1 Introduction

During the three years from 1899 to 1902, Australia sent soldiers to the South African battlefield to participate in the Boer War. During this period, the Commonwealth of Australia was formally established on January 1, 1901. Therefore, the Boer War became the first war officially participated in by the new Australian nation. However, at the time, the war was not seen as fighting for this new country. Sir George Turner, The Premier of Victoria, expressed the common reasons for the decision: it was an expression of loyalty to the Queen and to the Empire; and the British people in the Transvaal were fighting for a righteous cause— equal rights for all white settlers. He also declared that many people in the Transvaal, and especially miners, went there from Australia, and sent back large sums of money ‘which have assisted us to a very great extent in surmounting the difficulties with which we have been surrounded’. It was an act of sentiment, allowing ‘our men to stand side by side with those who form the British Empire’(T. B. Millar, 1991, p. 17).

In the 1970s, as the nation-state consciousness gradually awakened, Australian historians began to pay attention to the expression of the Boer War in Australia. Canberra historian Barbara Penny, first conducted research in this field. She tried to show in her thesis that Australians’ loyalty to the British Empire is not contradictory to their own nationalism.( Penny, 1967) In subsequent research, she specifically analyzed the views of the Boer War among various groups in Australian society. (Penny, 1971) L. M. Field in his master's thesis mentioned that the government and the media may have overplayed the sentiment of supporting the war.( Field, 1973) C. N. Connolly emphasized that the views of different groups on Australia's involvement in the Boer War were deeply influenced by the class and birthplace of the groups. He especially mentioned that the hard-to-speak working class actually cared more about their own interests and resisted the expansion of the empire.( Connolly, 1978a)

A demand for writing Australians’ own history soon began to manifest. Australian historians tried to untie the Boer War from imperialism. Connolly checked many details of sending troops to Australia, trying to show that the Australian government was not fully willing to participate in this war, but was forced to be involved in the war under the influence of national defense, capital and other practical factors. He called it Manufacturing "spontaneity". he called this as Manufacturing ‘spontaneity’. (Connolly 1978b)In recent years, with the gradual broadening of the research horizons of historians, more private or regional documents have become new research objects. Dr. Effie studied the personal diaries and family letters of some Australian soldiers and officers who participated in the war, and discovered how the soldiers gradually changed their attitudes towards the British and Boers on the battlefield. (Karageorgos, 2014) John McQuilton focused on the New South Wales , relying on local archives to specifically explore how the Boer War specifically affected the entire community(McQuilton, 2016).Reynolds’ attitude is still radical ,His work specifically focuses on the importance of dissent with an emphasis on the politicians. His main hypothesis is that Australians have, since Federation, been culturally predisposed to be militaristic, This militarism, according to Reynolds, has led to Australia being involved in conflicts that were not important to the interests of the nation, and as a result, Australia fights ‘other people’s wars.( Wilcox, 2017, p. 163) These research results reflect to a certain extent the views of the groups concerned by scholars on the Boer War in Australia. It is on this basis that we can try to construct a more comprehensive view to get closer to how the Australians at the time viewed the Boer War.

2 Political Support for the War

When Australia was about to be involved in a battlefield war, we can first notice the official response. there were four decision points relating to the dispatch of the nine contingents sent to the South African War from Australia – October 1899 before Black Week, immediately after Black Week (December 1899–January 1900), in response to Kitchener’s request for replacement troops (January 1901) and in response to foreign allegations that the dominions no longer supported the war (January 1902).

The first decision point was related to the situation before Black Week, when only a small number of troops were to be dispatched as a show of support for the empire. Despite the fact the conflict was not considered an existential threat, there was still an overwhelming majority of colonial politicians in the Legislative Assemblies who voted in favour of the motions to send troops. Out of a total of 212 politicians in colonies where the parliament actually divided on the question of whether to send troops, only 34 (or 15.5 percent) voted against the motion. It was recorded that the members in the Legislative Assemblies of NSW, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia also either stood and sang ‘God Save the Queen’ or cheered after the vote. (McQuilton, 2016, p.22)The newspaper articles of these debates also reported frequent calling out of ‘hear hear’ throughout the speeches recommending troops be sent. The upper houses of all six States but South Australia overwhelmingly supported the motion to the extent there was not a division. South Australia’s upper house was unique in that half its members objected to sending troops, not because they disagreed with the British cause but because they considered that their colony was too small to make any material difference. The Bill, however, was approved when the President of the Chamber broke a vote which was tied 6 for and 6 against.

The decisions to send the second contingents were made after Black Week in mid-to-late December 1899. Given the perceived seriousness of events there was even greater support. The Parliaments, Upper and Lower Houses of NSW, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia approved the sending of troops without a division In Western Australia and Tasmania, the Premiers felt sufficiently confident of support to make an executive decision themselves to send troops without parliamentary approval as neither parliament was sitting at the time. The shock of Black Week reduced the existing little opposition to a small number of isolated individuals, such as William Holman (Labor), NSW Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), and John Murray, Victorian MLA (Labor), who were still prepared to speak out. In late 1900, the men of the first contingent were due for rotation back to Australia, and Lord Kitchener, Commander of the Imperial forces in South Africa, requested replacements. Australia at the time was transitioning from six colonies into the Commonwealth. Kitchener’s request was considered at a Council of Premiers in early January 1901. They agreed unanimously to the request without reference to their respective parliaments.

