Boer History1907 in South Africa: Spoelstra’s Bouwstoffen at Cape Town, Witton’s Scapegoats at Melbourne, and Amery’s Times History Still Issuing
Amery’s Times History Still Issuing at London
At London this year L. S. Amery’s The Times History of the War in South Africa, volumes I to VI, still ran, 1906–1909. Last year those volumes began. This year they had not closed. Peace between Britain and the two Boer republics — the South African Republic and the Orange Free State — was signed at Vereeniging on the 31st of May 1902. Last year’s particular books of the war were Amery’s first volumes, G. B. Beak’s The Aftermath of the War on repatriation in the Orange River Colony, W. Basil Worsfold’s Lord Milner’s Work in South Africa, and F. Maurice’s official history, volumes I to IV, which closed at London, 1901–1906. This year’s Times volumes were not another camp diary, nor another book of repatriation, nor another official close. They were the same Times history of the whole war, still issuing at London five years after Vereeniging. The bibliography that listed Blake at Boston in 1903, Brink at Amsterdam and Capetown in 1904, Brandt-Van Warmelo at Amsterdam in 1905, and Amery at London from last year, still listed Amery at London through this year and on to 1909. [6]
That history, even as it excelled at passing over or covering British misdeeds in the war, still told how General Babington, on a reconnaissance of the 8th of January 1900 from Heuningneskloof, north of Graspan, toward Koffiefontein, destroyed 2 houses on Commandant Lubbe’s farm and 1 on Zwiegler’s with fire and explosives, supposedly because the farms had been used as a rendezvous for Boer spies. The presidents’ protest of February 1900 named the burning, the dynamiting, and the stripping of unprotected farmhouses, in the Cape Colony as in the Republics, as contrary to the rules of civilized war. Bossley of the First Australian Horse wrote from Arundel, south of Colesberg, on the 28th of December 1899 that his division seized horses, sheep, and poultry, and that the soldiers could get the fowls only by running them down and spitting them with lances. Whole detachments went out each morning on plunder for firewood; in a country already short of fuel they broke furnished houses and destroyed chairs, tables, even pianos, to burn. Those leaves were in the war’s print. A Times history still issuing this year still had to carry them or to cover them. [6]
The proclamations of Lord Roberts of the 14th of August and the 14th of September 1900 found echo among his subordinate officers, and the spring of 1900 opened with a campaign of devastation that recalled the Thirty Years’ War. Wherever the British armies moved in the Transvaal and the Free State they sowed destruction and laid dwellings in ruin. For September alone, by the British returns, they destroyed more than six times as many dwellings as in the three preceding months together; in October twice as many, and in November two and a half times as many, as in September. Those three months — September, October, and November 1900 — were the period in which Roberts made his mailed fist felt in the two Boer republics before he handed the command to Lord Kitchener and went home. The British figures for the three months were given as 99, 189, and 226 dwellings; those numbers were far too low and were not to be taken as even a roughly faithful picture of the houses destroyed. Winburg, Senekal, Bethlehem, and other parts of the eastern Free State paid; the rest of the country was not spared. How far a district was laid waste depended in great measure on the temper of the several commanders. The difference in treatment was so marked that Roberts found it necessary, on the 28th of September 1900, to issue another proclamation to insure uniformity in treatment of the inhabitants of the various districts. A Times history still issuing this year at London had that spring behind it. [6]
In the Times history of the three years’ war Amery wholly condemned the principle of farm-burning as a means of intimidation and acknowledged that it was a complete failure, as anyone who knew the Boer people and their history would readily have predicted. “The application of a system which, even in India, has long provoked criticism and disapproval,” he argued, “was the least happy of Lord Roberts’s inspirations and must be plainly set down as a serious error of judgment, due to the fact that he persisted in regarding the Boers when once their chief towns had been occupied, not as regular combatants but as rebels, who rather required punishment than defeat.” Dillon, speaking in the British parliament on Wednesday the 31st of July 1901, said that when they failed to crush the Boers in the