rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Earlier Than TMFH

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:34 pm

Galloglas

Many thanks for the additional book suggestions.

Coll

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:48 pm

Coll,

How is your hat ever big enouigh to enclose the rabbits that you keep pulling out of it.

In 'a colony' the head of the civili authority (wherher governor, high commissioner, or prime minister) would have his role defined by the constitution of the colony and also (in the case of a high commissioner) by a specific 'commission' usually issued under letters patent and/or the "Royal Sign Manual". Proecures varied but within these principles. In most cases, a governor or high commissioner would also be the 'commander in chief' of "Her Majesty's Forces", intending to mean those Regular forces garrisoned, stationed or deployed there plus any that might be locally raised (and usually locally funded) within the constitutional arrangements of the colony.
In addition to which a serving military officer would be appointed to command the Regular (land) forces, being prepared also to take under command any colonial forces that might be incorporated into field operations within or beyond the borders of the colony.
The 'commander' so appointed would also have 'a commission' and other actual or implied responsibilities by virtue of his rank and appointment.
The 'governor' and the appointed 'commander' would each be required to stay within their delineated powers and responsibilities unless new direction was provided by an authority (civil or military) recognised as having the powers to do so. Within those arrangements each would be individually accountable and each would have certain responsibilities to the other.
If you are about to extrapolate from the general to the particular, or the hypothetrical to the actual, then perhaps you might exsplain further. And, very desirably, in some way that does not take us to some point of culmination involving the need or lack of an Isandlwana court of inquiry or the culpability or otherwise of Colonel AW Durnford.

Be a good chap.....

G

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:32 pm

Galloglas

Can't stop my brain from working, even if my posts appear somewhat random, or unconnected. If I don't write them I'll forget - and I don't wish to forget. Confused

As Eric Morecambe once said to Andre Previn (?) - 'I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.' Wink

My question(s) is this -

1. Was the invasion of Zululand an illegal act by Frere and Chelmsford ?

2. If the British Government felt compelled, though unwillingly, to involve itself in a war with the Zulus after the disaster at Isandlwana, wouldn't it then be seen as aiding this illegal act by its support, instead of withdrawing ?

3. If an illegal act, wouldn't any losses of British and allied personnel, in Zululand, mean Frere and Chelmsford, perhaps others higher up, be liable for them, not the men in the field, considering the fact, that they shouldn't have been there in the first place ?

More rabbits I'm afraid ! Rolling Eyes

Sorry.

Coll

PS. Please understand, as I don't know who you are, I can only assume, until told different, that you are a fellow enthusiast of equal or slightly higher knowledge, hence my continued questioning posts.

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:15 pm

Further to the above -

I meant to say that I saw the word 'Galloglas' on the Osprey site (?), which surprised me, as I didn't think it was a real word - apparently meaning a class of elite mercenary warriors.

I learn something new every day ! Very Happy

Coll

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:18 pm

sufferin succotash!

Let's start with Q1:

Frere was Commander in Chief, by the time of the immediate run up to the First Invasion, Chelmsford was the GOC South African Field Force.

Chelmsford would have the duty to satisfy himself that intentions and any orders communicated to him by Frere were within his authorities and powers and not ultra vires

I'm personally unaware of the research details but let's suppose that the comparison of each others' 'commissions' and any despatches and telegraphs from London to South Africa satisfied Chelmsford that Frere was acting within his authorities in ways that would at least not be a direct clash with government policies.

The argument that the London government somehow was unaware of the intent to engage in warlike operations within Zululand does not chime well with the obvious effort to meet Thesiger's (August 1878?) request for reinforcements to enable what was clearly intended to be the 'First Invasion'. Somehow or author there muist also have been a declared acceptance that various extra incidental or operating costs might be charged to the Treasury Estimates or contingencies, and that various types of rocurement and the consumption of stocks might proceed. For example, most of the first line and reserve stocks of artillery and small arms ammunition were plainly relocated, and would undoubtedly require replenishment with further stocks called forward from depots. Linked with this would be acceptance that colonial/volunteer troops should be embodied, and should accept responsibility for the 'security' of parts of South Africa; for example in the Eastern Cape after what turned out to be the final Frontier War.

So, this Zulu War was not something concocted in the NAAFI queue at Fort Napier. And, within the principles commonly applied would be demed 'legal'. We should also not forget that Zululand was not a recognised state or political entity within the extant and emergent conventions of the time.