The final contingents of the war were still supported by a large majority in the new Commonwealth Parliament; in January 1902, 45 members of the House of Representatives voted for and 5 against the sending of troops. There was a unanimous decision from the 36 senators in favour of the Bill that had been approved in the House of Representatives. Out of a total of 95 Commonwealth politicians, only five percent voted against the move. The House of Representatives also concluded its vote by singing ‘God Save the Queen’ and cheering. As is starkly reflected by the table and graph below, there was very strong support for the war from the commencement to the end. ( Murfey, 2017, p. 25)Australians were loyal to the empire and to Australia; they thought of themselves as Australian Britons.

The politicians, like the majority of Australians of the era, were also connected to Britain by the idea of ‘race loyalty’, an issue that played heavily into the factors underpinning support for the war. Such a loyalty and a belief in the superiority of the ‘white’ and ‘white British’ race, and the corollary of the inferiority of ‘non-white’ races, strengthened in the popular consciousness the validity of being ‘British’ and the validity of any imperial military cause. Australians considered that they shared the same Anglo-Saxon ‘blood’ as the rest of the ‘white’ empire. This belief was further reinforced by the tremendous success of the imperial project since the middle of the nineteenth century. For an empire founded by a small island nation, particularly one that had much larger competitors as neighbours, there were many achievements that its proud citizens could point to: the virtual control of the world’s sea lanes, the vast and profitable trading network, the domination of populous nations like India and China. The empire was to its members a living demonstration of Social Darwinism, the most efficient (Anglo-Saxon) race surviving and thriving while the less efficient withered. In an Australian context this paradigm fed paranoia about the large and populous nations to the north which were seen as racially inferior. This idea of British racial identity being one of the key factors for supporting the war was reflected in the political speeches at the time. David Copeland, NSW MLA, on 18 October 1899 argued that removing the Boers by force was the natural order of things, just as had occurred with the Maoris and the Australian Aboriginals. Specifically, he stated, ‘I believe it is one of the laws of nature that the better type of humanity should displace the lower.’ That the Boer was the lowest form of ‘white humanity.’ He later went on to suggest that, ‘In the great majority of cases, however, the greatest blessing that ever fell upon such a people came to them when they were invaded by a superior race because they brought with them civilization and knowledge of freedom.’(Murfey, 2017, p. 31)

Another crucial motivation for political support for the war was the more pragmatic reason that the physical security of Australia was seen as being dependent on the empire. The Australian colonies’, and later the Australian Federation’s, defence was reliant upon the Royal Navy. This included not only the defence of the mainland but the protection of the trade routes vital to Australia’s existence and prosperity. Australians were aware they existed at the very fringe of the known world at the time, and their sense of remoteness was acute. The colonies were vulnerable tiny enclaves next to a vastly populous Asia where the English, German, Russian and Japanese empires rubbed up against one another. Australians were increasingly anxious about a threat originating from Asia, particularly after Japan, adapting Western organisation and technology, defeated China and occupied Korea in 1895. There was a rash of invasion novels in the Australian colonies that described Australia being overrun by vast Eastern armies, usually under the direction of European officers. ( Macintyre, 2009, p. 141) Therefore, the Boer War meant that broader empire plans eased Australia’s geographic and ethnic isolation.

3 The Controversy in the Press

Before the Boer War, some Australians went to South Africa just because when the Australian gold rushes ended, new goldfields were discovered in the Transvaal. And more Australians also immigrated to Johannesburg as the economy boomed. (Davidson, 2006, p.694) However, as soon as Australians were involved in this war, they were immersed in a kind of imperialist sentiment and reproduced the imperialist discourse in Britain. Most newspapers in New South Wales supported the war once it had begun, but like the patriotic accounts they provide direct evidence for the viewpoint of only one section of society. The four metropolitan dailies were owned and managed by businessmen like Sir James Fairfax, Major J. R. Carey, J. T. Toohey, M. L. C. and Frank Bennet, brother-in-law of the conservative British imperialist, J. Henniker Heaton. The editors of these newspapers, such as William Curnow of the Sydney Morning Herald, were men at the pinnacle of their profession, and the major advertisers upon whose patronage they depended were the city's businessmen. The pro-war country newspapers, too, were organs of middle-class opinion and even the smallest were the property of journalist-proprietors anxious for the patronage of local businessmen and pastoralists. None of the pro-war newspapers was controlled by a labour organisation; few, if any, championed the viewpoint of the organised working class; and their proprietors were overwhelmingly of English or Scottish descent.( C. N. Connolly, 1978a, p.211)