veld they turned their weapons against the women and children and had to take recourse to an infamous policy of farm-burning. He predicted that the farm-burning and its miserable consequences would brand an unforgettable hatred into the memories of the children and children’s children of the Boer people. Flynn spoke of whole families turned out on the veld because the male members were fighting, of furniture ruthlessly destroyed, of homes burned, and of helpless women and children swept into concentration camps where disease was prevalent. Swift MacNeill declared that the war was waged with a maximum of cruelty and a minimum of humanity, and that the farm-burning could scarcely be surpassed by the bloodstained annals of Turkey. Those sentences, already spoken, were the sentences a Times history still issuing this year still had to set beside its own condemnation of the system. [6]
From the beginning of December 1900 — within a week after Roberts handed the chief command to Kitchener — there was a great decrease in the destruction of dwellings, lasting into the new year. Just before laying down the command Roberts issued an order binding the burning of farmhouses: henceforth all cattle, wagons, and foodstuffs were to be removed from the farms or, if that was impossible, destroyed; but the burning of the farmhouses themselves would be allowed only as punishment for acts of treason or for the destruction of lines of communication, or when they had been used as operating bases for raids, and then only with the written consent of the chief commander in the district. Kitchener, already advised by Milner in October not to continue his predecessor’s policy of destroying dwellings, did not immediately withdraw that order. He counted on bringing the struggle to a speedy end by an intensive propaganda campaign calculated to undermine the morale of the burghers in the field, and at once set himself to send Burgher Peace Committees of Boers who had laid down arms through the lines of the fighting burghers to convince them that the struggle was hopeless. The decrease in the destruction of dwellings — for the destruction of food stocks, vehicles, and the stripping of cattle went on without interruption — was only the stillness before the great storm. A Times history whose volumes London still issued this year still opened on that storm, with Maurice already closed beside it and Beak’s aftermath and Worsfold’s Milner already on last year’s particular list. [6]
Witton’s Scapegoats of the Empire at Melbourne
The paper that named this year among the war’s personal testimonies was Lieutenant G. R. Witton’s Scapegoats of the Empire, issued at Melbourne. Last year’s particular books of the war were Amery, Beak, and Worsfold at London, and Maurice’s official close. This year’s Melbourne book was not another Times history, nor another aftermath of repatriation, nor another book of the high commissioner’s work. It was a lieutenant’s book, put into type at Melbourne five years after Vereeniging, and listed among the contemporary works, travel descriptions, and other personal testimonies of the camps’ account. The bibliography that listed Viljoen’s Mijne Herinneringen uit den Anglo-Boeren-Oorlog at Amsterdam in 1902, Vis’s Tien Maanden in een Vrouwenkamp at Rotterdam in 1902, and van Helsdingen’s Vrouwenleed at Amsterdam in 1903, now listed Witton at Melbourne in 1907. What hung on that listing was that a lieutenant’s testimony of the war, already named among the personal books, was no longer only a heading. It was a book, issued at Melbourne while the Times history still ran at London. [6]
That list of personal testimonies still ran from Shiell’s Camps of Refuge at Brighton in 1901 and Stead’s How not to make Peace and Methods of Barbarism at London in 1900 and 1901, through Robertson’s open letter to Conan Doyle at London in 1902, through Brandt-Van Warmelo’s Irene at Amsterdam in 1905, down to this year’s Melbourne scapegoats. Sykes’s Sidelights on the War stood at London in 1900; Walsh’s The Briton and the Boer at Dundee, undated, still stood on the same leaf. Those were the leaves a lieutenant’s book issued this year at Melbourne was set among — not the official volumes Maurice closed last year, and not the Times history still running at London, but the personal testimonies of the war. [6]
