ABOLITION FROM BELOW: THE 1808 REVOLT IN THE CAPE COLONY

Nicole Ulrich*

On 27 October 1808, troops dispatched by Lord Caledon, Governor of the Cape colony, quickly apprehended more than 300 slaves and servants who had staged an armed uprising in the Zwartland, Koe-berg and Tygerberg districts. The participating slaves originated from various parts of the Indian Ocean Basin and East Africa. They were supported by indentured KhoiSan farm servants; dispossessed indig-enous inhabitants who lived in the colony; and two Irish drifters, part of a transient population of seafarers passing through the South Afri-can port which straddles the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. After two extra-judicial enquiries, most captives were found “not guilty of any particular crime or violence” and were handed back to their masters.1 Fifty one men who played an active part in the revolt were charged with high treason or public violence. Their trial revealed a profound threat. The accused “unanimously declared to have been well treated” by their masters, showing a rejection of slavery as such.2

The revolt was not an isolated local development and took place at a time when the British Empire sought to reform slavery based on a vision of gradual and partial emancipation from above. The rebels were inspired by the abolition of the slave trade, but, in line with radi-cal popular protest of the age, the rebels wanted something more than the amelioration of slavery. They developed their own vision of imme-diate and complete emancipation from below. In the words of one of the rebel leaders, Abraham from the Cape, they prepared to “hoist the bloody flag and fight themselves free.”3

* Thank you to Nigel Worden for his encouragement and assistance with archival references for the revolt and to Jon Hyslop, Pamila Gupta, Michael Titlestad and Sven Ouzman for their comments on my paper.

1 Western Cape Provincial Archive [hereafter WCPA], Court of Justice [hereafter: CJ], 802, p. 754.

2 WCPA, CJ, 802, pp. 808–9.3 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 759.

© 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands (ISBN: 9789004188532)

194 nicole ulrich

Breaking the National Mould

The notion that Cape slavery was mild and slaves were docile, sub-missive or content has been discredited. Nevertheless, revisionist historians maintain that slave resistance, although widespread, was individualized and uncoordinated.4 Unlike the plantation economies of the Americas and West Indies, slaves in the Cape were scattered across the sparsely populated colony, divided by their heterogeneous ethnic origins, and overwhelmed by the pervasive controls of their masters. Consequently, revisionists argue that slaves, who are usually discussed separately from other subalterns, did not create a distinct slave community nor develop a tradition of collective action. It was only with the reforms of slavery under the British Empire that slaves in the Cape briefly broke this mould and in 1808 staged what has been called the first and largest revolt in the colony.5 It has been claimed that since the rebels were few in number and their fight for freedom not rooted in a broader movement, the revolt was doomed to fail and quickly withered away with no further consequence.

Only during the bicentenary of the revolt was some new interest generated in the heroic struggle of the rebels. The revolt was offi-cially commemorated by Iziko Museums, and historians such as Nigel Worden contend that the significance of the revolt has been under-stated.6 This chapter argues that to appreciate the rebels’ actions, we need to break with the methodological nationalism that underpins South African exceptionalism and draw on the Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners and the Hidden History of the Revolution-ary Atlantic, in which Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker trans-form our understanding of labor and resistance in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.7 Instead of Edward P. Thompson’s English “rebellious-traditional” plebeians,8 Linebaugh and Rediker point to the existence of a mobile, multi-ethnic and multinational “transatlantic working class.” They argue that this class was bound together by new associations and forms of cooperation that transcended social, political,

4 Armstrong, “Slaves, 1652–1834,” pp. 109–83.5 Ross, Cape of Torments; Harris, “Slave ‘Rebellion’ of 1808,” pp. 54–65.6 Worden, “Revolt in Cape Colony Slave Society,” and “Armed with Ostrich

Feathers.”7 Linebaugh and Rediker, Many Headed Hydra.8 Thompson, “Eighteenth-Century English Society,” pp. 133–65.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 195

and geographical boundaries long taken as given. The struggles of the transatlantic working class gave rise to a consciousness of freedom and contributed to major upheavals – such as the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions – that centered on social and political rights.

