of the benefit of the rule of the chiefs in South Africa breathed his last. We are asked to perpetuate this system, and to surrender any conquered country in Zululand, so that savagery may still continue without interruption, and we may reap in Zululand from the policy of 1879 the fruits obtained in 1845 and 1852 from the Glenelg policy of 1836.—April 29, 1879.

IV.

The great question of Sir Bartle Frere's native and Zulu policy is easily narrowed. His Excellency believes in abolishing the power of chiefs, and in obtaining after defensive war adequate territorial guarantees. The opposite policy has, undoubtedly, caused the wars of 1845, 1852, and 1877. The relinquishment of the province of Queen Adelaide by Lord Glenelg necessitated its reconquest, and the system of endeavouring to rule through the medium of chiefs has resulted in disastrous failure. A chief is necessarily antagonistic to civilization: all his power, influence, and means are obtained from savagery, and it is this latter system it is his interest to foster and to continue. But for the astuteness and ability of Sir George Grey Kreli would undoubtedly have thrown us into a serious war in 1857. This great chief ordered cattle to be slaughtered in such a manner as to prove that he had even determined to "burn his ships." Emissaries were despatched to Moshesh, to Taku, and to the Tambookies. A witch-doctor was used as a tool in the usual manner, so as to stir up the people by means of superstition, and the system, whose continuance is advocated by a party, only failed because of the checkmate movements of the Governor. Subsequently, it was purely the continuance of the system of the chiefs that led us into the war of 1877. If their power had been abolished, as it should have been, great calamities would have been averted from their own people and from the Cape Colony. A careful honest study of colonial history is all that is necessary to prove to demonstration that weak half-measures with Kafirs are as irrational and absurd as they are cruel. When we conquer we are bound to take away entirely the pernicious powers of the chiefs, as well as to retain such land guarantees as are really necessary for future safety. Those who advocate this sound, wise policy are real philanthropists, substituting justice and sound ideas for theoretical ideas, founded for the most part upon that worst description of ignorance which is founded upon prejudice and pre-conceived ideas.

One argument brought forward against Confederation is based upon the lowest possible motives. It is the pockets, not the heads or hearts, to which this earnest appeal is made. One great Government in South Africa with provincial administrations will really be too expensive! Besides, an objection is taken to the removal of the liability under which the British Government labours at present. Let the Home country continue to lose its best blood and treasure rather than we should lose our money. A great strong Confederation would put an end to Kafir wars by putting an end to the possibility of their success, but lest we should have to pay a few more taxes the British ratepayers' purses and the British soldiers' bodies must continue to bleed. This infamous policy is not worthy of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. We have attained our majority as children of the Empire, and we must be prepared to resume our own responsibilities. These, unquestionably, include self-defence, and to make that efficient the fable of the bundle of sticks must be exemplified in the close union of all our states and colonies. Nothing is more clear than the fact that all South Africa is like a draughtboard—the blacks are on one side, the whites on the other. There is no separating the interests of either combatants, so that when Cetywayo fights against Natal, he fights against this colony as well as against the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. But real economy is always attended by a sound and statesmanlike system of Government. There would be no recurrence of native wars under Confederation, and this alone would be a source of great economy and great prosperity. South Africa, not Downing Street, would conduct its own native policy, and there would be then no fear of the recurrence of such a policy as that of Lord Glenelg. At present we are not safe, and the sooner such a period of incertitude and danger is terminated the better for the taxpayers here and in England. Are the people of this country not able to govern themselves in a Confederation? The history of the separate states and colonies proves the contrary. If we are able we ought to be willing, as such a union means against the natives invincible strength, and consequently both peace and economy. Above all things we ought to relieve ourselves from the curse of being perpetually exposed to the meddling and muddling of our native policy. Fatuous incompetency, such as that of Lord Glenelg, is quite enough to ruin half a dozen colonies, and we really can never be quite sure that it will not be renewed.

A reference to Sir Bartle Frere's instructions proves very clearly that his Excellency had incomparably more power than any previous Governor-General or High Commissioner, and in acting as he did under carte blanche authority, in no way exceeded his powers. He had to choose between allowing the Zulu despot to make war when he wished and in what manner he chose, or in checkmating him by early action. The latter policy has been adopted with Cetywayo as it was with Kreli, and in spite of a temporary check will be the means of effectively protecting the interests both of the British colonists and the British crown. England never had a more faithful or conscientious officer than Sir Bartle Frere, and a time will come when on the page of history his name, with those of Sir Benjamin D'Urban and Sir George Grey, will be blazoned as the greatest and most enlightened statesmen who ever ruled in Southern Africa. "After me, the Deluge," would have been a convenient and very safe motto for each of these men, but they scorned the wretched time-serving policy of shunting off the evil day from themselves so as to allow its calamities to accumulate into terrible magnitude and burst with awful force upon their successors. But the principal defence of Sir Bartle Frere's action and policy is to be found in his despatches, and to them we earnestly beg careful and impartial attention.

The people of the Cape Colony and Natal are composed of many races and of many creeds, but with the most insignificant exceptions they all declare in the most emphatic manner in favour of the policy of Sir Bartle Frere.

"Saxon and Celt and Dane are we,
But all of us Danes in our welcome of thee."

From Capetown to the Tugela river and from L'Agulhas to the Orange river one universal shout of sympathy and approval goes forth to England. Resolutions, earnestly and emphatically declaring that the High Commissioner is right, are sent to the foot of the Queen's throne from Capetown, Port Elizabeth, Grahamstown, Graaff-Reinet, Pietermaritzburg, D'Urban, and hosts of smaller places. The newspaper press, with very few exceptions, constantly and vigorously declares aloud the public sentiments. Surely all this is a powerful argument. The people of South Africa, whose lives, property, and character are at stake, may be trusted to take such a lively interest in the entire subject as to understand it thoroughly. Their interests and those of the United Kingdom are thoroughly identical in this matter, and the sky does not so change the mind even in this portion of the British Empire as to pervert entirely the moral nature of so many of her Majesty's loyal subjects.