As the crisis developed and deepened from mid-1899, Some editors, like James Law, were bellicose. It was time, he wrote, “the ‘iron fist in the silken glove’ was thrust into their Dutch faces”. “A Staunch Imperialist” thought the Boers, a “blot on South African civilization”, needed to be “thrashed into subjection”. No one would bring a book of logic to a pig, the writer added: a pig needed a good strong stick. Britain had intervened on behalf of her subjects, civilization and simple humanity.( McQuilton, 2016, p.18) These imperialists regarded themselves as loyal subjects of the British Empire, defending the necessity and legitimacy of this war. Imperialist beliefs, in fact, achieved the status of a secular religion with a moral code based upon the good of the empire and the extension of British civilization. Such a morality could be used to justify wars, like the Boer War, which were indefensible on other grounds. The Sydney Morning Herald, for instance, seemed to concede that in terms of law and conventional morality the Boers had a very good case; but, inconformity with the imperalist ethic, it dismissed the Boers as picturesque anachronisms whose interests had to be disregarded if Africa were to be 'painted red from Cairo to the Cape'.( C. N. Connolly, 1978a, p.211)

On the other hand, readers of the regional papers did not always agree with the editorials. “A Constant Reader”, writing as a “Christian” and a “man of peace”, protested against the “red-hot jingoes” agitating for war and condemned his fellow countrymen “getting ready to cut the throat of the Boers” in an unjust war. The uitlanders were the scum of the earth. ( McQuilton, 2016, p.18) The voice against war does not just stop at the level of moral criticism. To the anti-war proponents (in contemporary parlance, the pro-Boers) the British were fighting to secure control of the gold-mines and wealth of the Rand, to acquire territory to link their central and southern African possessions, to avenge the defeat of Majuba Hill and to retrieve the concessions they had granted since to the victorious Boers. The Boers were fighting to preserve their hard-won independence, which meant their right to control their own affairs. For Britain this was an unjust war for an unrighteous end. To supporters of the war, Britain was fighting to combat a challenge to her paramountcy in southern Africa, to ensure freedom and justice for her colonial citizens and the native races who looked to her for protection. The Boers were fighting to establish Afrikaner domination, which meant exploitation of the wealth created by others, and of the native inhabitants, and the imposition of an archaic, despotic, retrogressive culture. It was a just war, in defence of civilization. ( Penny, 1971, p.527)

The pro-Boers also believed that the Boer War will bring problems to Australia itself. They were convinced of some alarming truths concerning political economy and political morality. Capitalism and aggressive imperialism, they argued, were inextricably connected, and were propelling the nation headlong on a path to ruin. The economy had developed to a stage where there was a compulsive drive towards expanding overseas markets and seeking new outlets for investment; and the nation's foreign policy was being shaped to protect and further the interests of capitalists, particularly financiers. The whole business of government was being manipulated by selfish vested interests; there was a smell of corruption, of the filthiness of riches, hanging over public affairs. And such a situation was not only iniquitous, it was leading to disaster. Inexorably the rich got richer and the poor got poorer—workers were victims of rising prices and falling wages; heavier taxation would be imposed, probably in the form of steep protective tariffs, to sustain the expansionism; and it would entail militarism, increased armaments and probably conscription. Moreover, this imperialism inevitably meant stultifying all domestic reforms, as money and attention were deflected elsewhere, away from the nagging problem of poverty.

Other pro-Boers were agitated because they saw in the war the shattering of a dream, the blighting of idealism, a thrusting aside of all the moral splendours of their liberal heritage. It involved, said Conrad Von Hagen, 'the denial of all the great principles which have distinguished us, and made us a "Peculiar People" among the Nations of the Earth'. ( Penny, 1971a, p.528)The whole tone of society seemed to be debased and coarsened. Standards were crudely materialistic and leaders acted in a blatantly opportunistic way; the press was corrupt, distorted, sensational; freedom of speech was suppressed; respect for human life and dignity was swamped by aggressiveness; chivalry yielded to enterprise. A bitter nostalgia moved Professor Wood: 'soon it will be understood that the England the world has now to deal with is not the England of Gladstone but the England of Chamberlain, not the England of Tennyson but the England of Kipling, not the England of Gordon but the England of Kitchener'. The prospect was repulsive to those who cherished Britain's moral prestige, and it lent a note of righteous anger to their protests about the war. It unfortunately produced a large measure of self-righteousness too. “The pro-Boers” said MacCallum with some asperity, ‘are apt to claim a monopoly of conscience and religion.’(( Penny, 1971a, p.529) In general, the views of these pro-war and anti-war people have been influenced by British imperialism. The Boer War is a great imperial cause, and Australians' differences in views on the Boer War at this time are precisely their understanding of imperialism.