Our understanding of the laboring poor in the Cape requires similar revision. First, resistance in Cape Town, a strategic port connecting the Atlantic and Indian oceans, cannot be understood without tak-ing the maritime frontier into account. The port was part of maritime commercial and political empires and social relations were constantly shaped by global processes. Historians need to incorporate maritime forms of protest into their analysis and consider transnational influ-ences on local struggles. Second, collectivity was not simply imposed by the ruling order, but constantly reconfigured from below. Slaves constantly sought ways in which to carve out social relations and worlds of their own making.9 Such relations could and did transcend race, nation and legal status. Although temporary and fluid, the cre-ation and mobilization of social connections proved a constant and foundational feature of subaltern resistance in the Cape. Slaves were not necessarily isolated or separated by difference, but were tied to underclass networks that linked them to other slaves, seafarers and servants. They participated in forms of struggle based on cooperation and the solidarity of friends, loved ones and other associates. In the final instance, rigid characterizations of resistance often obscure the different imaginations of freedom that underpinned subaltern action and the ways in which various forms protest were used and combined. Eugene Genovese’s distinction between the withdrawal from society and the open contestation of social and political structures should not be read as a typology, but as the opposing ends of a continuum.10

The social connections that enabled the 1808 revolt were far-reaching. Slaves forged associations that were not only transnational in character, but also linked the port and the agrarian hinterland. These associations also transcended ethnic and legal divisions and slaves were supported by other sections of the sedentary and mobile laboring poor. Such soli-darities were not arbitrary – they allowed for the combination of local

9 John Mason, who questions the permanence of social death and the hegemony of slave owners’ paternalism in the Cape, makes a similar point. See Social Death and Resurrection. Worden also draws attention to the participation of KhoiSan servants in the 1808 and 1825 revolt, see Worden, “Revolt in Cape Colony,” pp. 16–9.

10 Genovese, Rebellion to Revolution.

196 nicole ulrich

and international forms of protests and imaginations of freedom. The revolt took place after the abolition of the slave trade came into effect at the Cape. This fight for freedom was part of a complex contestation over the future of class relations and at the forefront of a renewed cycle of slave rebellion prompted by the reform of slavery within the British Empire. The rebels were aware of rebellions and revolutions in other parts of the world and they too developed a “consciousness of freedom”. Although they were encouraged by abolition, the rebels did not accept gradualist approaches to emancipation that focused on the treatment and trade of slaves. Like the laboring poor in France, Haiti, and Ireland, they risked all and demanded freedom. Their defeat had significant implications. The call for freedom was muffled while the colonial government and slave owners wrestled over the regulation and discipline of slaves and indentured KhoiSan servants.

In what follows, I will examine the revolt and responses to it using the available evidence, which consists mostly of trial records and gov-ernment correspondence. It should be kept in mind that the informa-tion given by the accused and witnesses to the Court of Justice and the ways in which evidence was recorded and collected for the trial were largely determined by the social relations and formalities of the Court. Testimony was often given under duress and those who appeared before the Court wanted to portray themselves in the best possible light. The material reflects performances in a ritualized environment, which can reveal much about the social norms and values of the day. Drawing on the work of Natalie Davis, I will pay close attention to the ways in which the various participants represented themselves, justi-fied their actions and portrayed the revolt.

The Connections of Conspiracy

The 1808 rebels were not the first to take up arms to fight for their freedom. In 1766, for instance, 140 Malagasy slaves mutinied and commandeered the Meermin in a desperate attempt to return home.11 The leaders were killed when the ship and its human cargo were recap-tured, but most of the mutineers survived and were integrated into the Cape’s slave population. Such strikes against slavery, which have

11 Alexander, “Mutiny on the Meermin.”

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 197

been well documented in the case of the Middle Passage, still need to be investigated and incorporated into our understanding of resistance at the Cape. They point to a tradition of organized collective action against which to analyze other forms of subaltern protest.

