resist the combined forces of England and her colonies, and that the peasant armies generally could not bear heavy losses.  But yet—­if all indications are not misleading—­the blood shed by the Boer people will yield a free and prosperous future.  In spite of much weakness, the resistance was heroic; men like President Stein, Botha, and De Wett, with their gallant followers, performed many great military feats.  The whole nation combined and rose unanimously to fight for the freedom of which Byron sings: 

  “For freedom’s battle once begun,
  Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son,
  Though baffled oft, is ever won.”

Inestimable moral gains, which can never be lost in any later developments, have been won by this struggle.  The Boers have maintained their place as a nation; in a certain sense they have shown themselves superior to the English.  It was only after many glorious victories that they yielded to a crushingly superior force.  They accumulated a store of fame and national consciousness which makes them, though conquered, a power to be reckoned with.  The result of this development is that the Boers are now the foremost people in South Africa, and that England preferred to grant them self-government than to be faced by their continual hostility.  This laid the foundation for the United Free States of South Africa.[E]

[Footnote E:  “War and the Arme Blanche,” by Erskine Childers:  “The truth came like a flash ... that all along we had been conquering the country, not the race; winning positions, not battles” (p. 215).

“To ... aim at so cowing the Boer national spirit, as to gain a permanent political ascendancy for ourselves, was an object beyond our power to achieve.  Peaceable political fusion under our own flag was the utmost we could secure.  That means a conditional surrender, or a promise of future autonomy” (pp. 227-228).  Lord Roberts wrote a very appreciative introduction to this book without any protest against the opinions expressed in it.]

President Kruger, who decided on this most justifiable war, and not Cecil Rhodes, will, in spite of the tragic ending to the war itself, be known in all ages as the great far-sighted statesman of South Africa, who, despite the unfavourable material conditions, knew how to value the inestimable moral qualities according to their real importance.

The lessons of history thus confirm the view that wars which have been deliberately provoked by far-seeing statesmen have had the happiest results.  War, nevertheless, must always be a violent form of political agent, which not only contains in itself the danger of defeat, but in every case calls for great sacrifices, and entails incalculable misery.  He who determines upon war accepts a great responsibility.

It is therefore obvious that no one can come to such a decision except from the most weighty reasons, more especially under the existing conditions which have created national armies.  Absolute clearness of vision is needed to decide how and when such a resolution can be taken, and what political aims justify the use of armed force.