However, not all groups are familiar with this imperialist discourse system. The working classes were the largest group containing significant numbers of people who are hostile or apathetic to the prevailing imperialism. Then, as now, the poor and uneducated seem to have been the least interested in foreign affairs and the most likely to oppose military adventures abroad. Like their modern counterparts, they probably based their stand less upon high moral principle than upon the simple dictum: 'it's none of our business'. The lives of the downtrodden left little room for the development of the remote enthusiasms which moved the educated middle classes. Ordinary people participated in the festivals which celebrated the departure of the early contingents and the relief of Mafeking, but they did so only anonymously and probably from a variety of motives. Many no doubt supported the war in some sense, but they displayed little explicit imperialism. They gave the war low priority as a political issue and seem merely to have acquiesced in imperialist doctrines, making little attempt to act upon their implications. (Connolly, 1978, p.216) How to understand those silent people? If the views of ordinary people are poorly documented, those of labour activists are not. Politically conscious working men were now entering fields of public and intellectual endeavour once the preserve of the middle classes and had acquired the middle-class habit of recording their deliberations in print. There were three labour newspapers in New South Wales: The People and the Collectivism journal of the Australian Socialist League; the Sydney Worker, representing the Australian Workers' Union and the mainstream labour movement; and the Barrier Truth, organ of the Barrier branch of the Amalgamated Miners' Association. Most of the men behind these newspapers were studiously 'loyal': only members of the Australian Socialist League, who regarded Britain as a 'foreign power' and implied that a Boer victory was desirable. Nevertheless, the labour newspapers opposed the conflict with none of the vacillations which characterised most middle-class organs of 'pro- Boer' opinion. This consistency stemmed from two things: the labour press had nothing to fear from boycott by middle-class imperialists and it was convinced that specific working-class interests were at stake. Labour men agreed with other 'pro-Boers' that capitalists had caused the war, that it was unjust, and that Australian participation was against the national interest; but they stressed the argument that working-class people would suffer as governments made the exigencies of war an excuse for shelving social reform. Their emphasis hinted at the wider grievances which alienated labour men from the Anglo-Scottish elite. It also revealed a widely recognised working-class characteristic: preoccupation with tangible consequences rather than abstract principles. (Connolly, 1978, p.217)

However, some racism voices have gradually emerged from this reality-based view. The theme that the war was a capitalist plot was embroidered by both labour men and middle-class nationalists. It was given an antisemitic slant by allegations that the Rand capitalists and 'stock exchange jugglers' said to have promoted the conflict were Jews; and it acquired racist overtones when claims were made that Britain intended to let the capitalists increase their profits from the Transvaal mines by replacing white workers with cheap coloured labour. But although racism was almost universal in 'pro-Boer' circles and antisemitism common, neither prejudice explains the opposition to the war. The capitalists behind the conflict were rarely described as Jews until several months after the fighting had begun, and allegations that coloured labour was to be introduced were seldom, if ever, made before 1900. Most 'pro-Boers' had declared their position on other grounds months previously, and racism and anti-semitism merely added variety to the 'capitalist conspiracy' theme and confirmed anti-war views already well established.

4 Attitude of “Foreigners” and Irish

It should be acknowledged that these various voices supporting and opposing imperialism and calling for the defense of labor rights show a kind of opposing social tendency, but from a broader perspective, all these voices are the descendants of Anglo-Saxon. They share same skin color, language, tradition and belief. But in addition to these British, immigrants from other European countries have poured into Australia, and they also have their own views on the Boer War. For example, in New South Wales, as elsewhere, their leaders generally sympathised with the Boers. Le Courrier Australien, voice of the French business community, expressed dismay at Britain's disregard for international order and concern at the fate of French investments in a British dominated Transvaal. The Germans, coerced by threats and violence, were more reticent; but the Deutsch-Australische Post left no doubt that many remained within the pro-Boer cultural ambit of their fatherland when it advised its readers to keep their views on the war to themselves. (Connolly, 1978, p.222) But outside the area where “foreigners” live, they have to be careful of what they say and do. A German national at Chiltern Valley No. 2 was apparently threatened and he left the district for The Rock in the Riverina, an area of German settlement. The suggestion that Wodonga had more than its fair share of pro-Boers may have been an oblique comment on the German Australians living in the district but there is no record that these sentiments were translated into hostile actions taken against them. Chiltern’s Councillor Jacobsohn probably spoke for the regional German Australian community when he said he was a foreigner by birth but a Britisher by choice. If he went back to Germany, he would have to declare himself an alien, he said. This lack of regional concern about the threat posed by “foreigners” was clearly evident in the response to the controversy that engulfed the Board of Works in June 1900. The Board sacked three draughtsmen after they had refused to sing the National Anthem to celebrate the Relief of Mafeking. One was a German national, one was a German national who had taken out British citizenship and the third was Swiss. Whilst the metropolitan press roundly condemned the men, the regional press roundly condemned the Board. The sackings savoured of injustice, of playing to a jingo gallery. Australians were fighting for the right of these men to hold their views and the men had the courage of their convictions. This placed the regional press in some rather uncomfortable company. Rentoul had also championed the draughtsmen. The papers, however, condemned Rentoul’s “interference”: that man was still “profoundly disloyal”. ( McQuilton, 2016, p28)