Much work still needs to be done, but it can still be established that the 1808 revolt differed from such forms of protest in impor-tant ways. Most notably, slaves were able to act beyond their immedi-ate ethnic grouping and forge broad alliances. The Cape colony was established by the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC), which needed a rest-stop for ships travelling from the Netherlands to South Asia and Indonesia. By 1808 the population consisted of 29,768 slaves and 27,956 free inhabitants.12 The “free” inhabitants included settled colonists, or freeburgers, of Dutch, German and French decent, and a small grouping of “blacks” of mixed decent. There were also approxi-mately 16,700 KhoiSan living in the colony as well as scores of seafar-ers and soldiers who briefly passed through Cape Town.13 Although not enslaved, most KhoiSan, seafarers and soldiers were indentured or contracted servants and should not be classified as free.

The backgrounds of the fifty one men placed on trial for participat-ing in the revolt reflect the diversity of the Cape’s underclass.14 They consisted of two Irish vagabonds, two Khoisan farm servants and forty seven slaves. Most of the accused slaves were either Cape born (18) or imported from Mozambique (17). The remainder came from parts of Indonesia (6), Madagascar (3), South Asia (2), and Mauritius (1). Under the VOC, slaves were initially sourced from the Indian Ocean basin, including the Indian subcontinent, the Indonesian archipelago and Madagascar. Robert Shell notes that after the Anglo-Dutch War (1780–4) French vessels also supplied slaves from Mozambique and the Mascarene Islands and with the first British occupation of the Cape (1795–1803) “Mozambique became the single most important source of slave labor.”15 Local officials under Batavia (1803–6), who restricted rather than implemented their government’s prohibition

12 John Mason, Social Death and Resurrection, p. 17.13 Ibid.14 WCPA, CJ, 802, pp. 725–30. The Court also investigated a freeburger, Pieter

Theron, suspected for participating in the revolt. He was able to provide a number of alibis and the case against him was dropped. See Worden, “Armed with Ostrich Feathers,” p. 28.

15 Shell, Children of Bondage, p. 45.

198 nicole ulrich

on the slave trade, continued the preference for Mozambicans.16 By this time slave owners were not solely dependent on “raw” or “green” slaves and when the British regained control of the colony in 1806, creoles constituted a substantial proportion (about forty percent) of slaves in the colony.17

Louis from Mauritius was identified as the primary instigator of the 1808 revolt. The Court argued that “from the beginning to end” he acted as the leader and, if the revolt had succeeded, would have been appointed “Governor or Chief of the Blacks.”18 Thirty years of age at the time, Louis was probably born into slavery. Much like those in the Cape, Mauritian slaves had diverse origins and Louis’s ancestors could have been Malagasy, East African, Indian, or even West African. He was brought to the Cape at the very young age of three and belonged to a wealthy freeburger, Willem Kirsten.19 Two decades later he became the property of Maria Catharina Grove when her marriage to Willem Kirsten ended. Louis worked as a koelie jonge (coolie-slave), which means that his mistress hired him out for a monthly fee. This com-bination of slave and waged labor was not unique to the early nine-teenth-century Cape and the hiring out of slaves, especially to service the docks, was a well established practice in many Caribbean, Atlantic and Indian Ocean ports. At some point Louis was hired by a “free black” woman named Anna for twelve Rixdollars (Rds.) a month. John Mason estimates that in 1808 there were about 2000 “free blacks,” who were decendents of manumitted slaves and convicts and political pris-oners, in the colony.20 Anna was relatively prosperous. In addition to hiring Louis, she owned a slave named Oude Baatjoe.21 In 1770 the VOC decreed that baptized slaves should be allowed to purchase their freedom and Oude Baatjoe, who was hired out to another “free-black” family, had already saved 60 of the 80 Rds. required.