G

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:34 pm

Due account would need to be given, also, to whatever was interpreted to infer or represent undertakings given by the Zulu king at his 1873 coronation and what status they might ultimately be deemed to have, in the light of compliance or otherwise with the ultimatum presented to representatives of the king at the Lower Drift in late 1878.

The full wording of the ultimatum creates at least a further part of the construct to 'legalise' the invasion of Zululand, but as if the United Kingdom already deemed itself to have much more than suzerainty over Zululand.

For 'European' and Westminster purposes that would technically be 'legality' enough. Since the evident intent was that the king should find it impossible to comply, then the issue of the ultimatum would have - I suppose - been at least tacitly approved in London. But, 'popular' historians have not probed this area much since a much better tale flows from the idea that the war was a locally manufactrured initiative.
G

G

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:12 pm

To me, the whole debate around the "legality" or "illegality" of the invasion of Zululand smacks of a very 21st century perspective. In the 19th century, you have to suspect that none of the colonial powers which competed for territory and control of resources in Africa even remotely considered the indigenous polities they were dealing with to be independent countries. To the likes of Britain, Belgium, France and Portugal (among others), these amorphous territories and their peoples were not so much "independent" as merely temporarily unregulated by one or another of the European powers. They might act with initial caution around a powerful kingdom such as that of the Zulu, but they would have considered the very idea of an independent Zululand dealing on an equal regional basis with Great Britain as ludicrous.

At one point in the lengthy correspondence between Frere and Colenso, the bishop suggested that Smith and Deighton might have been on the Zulu side of the river when they were detained. Frere gave Colenso short shrift, telling him that it wouldn't have mattered if they had been in Ulundi. In the context of 19th century Eurocentric views of Africa, borders only went one way.

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:12 pm

Galloglas

Thanks for your replies.

I've not got every AZW book, but it did appear that the war was 'locally manufactured', though the British Government was aware of the developments, well at least, what Frere chose to tell them.

I'm not sure the British Government was party to the invasion, due to its wishing to prevent war with the Zulus, I think, because of other worries and commitments elsewhere, both militarily and financially.

If the Government was completely aware of the situation and the legality of the invasion, it seems it got cold feet and wanted to halt progress, that would ultimately lead to war, which is why it resisted the temptation to give it the green light.

However, apparently due to the time for correspondence to pass between both parties (Frere and the Government), Frere gave the go-ahead himself, assuming the Government would have agreed, as he didn't want the war delayed any longer.

If the latter is true, then the invasion was illegal, as for all the Government knew what was seemingly happening beforehand, they hadn't cleared it for Frere to put his plan into action, therefore he exceeded his authority.

Everything that occurred in Zululand thereafter, would have been illegal.

Coll

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:22 pm

Paul

You are of course right - '21st Century perspective' - as are about 3 other of my recent topics in a similar vein, but they all are only meant for the purpose of discussion.

Coll

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:34 pm

Coll,

Please do not keep yourself fit by leaping to conclusions.
If it was 'illegal' then against which laws, statutes, or ratified treaties, was it a breach. Spell that out, and for thise with the enthusiasm to do so there can be some discussion of 'legality'.
The 'Law of Coll' baint enough.

G

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:45 pm

Legality, illegality...
Call me cynical but I think the British Government's position with regard to any action taken by Frere and Chelmsford against Zululand without London's specific prior authorisation would be more accurately described as "plausible deniability" - to limit the damage if things turned out badly.
Rob

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:51 pm

Galloglas

'Law of Coll' ? - it's got a certain ring to it. Wink

Most discussions are about coming to conclusions, leaping or otherwise, in order to question/agree with/or debate, whether put forward by amateurs or experts.

Amateurs are the ones who quite regularly begin the topics, meant for others of equal status, or experts to respond to.

I'm the former, so I guess it is what I consider is my job to do on the forum, to maintain interest.

Coll

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:16 pm

Coll,

I think Rob D is well onto the scent trail here and you look for too much precision in your quest for legality and culpability.

G

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:47 pm

Galloglas

Yes. Rob's answer is very good.

'Looking for too much precision' on my part ?

I agree. However, it's a bit of a dilemma for me, as in, having been on some occasions previously thought to be too general with the issues I've raised, they needed to be 'tightened up', meaning to 'zone in' on actual points of interest and fact, discarding the unimportant details as the discussion progressed.

Removing the dead wood on route, so to speak, to let the topic develop along a more direct path, without being distracted by other less important details, though the latter need to be put forward, in order to be discarded, due to reasoning, later.

Coll

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:33 pm

So, put your feet up, have a break, do something else.
Read some of those books.

G