Similarly, considering the independent tendency of the Irish since the 19th century, Irish people under British rule also seem to be regarded as “foreigners”. Irish Catholics were a minority too large to silence, but their opinions were probably more diverse. There were two main lines of division. In the first place, there was a cleavage on the basis of social class. Irishmen active in the labour movement were, as we have seen, overwhelmingly against the war, but middle- class Irish Catholics who aspired to full acceptance by their Anglo-Protestant peers were uncertain and divided. Most were native-born and conditionally accepted by colonial society because they conformed to its dominant values; but hey feared ostracism if Catholicism became tainted with 'disloyalty'. Middleclass Catholic politicians, in particular, who were mostly native-born members of the Protectionist Party, could ill afford a sectarian backlash. They had refused to fight for state aid; and when asked to endorse the despatch of troops to South Africa, they unanimously assented although many were deeply troubled. The divisions in Irish Catholic opinion cannot, however, be explained adequately in terms of social class. A second line of cleavage between the Australian born and the Irish born was sometimes more important. The clergy, for instance, were indubitably middle class, but most were also Irish born and opposed the war or at least had grave doubts about it. Only one priest seems to have supported the war in public, and he was English born though of Irish descent. The four Catholic bishops who spoke out on the war sympathised with the Boers. They recognised, however, that they lived in a predominantly Anglo Protestant society and carefully translated Irish resentment into Australian nationalism. This enabled them to criticise the war on 'patriotic' grounds. Cardinal Moran and Bishop Gallagher, in particular, carefully placed their 'pro-Boer' statements in a loyal context. Accepting that God wrought good from evil, Moran anticipated that a British victory would improve the position of Catholics in the Boer states and praised the qualities of Australian troops. Similarly, Gallagher conceded that Australians could be proud that victories in South Africa had won glory and consolidated the empire. Yet both thought that the Boers were in the right. Moran, fearing that the British were inspired by lust for the Transvaal's gold, advised Catholic soldiers to 'stop at home and defend your own country;' while Gallagher described the Boer president as a 'grand old hero', the leader of a brave and God-fearing people whose mothers, wives and daughters were dying in the trenches 'to save the liberties of their native land’.( Connolly, 1978, p.223)The rift between the Irish born and the Australian born sometimes took the form of a generation gap. The only Catholic audience to support the war consisted of members of the Catholic Young Men's Association, who applauded when told by a young, native-born politician that Britain had every right to intervene in the Transvaal. Most of those present would have been Australian born, and their attitude was quite opposed to that of their parents who, at school openings and bazaars, consistently applauded the 'disloyal' statements of their bishops. The young men's imperialism also contrasted with the stand taken by the United Irish League, focal point for the Irish nationalism of an older generation. The League's members were well aware of the British Colonial Secretary's bad record on Irish questions and, without dissent, they censured the Tasmanian Government when it congratulated him on the annexation of the Transvaal and wished his party electoral success.

The division between Irish and Australian born Catholics was noted by contemporaries. The Freeman's Journal thought that the breach was encapsulated in a clash at the 1902 dinner of the Hibernian Australian Catholic Benefit Society. In an after-dinner address, Father Bunbury, a founder of the Catholic Press, lamented that Irishmen and the children of Irishmen were losing the spirit of their forefathers. In particular, he attacked politicians who had betrayed their Irish heritage by supporting British aggression in South Africa. His target was another guest at the dinner, E. W. O'Sullivan, an Australian born Irishman and the state's Minister of Works. O'Sullivan retorted that Bunbury's ideas were parochial and argued that Australia's destiny lay within an 'Angio-Celtic' empire. Both speeches were interrupted by cheers and angry interjections, for those present were divided into two camps whose perspectives were 12,000 miles apart. As the Freeman's Journal explained, Bunbury stood for those who had been driven from their country by oppression, while O'Sullivan represented those who had never seen Ireland but enjoyed the tangible benefits of ‘a free Constitution’. Irish Catholics born in Australia were more likely than recent immigrants to be imperialists, and the same no doubt applied to the French and Germans. In each case, Australian birth contributed to a loss of separate identity. This gives the lie to the cliche that the rising proportion of native-born Australians fostered the emergence of radical, anti-imperialist nationalism in the late nineteenth century. Yet, because Irish Catholics and Europeans were a minority, the 'nativist' explanation of radical nationalism would remain partly valid if it could be shown that the nationalists were the native-born descendants of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen. It may therefore be helpful to examine the origins of the nationalists who opposed the Boer War. ( Connolly, 1978, p.225)

Ⅳ Different Views on the Battlefield

When the views of the entire Australian society on the Boer War could not be unified, the soldiers who arrived on the South African battlefield had no other choice than to join the war. For a long time, the views of war witnesses on war have not been paid enough attention. The mainstream cognition ignores possible differences without thinking, and treats them with the stereotype of the enthusiastic supporters of imperialism. To a certain extent, this is the truth. "We must kill and slay if our superiority as a race is to be established over that of the Dutch in South Africa," wrote the commander of the Colonial Mounted Brigade to his wife. (Penny, 1967, p.104) The propaganda which portrayed the Boers as treacherous, dirty, and hypocritical did not impress Australians deeply, but neither did talk of Boer piety and hardy independence. Generally it was pride in their own race, rather than contempt for the enemy, which drove Australians into fervent support of the war. Lieutenant George Harris, of Winston Churchill’s unit – the South African Light Horse, expressed his attitude towards the enemy in a letter to his mother : “A small lot of our fellows went on to another house and were fired on and a sergeant shot so we shot two Boers and burnt the whole farm down. This is the only way to treat the brutes and what is keeping on the war so long is that we are treating them too well.” (Karageorgos, 2014, p.124)