Like many hired-out slaves, Louis lived in the accommodation pro-vided by his employer. Social domination – never total or complete – was easily undermined by hiring and living-out arrangements. No longer under the direct surveillance of his owner, Louis forged strong personal

16 Freund, “Society and Government,” pp. 248–9.17 Shell, Children of Bondage, p. 47; Armstrong, “Slaves, 1652–1834,” p. 132. 18 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 756. 19 WCPA, CJ, 516, WWW First examination of Louis, translation, pp. 21–43; Loos,

Echoes of Slavery, pp. 69–73. 20 Mason, Social Death and Resurrection, p. 17.21 Loos, Echoes of Slavery, p. 70.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 199

relations with Anna and her family. Even though slaves could not legally marry, Louis referred to Anna as his “wife” during Court pro-ceedings.22 He also moved around with relative autonomy, was often mistaken as a freeperson, and managed to accumulate some assets of his own. Louis owned three horses, which he hired out, and helped his “brother-in-law,“ Abraham Anthonissen run a tapperij (drinking house) situated next to the family home on Strand Street.23

Louis’s “family” denied any knowledge of the revolt. Family ties, however, were not the only social bonds that slaves created to ease their bondage. The Court was well aware of the growing numbers of slaves converting to Islam and wanted to know why Louis had not embraced the “Mohammedan religion.”24 Louis informed the Court that, although he had not been baptized, his mistress (Maria Grove) had encouraged him to learn about the Christian religion when he was young and warned him not to “meddle with intrigues.”25 Consequently, Louis claimed, he had “very few acquaintances in Cape Town.”26

Few private slave owners followed the example of the VOC, which provided company-owned slaves with religious instruction and a Chris-tian baptism. It was only with the first British occupation that mis-sionaries who worked with slaves and the KhoiSan became a notable presence in the colony. Bill Freund argues that, barring Johannes van der Kemp and James Read who championed the rights of the enslaved and dispossessed, most missionaries in the colony held conservative political and theological views.27 Yet, many slave owners associated missionaries with heretical teachings or the abolitionist movement and feared that they would unsettle social relations and promote radical ideas.

Once the British regained control of the Cape, efforts to win the souls of slaves and KhoiSan were renewed. Officials in the War and Colonial Office believed that Christianity could play a crucial role in “civilizing” the laboring poor and preparing slaves culturally and ideo-logically for emancipation. Convincing slave owners of the benefits of Christian instruction would prove a difficult task. In response to

22 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 5, p. 21.23 Loos, Echoes of Slavery, p. 70.24 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 95, p. 43.25 Ibid.26 Ibid. 27 Freund, “Society and Government,” pp. 373, 337–9.

200 nicole ulrich

Lord Caledon’s request for more clergymen, Viscount Castlereagh, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, noted that as long as the upper classes considered ignorance and barbarism essential to subor-dination, the religious instruction of slaves and the KhoiSan would be frustrated.28

We will never really know if Louis deliberately set out to exploit the divisions within the ruling class by appealing to imperial notions of labor and religion, but it is clear that he was trying to emphasize his obedience to his owner and distance himself from other unruly subal-terns. His claims of isolation should be read as part of his attempt to win favor with the Court. The testimonies of others indicate that Louis was not the loner he wished to portray and he participated in a vibrant dock-based sub-culture that revolved around drinking, gambling, and smuggling. The boundaries between Louis’s home and the neighbor-ing tapperij blur. The “house of Louis” is described as a hub of activ-ity frequented by “several sorts of people,“ including “black people”, people of the “yellow cast” and sometimes even country people and their servants.29

It was in the tapperij that Louis met one of his key accomplices – an Irish vagabond named James Hooper. He was to obtain a “high situ-ation” in the new government and was rated second in the Court’s hierarchy of guilt.30 Much like the modern café, dockside drinking houses in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries often fulfilled important political functions.31 These spaces of sociability brought commoners from different parts of the world together and provided the opportunity for sailors, servants, laborers, and slaves to swap sto-ries, debate political issues, and plot rebellion. In Cape Town it was the camaraderie of the tapperij, rather than any religious community, that gave rise to the conspiracy to revolt.

