History of the Zulu war and its origin

by Frances Ellen Colenso

“On full inquiry it will be found that our late war, (Kaffraria) here was to a great extent attributable to Zulu influence.[103] If our forces suffer defeat at Natal, all native tribes in South Africa will rise against us. I am a man of peace; I hate war; but if war, let there be no dawdling and sentimental nonsense.

“True and faithful to God, our Queen, and the interests of the empire, we have the approbation of God, our Queen, and our own conscience. I would have much liked had there been a regiment of British cavalry at Natal. Sword in hand, the British are irresistible over all natives. The battle at the Gwanga in 1846, under Sir Henry Darrell, lasted only about fifteen minutes; about four hundred Kafirs were cut down....

“God, our God, put it into the minds of our rulers that all tribes in south-east and east Africa must submit to British power, and that it is the interest of all Africans to do so. Heathenism must perish; God wills it so.”[104]

These remarks are from a missionary in Kaffraria, but the tone of these in Zululand is the same, or even worse. Compare the following statement made to the Natal Government by two native converts from the Etshowe mission station—Mr. Oftebro’s (1883, p. 2): “We know that as many a hundred (Zulus) in one day see the sun rise, but don’t see it go down.... The people, great and small, are tired of the rule of Cetshwayo, by which he is finishing his people. The Zulu army is not what it was, there are only six full regiments. Cetshwayo had by his rule made himself so disliked, that they knew of no one, and especially of the headmen, who would raise a hand to save him from ruin, no matter from what cause.”

Mr. John Shepstone adds, April 27th, 1877 (p. 4): “The above was confirmed only yesterday by reliable authority, who added that a power such as the English, stepping in now, would be most welcome to the Zulus generally, through the unpopularity of the king, by his cruel and reckless treatment of his subjects.” And Mr. Fynney, in the report already quoted from, says:

“The king appeared to have a very exaggerated idea both of his power, the number of his warriors, and their ability as such.... While speaking of the king as having exaggerated ideas as to the number of his fighting-men, I would not wish to be understood as underrating the power of the Zulu nation.... I am of opinion that King Cetywayo could bring six thousand men into the field at a short notice, great numbers armed with guns; but the question is, would they fight?... I am of opinion that it would greatly depend against whom they were called to fight.... While the Zulu nation, to a man, would have willingly turned out to fight either the Boers or the Ama-Swazi, the case would be very different, I believe, in the event of a misunderstanding arising between the British Government and the Zulu nation.... I further believe, from what I heard, that a quarrel with the British Government would be the signal for a general split up amongst the Zulus, and the king would find himself deserted by the majority of those upon whom he would at present appear to rely.”

While Sir T. Shepstone says, November 30th, 1878 (2222, p. 175): “I will, however, add my belief that the Zulu power is likely to fall to pieces when touched.”

Such were the opinions given by men supposed to be intimately acquainted with Zulu character and feeling, one of them being the great authority on all native matters; and on such statements did Sir Bartle Frere rely when he laid his scheme for the Zulu War. How absolutely ignorant, how foolishly mistaken, were these “blind leaders of the blind” has been amply proved by the events of 1879.

We need not enter very fully into the accusations brought by the missionaries against the Zulu king of indiscriminate slaughter of native converts for their religion’s sake. They were thoroughly believed in Natal at the time; but, upon investigation, they dwindled down to three separate cases of the execution of men (one in each case) who happened to be converts, but of whom two were put to death for causes which had nothing whatsoever to do with their faith (one of them being indeed a relapsed convert); and the third, an old man, Maqamsela, whose name certainly deserves to be handed down to fame in the list of martyrs for religion’s sake, was killed without the sanction or even knowledge of the king, by the order of his prime minister Gaozi.[105] That the latter received no punishment, although the king disapproved of this action, is not a fact of any importance. It is not always convenient to punish prime ministers and high commissioners, or powerful indunas.