These records are true but not comprehensive, and they often serve mainstream values. In fact, the opinions of some Australian soldiers have gradually changed due to various factors. At the beginning of the war, Britain’s invitation to Australia to participate in the war was more symbolic, in order to reflect the alliance between the two. The military power provided by Australia will not have any fundamental impact on the war situation. However, the unsuccessful early wars slapped the British confidence that they were invincible. At the same time, the harsher natural environment also affected the physical condition of British soldiers. They began to attach importance to the role of colonial soldiers in the war. Australians did consider their combat skills to be superior to those of the British rank and filers, demonstrating their keen regimental spirit, which Leese claims can instigate loyalty to the contingent, and to the armed forces in general. Australian soldiers occasionally expressed their regimental spirit through comparisons between the fighting abilities of the Australian and British troops. Private Watson Augustus Steel in particular felt this was a great source of pride. He wrote in his diary while in military hospital: “the Jewish nurse rated me and told me that I was soon to die. On telling her I was an Australian, I think she altered her opinion.” (Karageorgos, 2014, p.125) Here Steel is frank about his physical superiority, as an Australian, over British troops. It is clear, then, how Steel felt about his own military prowess. Trooper Herbert S. Condor of the 3rd Queensland Mounted Infantry expressed his opinion of the British troops as childlike figures compared with the Australians: The tent mates here “the Tommies” are terribly afraid of lightening [sic], cover over the steel and hide the looking glass. Some of them even cover their heads over. I told them they ought to live in Australia, “thunderstorms” there, are what you might call “thunderstorms”. ( Karageorgos, 2014, p.127)

As the war progressed, Australian soldiers had a more comprehensive understanding of their enemies. Originally under the influence of overwhelming racial prejudice, they imagined the Boers as barbaric and cruel lower races. However, the war also brought them the possibility of communication Private R.J. Byers wrote to his mother after a conversation with a Boer prisoner: The Boers can generally tell when they are fighting Australians, as the bullets whistle ever so much closer than the Tommie’s [sic] bullets do. And also when our troops are advancing, he says that the Australians ride like wildfire … the Boers reckon they would rather meet 100 Tommies than 20 Australians. One wanted to know why the Horsetralians were called Horsetralians; and the only conclusion they could come to, was, that it was because they were all so used to horses. I do not know what part they are came [sic] from, but they did not know very much. In the same letter, he said of the British forces: “It seems they can’t do without the Australians and Canadians, who have already done most of the dirty & most dangerous work”, ( Karageorgos, 2014, p.126)thus demonstrating his view of the abilities of colonial troops compared with the British. Lieutenant Patrick Lang of the 4th Imperial Contingent supports this in his diary: My private opinion is that the Australians here are getting more than their share. Of course it is a compliment in a way, & we undoubtedly … are more capable than the Yeomanry, but we never get any credit. The Australians here don’t growl at being given a larger share of any danger going – but in addition to getting this, we get a great deal more than our share of night work, such as outposts and convoy duty, & our men are often run [sic] very short as regards sleep. ( Karageorgos, 2014, p.128)The contact outside the battlefield also brought more touches to the Australian soldiers. They gradually realized that the Boers are also civilized people who can communicate. Some Australian soldiers met the Boers on a more personal level. In his diary, Private Watson Augustus Steel wrote – under a sub-heading of “My friend the enemy” – of a meeting with an Afrikaner man: After enquiring about my health, and asking my nationality he told me he had served in the field against us, had guarded Australian prisoners, and had drunk their health in his tent, that he was against the war, was intermarried and connected with Dutch and English families, but being a burgher was compelled to fight ... I found him educated, tolerant and kindly. ( Karageorgos, 2014, p.130)

As the war progressed, the British took some inhumane measures to deal with the boer guerrillas, which in turn had an impact on the Australian soldiers. We can see many expressions of empathy appeared in the letters and diaries after the introduction of the “scorched earth policy”, during which predominantly women and children were ejected from their homes, a source of supply for the Boer forces, which were then burned. But some soldiers openly expressed pity for Boer women and children well before this date. Private Stan Jones wrote to his family about Boer women six months after his military service began: of course some of them are pleasant enough to look at but at present they all seem to carry a sad and troubled look, as they are very much concerned about the War. If you enter into conversation with them you find that they have had their husbands, brothers or sons shot in the War and this is the cause of their trouble. Although they are the wives and daughters of our enemies, one can’t help but sympathize with them.( Karageorgos, 2014, p.132)Shortly after arriving in South Africa, Jones was very open in a letter home to his mother about the Boers being “a bad lot”. It appears that when faced with the realities of the war, his opinion altered. Private Watson Augustus Steel expressed a similar sense of uncertainty regarding the guilt of civilians in his diary: “The saddest incident in the war was that these women and children should suffer, even though they sought, and forced the conflict”. ( Karageorgos, 2014, p.132)Such words used by Australian soldiers in South Africa are not unusual, but the frequency with which Anglo-Boer War soldiers mentioned enemy civilians in kindly terms is noteworthy. Lieutenant Patrick Lang even wrote in his diary of a Boer civilian who came to them for help for his ill wife, which was gladly provided.