James Hooper also bid for the Court’s goodwill by claiming to have once served the well-respected Curtis family.32 This was exposed as a lie,

28 WCPA, Government House [hereafter GH], Letter from Castlereagh to Caledon, 10 June 1808, No. 80.

29 WCPA, CJ, 516, XXX First examination of James Hooper, translation, Articles 39, 40, p. 75 and YYY First examination of Abraham from the Cape, translation, Article 34, p. 161.

30 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 757.31 Simpson, “Commercialisation of Macau’s Cafes”; Linebaugh and Rediker, Many

Headed Hydra, p. 235. 32 WCPA, CJ, 516, First Examination of Hooper, pp. 65–82.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 201

but Hooper remained evasive about his past and it is difficult to piece his history together. He told the Court that he quit his apprenticeship and left Ireland in 1799. This was the year after the Irish Rebellion, which was led by the United Irishmen. Initially a respectable orga-nization that agitated for parliamentary reform, the United Irishmen were radicalized by the French Revolution and coalesced with popu-lar movements that fought against taxes and tithes.33 The movement, which now aimed to revolutionize social and political relations, was associated with non-sectarian republicanism and egalitarianism and opposed English domination. The organization was banned in 1793 and leaders were arrested, tortured and executed. Unable to wait any longer for military support from the French, a rebellion was staged on the 23 May 1798. The rebels were unable to seize Dublin and the rebel-lion was crushed, leading to the death of an estimated 30,000 people.34 We do not know if Hooper was directly involved and if he fled Ireland to escape punishment, but it is unlikely that he remained unaffected by the struggles of his countrymen.

Hooper went to sea as the servant of a ship’s Captain and travelled between Spithead and the East Indies. Spithead also had a history of popular protest and it is probable that Hooper had heard tales of the 1797 ‘breeze at Spithead’ in which sailors from sixteen ships in the Channel Fleet mutinied in demand of better pay and living conditions.35 The Royal British Navy was beset with rebellious sailors towards the end of the eighteenth century and mutinies also took place off the coasts of Ireland and the Cape. Hooper travelled from Portsmouth to the Cape and claimed to have been left behind in Simons Bay. He drifted around Simons Town and Wynberg and spent some time liv-ing with the KhoiSan. He eventually made his way to Cape Town, where he met Louis who provided him with lodging and work.

Scant attention has been paid to impoverished Europeans at the Cape who were not freeburgers, including the large numbers of tran-sient sailors and soldiers. Freund maintains that interracial interac-tions, which were still relatively fluid at the time, were typical of the Cape’s underclasses.36 It was not unusual for Europeans such as Hooper to socialize, form friendships and live with poorer “free blacks” and

33 Foster, Modern Ireland, pp. 264–78.34 Ibid., p. 280.35 Gill, Naval Mutinies of 1797; Dugan, Great Mutiny. 36 Freund, “Cape Under the Transitional Government,” p. 334.

202 nicole ulrich

KhoiSan in Cape Town’s slums. The Cape’s underclass reflected the cosmopolitanism of ports in the era of proto-globalization, which was further reinforced by the distinctive, yet multiracial and multinational, world of seafarers. Linda Colley notes that seafarers, who were dark-ened by the sun and covered with tattoos, looked, walked, dressed and spoke differently to the sedentary population.37 Since many had been torn from their families (due to press-ganging) and all were subject to the harsh and violent discipline of the ship, sailors often sympathized with the plight of slaves.38