Immediately under Witton’s Melbourne imprint the same bibliography turned from particular books to periodical publications. Among the official papers still named there stood the Buitengewone Staats-Courant der Z.A. Republiek of the 7th of June to September 1900, reprinted at Dordrecht in 1902; the Education Gazette for the Transvaal and Orange River Colony at Pretoria, the 1st of July 1902; the Staats-Almanak van de Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, 1898–1899; the Transvaal Government Gazette Extraordinary of June 1902; the Report of Acting Director of Education of the 12th of July 1901; and the Report of Director of Education, November 1900 to February 1904. Among the unofficial foreign papers still named there stood the Algemeen Handelsblad, 1900–1902, and The Times, 1900–1902. Those were the gazettes and the reports last year’s Milner book and last year’s director’s close had already stood over. This year’s Melbourne book stood on the same leaf as those papers, five years after the tents came down. [6]
What a book of scapegoats issued this year at Melbourne still had behind it was the country Roberts’s mailed fist laid waste, and the camps into which the families were swept. The British returns for September, October, and November 1900 gave 99, 189, and 226 dwellings destroyed; those numbers were far too low. Of 10 cases of burned dwellings in the district of Winburg that were brought to Milner’s attention, only 1 was named in the relevant blue book, Cd. 524; the rest were simply passed over in silence. Winburg, Senekal, Bethlehem, and the eastern Free State were the districts that paid first; the rest of the land was not spared. From March 1900 the military increasingly set themselves to soften the resistance of the burghers in the field by inflicting suffering on their families; when destruction of dwellings near the rail achieved little, they, following the methods of General Weyler in Cuba, went over to a policy of total devastation, and then to concentration. A lieutenant’s book issued this year at Melbourne still stood on that war, with Amery still running at London and Maurice already closed. [6]
The people who had been on half-rations, who hung the meat on the tent-lines, who were counted among the 26251 women and children and the 1676 men above 16, mostly greybeards, were the people whose war this year’s Melbourne book still named from a lieutenant’s side. The camps were broken from June 1902. The last camp schools closed in December 1902 with 1816 children still on the roll. Viljoen wrote his memories at Amsterdam in 1902; Vis wrote ten months in a women’s camp at Rotterdam in the same year; van Helsdingen wrote women’s sorrow at Amsterdam in 1903; Brandt-Van Warmelo wrote Irene at Amsterdam in 1905. This year a lieutenant wrote scapegoats at Melbourne. Those personal books, already in the camps’ account, were the books this year’s Melbourne imprint was set among, five years after Vereeniging and while the Times history still ran. [6]
Spoelstra’s Bouwstoffen at Cape Town: Drakenstein and the French Refugees
The paper that named this year among the church’s print was the Reverend C. Spoelstra’s Bouwstoffen voor de Geschiedenis van de Ned. D. Geref. Kerken in Zuid-Afrika, issued at Cape Town. Last year Amsterdam issued the bouwstoffen. This year Cape Town issued them. It was still a very useful source regarding the congregation and church of Drakenstein. It still contained correspondence with the Classis of Amsterdam, extracts from the church minutes of the various congregations, and in volume two verbatim extracts relating to the French Refugees — the Huguenots who settled at the Cape from 1688. Last year’s church print at Amsterdam gathered the minutes and the Classis letters so that the congregation along the Berg River, named in 1687, had its bouwstoffen in type there. This year’s church print was not another gathering from another archive. It was the same bouwstoffen, now put into type at Cape Town, five years after Vereeniging. [8] [9]
In 1687 that beautiful and fertile valley was named by Commander Simon van der Stel after one of the family seats in Holland of the high commissioner Hendrik Adriaan van Reede, Lord of Mydrecht, who came out to the Cape in 1685 to inspect the Company’s affairs. In the same year 23 farms along the Berg River were marked out, each measuring 60 morgen in extent, and given to a like number of agriculturists. When the French newcomers landed, everything was arranged to receive them and convey them to their new homes along the Berg River in the Drakenstein Valley. 6 wagons were supplied by the burgher councillors of the Cape and 6 by the heemraden of Stellenbosch, to transfer the new arrivals and their baggage to Drakenstein. The Company supplied provisions which would last them for a few months, and planks to build temporary shelters. When the farms were allotted, care was taken to scatter the French among the Dutch farmers already settled there and those arriving at the same time. Some were given ground in the Stellenbosch district, but the greater number were at Drakenstein and French Hoek. Those leaves, already in the settlement’s story, were the leaves volume two of last year’s Amsterdam bouwstoffen printed as verbatim extracts relating to the French Refugees, and the leaves this year’s Cape Town imprint still carried. [8] [9]