The above information comes from the soldiers’ diaries or family letters. Naturally, the people at that time could not understand the changes in the mentality of the combatants. The public’s enthusiasm for the war was also lost in the repeated failures of peace talks in the latter part of the war. On the other hand, the official establishment of the Federation in 1901 also turned public attention to domestic affairs, and various topics about the Boer War gradually disappeared. those at home would never know what the war was really like. Drummond put these sentiments on paper in a bush poem. It foreshadowed a similar, but more famous poem: the one written by Harry Morant:

When seated at your Christmas Cheer, Pray think of us poor soldiers here:

On Bully Beef and Biscuits fed, And Breezy Veldt to make our bed; But still we’re happy as we go,

And hope such things you’ll never know. And may you always have good luck,

As well as puddings and Roast Duck. (McQuilton, 2016, p.67)

The soldiers’ feelings about the war are undoubtedly more vivid, but social attention was no longer on them. By 1904 there was a community of 5000 Australians living on the Rand, two-thirds of them men. But things did not turn out for many as they had hoped. When the Australian prime minister Andrew Fisher paid a visit for the inauguration of the Union of South Africa in 1910, he was beset by 5000 unemployed and demoralized Australians begging for ships to be chartered to take them home. They were unwilling to do black man’s work, as other whites were also; but often they found they could not compete even when they did. The adventure was over. ( Davidson, 2006, p.695)In contrast, the soldiers who have returned home seem more lucky.

Conclusion

We can't help asking, what exactly did the Boer War bring to Australia, for politicians, soldiers, and even the general public, what changes did the Boer War bring to their lives? This is indeed a very well-answered question. During the war, all aspects of Australian society were developing steadily. Even the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia has gone through many years of preparations. Boer war did not have any universal and far-reaching effects in the economic and cultural fields. Since it is not on the real level, this prompts us to understand the significance of the Boer War to Australia from another perspective.

As mentioned above, we have seen different attitudes towards the Boer War among different groups. Controversies tend to focus on imperialism, but it needs to be emphasized that those who oppose the war are often not equally opposed to the British Empire. Throughout the war Labor representatives and trade unionists, like their political representatives, were not arguing against the empire but against the war itself. It was significant that Holman, during his argument to the 1902 conference, made a point of declaring his loyalty to the empire, suggesting again that the issue of the war was separate from loyalty to empire, and that loyalty to empire would be received well by the Labor delegates. In the same debate, Griffith also agreed with a delegate when they declared ‘there was no better flag to be under than the British flag.’ Like the politicians, there were a number of delegates who declared their loyalty to the empire. For example, Mr Johnson wanted placed on the record the conference’s ‘implicit confidence in His Majesty’s Government to conduct the war in South Africa.’ (Murfey, 2017, p. 125)

This attitude is not surprising because working-class people shared many of the values and fears of the middle and upper classes. Most Australians believed in the idea of Social Darwinism prevailing at the time, particularly in their opinions of Anglo-Saxon superiority. The connection between Australia and the British does not only come from blood, but also the sense of superiority. The ties between Australia and the British Empire were still very close with a large number of immigrants, frequent trade exchanges and military protection. Those links maintain that the Britain has influenced all aspects of Australia, so The Commonwealth of Australia still cannot be regarded as an independent nation-state, and people in Australia haven’t seen themselves as just “Australians”. From this point of view, It was Britain that linked Australia to the Boer War. Therefore, it is not difficult for most people to understand the boer war from the standpoint of the British Empire.

So why was the Boer War as an imperial subject closely linked to Australia? This is because the war was seen as part of the awakening process of Australian nationalism. By 1870, the native white population had become the majority, and with this came a deeper feeling of identity with the gum-tree environment. The image of Britain became somewhat distorted for these de facto Australians. A native nationalism emerged, less angry and more secure than that of the radical—although at times the two outlooks merged. The term 'native' and the idea of a native outlook were mentioned with increasing frequency after 1870. The objective of this moderate native nationalist group was unity of the colonies as an Australian nation. Independence, for them, meant a change from autonomous British colony to British ally. This widespread view was strongest in the middle-class, in country towns, and in Melbourne, among natives of Protestant, English descent. For these people Australia came first. They admired British power, wealth and the traditions which were partly their own. They disliked British snobbery and effete titled globetrotters—but were not averse to accepting the K.C.M.G. Australia, they believed, was to be the successor state of the Pacific basin, a coming giant commonwealth of Anglo-Saxon Australians in whom British hardheadedness married frontier audacity.( Blackton, 1961, p.354) In the native view, new chums should assimilate rapidly, and those races which would not do this easily should be excluded. As a moderate, the middle-class native supported the federal compromise between national unity and regional interests.