Hooper was part of this maritime world. His identification with the Cape’s colonized and enslaved was probably also reinforced by his Irish background. Conquered by Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army between 1649 and 1653, Irish land was transferred to Protes-tant immigrants through a series of Penal Laws. The laboring poor were deployed to work on the estates of their new masters and tens of thousands of men and women were shipped abroad to be sold or work in British colonies.39 Characterized by the Protestant Ascendency, the 1700s and early 1800s held little promise for most of the population and historians agree that “where Ireland was poor and backward, it was astoundingly so.”40 According to Linebaugh and Rediker, the Irish were known to identify with the struggles of others who had been similarly dispossessed.41 Irish laborers featured prominently in the 1741 New York conspiracy, in which slaves and the poor planned to burn down the city and take it over; the 1802 Despards’ conspiracy, which aimed to claim control of the Tower of London and assassinate the King; and Irish regiments mutinied against service in the slave-holding West Indies in 1795.

Louis could not speak much English and Hooper struggled with Dutch. They had to rely on Abraham from the Cape, who was identified as one of the ringleaders of the rebellion by the Court, to translate their conversations.42 Owned by Jan Wagener, Abraham was also hired out and lived separately from his owner. It was soon brought to Wagener attention that Abraham continued to visit Francina (a ‘Bastard-

37 Colley, Ordeal of Elizabeth Marsh, pp. 14–5.38 Linebaugh and Rediker, Many Headed Hydra, pp. 143–73. 39 Ibid., pp. 120–3.40 Foster, Modern Ireland 1600–1972, p. 197.41 Linebaugh and Rediker, Many Headed Hydra, pp. 186, 278.42 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Abraham from the Cape, pp. 157–76.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 203

Hottentot’43 woman) in his service.44 Wagner grew suspicious of Abra-ham’s new employer, Hendrik Tallas, and, after a few enquiries, came to believe that he ran a smokkelhuis (smuggling house). It was through Tallas that Abraham made friends with Louis and Hooper.45 Just when Wagener sought to hire his slave to a better sort of owner, Abraham ran away.

Historians tend to overlook that desertion, the most common form of resistance in the Cape, was often not undertaken alone. Signifi-cant numbers of the slaves prosecuted for desertion either ran away in groups (which were small but could reach numbers of twenty and over) or were members of droster (runaway) gangs.46 As Nigel Penn has demonstrated, these gangs did not only consist of fugitive slaves and many included petty criminals, runaway soldiers, sailors and, towards the end of the 1700s, increasing numbers of KhoiSan servants.47 Abra-ham chose to stay close to Cape Town and relied on his friends to provide him with food and supplies.

Whilst hiding out at Green Point, Hooper introduced Abraham to another Irish vagabond. The true identity of this Irishman is unclear. He was known as “Daniel” to his comrades, but told the Court his name was Michael Kelly.48 He was also considered one of the leaders of the revolt. Kelly, however, tried to portray himself as an honor-able character and told the Court that he was a young man “genteelly educated” who served King and Country from his youngest years.49 It would appear that Kelly once served as a “writer in a customhouse,” but that drunkenness had driven him into poverty, forcing him to sign up as a common soldier with the Honorable English East India Com-pany (HEIC).50 Kelly was not unusual. Unlike the Royal British Army that employed the “dregs of British society,” the HEIC, which was fast becoming a major power broker in South Asia, mainly recruited min-ers, clerks, and artisans who could read and write.51

43 A category consisting of the children of free KhoiSan women and slave men. 44 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Adolph Wagner, pp. 373–4.45 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Abraham, Article 33, p. 161.46 Heese, Reg en Onreg, Addendum II and III, pp. 122–271. 47 Penn, Rouges, Rebels and Runaways.48 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Abraham; Article 8, 158; ZZZ Second

examination of Michael Kelly, translation, Article 1, p. 225. 49 WCPA, CJ, 516, ZZZ First examination of Michael Kelly, translation, Article 75,

p. 215.50 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination Abraham, Article 13, p. 158.51 Roy, “Armed Expansion,” p. 4.