A despatch dated the 7th of May 1698 from the Chamber at Delft mentioned the names of the five fugitives sent out with the Driebergen: Louwys de Ryck alias Louis le Riche, Pieter Cronier alias Pierre Crosnier, Stephen Cronier alias Estienne Cronier, Jean van het tichelje alias Jean du Tuillet, and Philip van Renan alias Philippe Drouin. The majority of the Refugees to the Cape possessed little or nothing when they landed. Many escaped with only their lives. They erected shelters which could be put up rapidly, and did not waste time upon buildings of an elaborate nature. The intermingling of the Dutch and French caused dissatisfaction among the latter. The Landdrost and Heemraden of Stellenbosch were requested to receive the Reverend Simond with the respect and reverence which his office and position demanded, and to assist him, as much as lay in their power, in erecting a house for himself. Upon his arrival he was conveyed to his destination in comfort and ease. Those five names, already in the Chamber’s letter, were among the French Refugees volume two of the bouwstoffen still printed; this year’s Cape Town imprint still stood over that volume. [8] [9]
Only those who have been to the valley where the first Frenchmen settled can realise what a well-selected spot it was. The Berg River ran its course through the Drakenstein Valley; fine trees grew in abundance on the mountain slopes and along the river banks; the tall peaks stood like sentinels over the valley. At that time the border of the Colony did not extend very far from where they were settled; and for some years after the settlement was established at Drakenstein, even the corpses buried in the open fields were scratched out by wild animals. That fact stood in a letter of the 26th of March 1713 from the Kerkenraad of Drakenstein to the Classis of Amsterdam — a letter last year’s Amsterdam bouwstoffen printed at volume I, page 129, and this year’s Cape Town imprint still carried. In 1713 the Kerkenraad wrote that they had been without a permanent clergyman for 6 years, and complained of the want of a church, parsonage, and minister, as a result of which they said this flourishing community, which then totalled about 700 souls, children and adults, was daily becoming more unruly and degenerate. They said that the church had become ruinous and would not stand another year. The Classis was asked that a minister be appointed who could speak French, and even if he might not preach in both languages, that at least he be allowed to admonish and comfort the older members of the congregation, many of whom did not understand Dutch, in the French tongue. As regards the children, these were instructed in Dutch and would in course of time learn the word of God in that language. That letter of the 26th of March 1713, Spoelstra volume I, pages 128–129, was among the Classis correspondence Amsterdam issued last year and Cape Town issued this year. [8] [9]
When the Reverend le Boucq was appointed to take charge of the Drakenstein congregation he refused to go there, and wrote to the Classis of Amsterdam on the 14th of April 1707 saying that he had held a consistory meeting at Drakenstein and, after producing his credentials, had enquired about the school and church, but had learnt to his regret that there was no parsonage, sickcomforter, Dutch parish clerk, or proper graveyard. Two hundred years later, this year’s Cape Town bouwstoffen still printed that letter at volume I, page 39. Valentyn, who visited the Cape at different times between 1685 and 1714, mentioned the church at Drakenstein, badly built both inside and outside and more like a barn than a church. In 1708 the Cape wrote to the Seventeen at Amsterdam for authority to build, if not a church, at least a respectable place of worship and likewise a decent house for the clergyman. “The services are at present conducted in a shed or barn of very homely appearance” — en werd thans de godsdienst daar in een hok of schuur van zeer sober aansien nog verrigt — was the description they gave of the place of worship at Drakenstein, in a letter of the 18th of April 1708. In October 1716 severe rains and winds passed over the country districts and caused the church at Drakenstein further damage. Those minutes and those letters, already in the church’s story, were the minutes and letters last year’s Amsterdam bouwstoffen gathered, and this year’s Cape Town imprint still gathered, from the Classis and from the several congregations. [8] [9]