One nativist organization did more than any other to define and stimulate nationality in the years between 1885 and 1901. Founded in Melbourne on April 24, 1871 as the Native Victorian Society and limited to citizens of Victoria, it opened its doors on April 25, 1872 to all native white Australian men of good repute under its final name, the Australian Natives' Association. The A.N.A.'s aims included the cultivation of national feeling, the federation of Australia, compulsory military training, a preference for Australian men and products in the market place, a white Australia, a strong hand in the Pacific area, better education, health, and conservation programs. On embattled issues such as tariff protection and labor-capital strife, the A.N.A. stayed officially nonpartisan and thereby avoided most of the grimy regional squabbles which marred Australian political life. The A.N.A. expanded slowly from the Melbourne No. 1 branch to North Melbourne, Fitzroy, Collingwood, up to Ballarat and beyond. By 1885 it had 21 branches and 1,554 members. In 1887 pioneer branches were established at Charters Towers in Queensland and at Corowa in New South Wales, and the roster of members reached 4,414. The association, by 1890, boasted 85 branches including two in Western Australia, Perth and Fremantle, and counted 7,459 dues-paying members. Two years later the branches numbered over 100 with representation in South Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand. The federation drive helped membership to pass the 10,000 mark in 1895. The branches reached the figure of 153 in 1900, on the brink of federation, and two years later the membership rose to over 20,000. (Blackton, 1958, p.38) The expansion of A.N.A was accompanied by the rapid development of Australian society.

In the 1890s, Australian society became active and full of vitality. The rights of labor and women were increasingly being valued, Australian native culture and entertainment has gradually become popular, there was evidence of a move towards mass culture in 1890s Australia. It was apparent in the growing interest in Tin Pan Alley songs and dance crazes such as the cakewalk; in the presence of phonograph operators in public spaces; and in the exhibition of film reels in rented halls and vaudeville shows from 1896. Perhaps more significantly, the corporate foundations for large-scale commercial entertainment in Australia were laid in the decade. In urban districts, at least, the small players who had once offered a multitude of live performances were ousted by well-capitalised companies holding the rights to perform the latest international acts. These firms soon controlled circuits extending throughout Australia and New Zealand, which was effectively regarded as a single territory for the entertainment industry. ( Alison Bashford and Stuart Macintyre , 2013, p.237)

The concern for local affairs and loyalty to the British Empire are not contradictory, so we can believe this is an era of gradual transition from British identity to Australian identity. Australia encountered the Boer War just in this background. Different classes, social groups and political parties view the war from their respective standpoints, so it is also difficult to conclude a unified voice. Although it was impossible to reach a consensus, the Boer war became the common memory of Australians. As the Australian nation continues to move towards independence, warfare has become an important factor in the construction of national identity, and the Boer War has also received the attention of historians. Under the narrative discourse of the nation-state, they tried to closely link the Boer War with the birth of this country, but this overestimated the historical significance of the Boer War to a certain extent. The different opinions surrounding this war show that this is a country that has not yet been completely constructed.

References

[1] Alison. Bashford & Stuart. Macintyre. (eds.). (2013). The Cambridge History of Australian. (Vol. Ⅰ). Cambridge University Press.

[2] Barbara. Penny., (1967). Australia's Reactions to the Boer War-A Study in Colonial Imperialism. Journal of British Studies, 7(1), 97-130.

[3] Barbara Penny., (1971). The Australian debate on the Boer war. Historical Studies,14(56), 526-545.

[4] C. N. Connolly., (1978a). Class, birthplace, loyalty: Australian attitudes to the Boer War, Australian Historical Studies, 18(71), 210-232.

[5] C. N. Connolly., (1978b). Manufacturing ‘spontaneity’: The Australian offers of troops for the Boer War. Australian Historical Studies, 18(70), 106-117.

[6] Craig. Wilcox., (2017). Unnecessary Wars / Australian Soldiers in South Africa and Vietnam: Words from the Battlefield, Australian Historical Studies, 48(1),127-128.

[7] Charles S. Blackton., (1958). Australian Nationality and Nativism: The Australian Natives' Association, 1885-1901. The Journal of Modern History, 30(1), 37-46.

[8] Charles S. Blackton., (1961). Australian nationality and nationalism, 1850-1900 , Historical Studies: Australia and New Zealand,9(36), 351-367.

[9] Effie Karageorgos .,(2014).“Educated, tolerant and kindly”: Australian attitudes towards British and Boers in South Africa, 1899–1902. Historia 59( 2), 120-135.

[10] Guy Murfey. (2017). ‘Fighting for the Unity of the Empire’ Australian Support for the second Anglo-South African War 1899-1902. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The University of New South Wales.

[11] Jim Davidson., (2006). ‘Same difference’: Australia and South Africa.The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 95(387) ,693-704.

[12] John McQuilton., (2016). Australia’s Communities and the Boer War. Springer International Publishing AG.

[13] L M Filed. (1973). The forgotten war Australian involvement in the south Africa conflict of 1899-1902.[Unpublished master’s thesis]. Australian National University .

[14] Stuart Macintyre., (2009). A Concise History of Australia (3th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

[15] T. B. Millar., (1991). Australia in peace and war (2nd ed.). Botany: Australia national university press.