204 nicole ulrich

Kelly told the court that he was discharged from service and came to the Cape from India as an invalid.52 He was employed briefly as a servant to James Eden in the stores and then as a steward onboard the Phoenix, which travelled between Table Bay and False Bay. After he was discharged, Kelly had no work or fixed place of abode and, like Abraham, relied on his underclass contacts for survival. Local admin-istration was concerned about regulating the movement of people who passed through the port and published a number of advertisements urging all strangers without passports to apply for permission to stay in the colony.53 Kelly claimed that since his discharge papers had been lost, he decided not to approach the Fiscal’s Office for the necessary authorization.

Abolition and the Meanings of Freedom

The Court maintained that the conspiracy to free slaves, using violent means if necessary, originated from a series of “discourses” in which James Hooper informed Louis and Abraham that there was no slavery in his country and “every person was free.”54 This was confirmed by Michael Kelly, who reported that there was no slavery in England, Scotland and America.55 Believing that “people ought to be free here also” they agreed to do their best to fight for the freedom of slaves in the Cape.56

It is unlikely that Hooper and Kelly’s information that slavery was not universal and therefore unjustifiable in the Cape was the sole moti-vation behind the revolt. As elsewhere in the British Empire, slave owners in the Cape were often surprized by how well-informed their slaves were, even of distant events. Historians of slavery explain that slaves could access information in a variety of different ways – they listened to their masters’ conversations, read newspapers or pamphlets and gossiped amongst each other.57 Like Louis and Abraham, slaves

52 WCPA, CJ, 516, First Examination of Michael Kelly, Articles 1–14, pp. 197–9. 53 National Library of South Africa, Cape Town [hereafter NLSA], The Cape Town

Gazette and African Advertiser, 11 July No. 1807 and 28 November 1807, No. 98. 54 WCPA, CJ, 802, pp. 731. 55 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Michael Kelly, Article 29, p. 202. 56 CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 12, p. 22. 57 Craton, “Slave Culture and Resistance,” pp. 104–5; Genovese, Rebellion to Revo-

lution, p. 24.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 205

working on the docks or socializing in port-side drinking houses could also get news from transnational sources such as sailors, soldiers and other drifters. Slaves were often sold off when their masters returned to Europe and it was probably well known that slavery was not permit-ted in some countries.

Also of importance were the moves on the part of the British Empire to reform slavery from above. Ross argues that it was the abolition of the slave trade by the British that led slaves in the Cape to believe that “freedom was theirs for the taking.”58 The Act, which was passed by the British Parliament in 1807, only came into full effect at the Cape on 1 January 1808. This was not the first time that the importation of slaves was prohibited and initially it appeared that the British aboli-tion would also be thwarted by local government officials who would continue to grant ships special permission to land and sell slaves. On 2 January, the day after abolition, the government newspaper in fact advertized two separate public auctions of newly imported or “green” slaves from Mozambique.59

The War and Colonial Office, which was determined to stop the international trade in slaves within and beyond the Britain Empire. Viscount Castlereagh urged the Governor to utilize “every means” in his power to ensure that the Act was correctly executed and in March 1808 reiterated that “no discretion can be admitted in interpreting the law” and that all slaves landed at the Cape would be forfeit to His Majesty.60 Lord Caledon responded accordingly and on 29 April he proclaimed that a committee had been established to investigate the illicit traffic in slaves.61 A reward of 1000 Rds. was offered to any free person with information leading to a conviction, while slaves with such intelligence would be granted their freedom.

The committee questioned fifty-five slave owners in May and June.62 Most of the 110 slaves that could not be satisfactory accounted for were traced to Portuguese slave ships on their way from Mozambique

58 Ross, Cape of Torments, p. 98. 59 NLSA, The Cape Town Gazette and African Advertiser, January 2, 1808, No. 103. 60 WCPA, GH, 1/4, Letter from Castlereagh to Caledon, October 3, 1808; GH 1/3,

Letter from Castlereagh to Caledon, March 4, 1808. 61 WCPA, Colonial Office [hereafter CO], 5805 and 4437; NLSA, Cape Town Gazette

and African Advertiser, April 30, No. 120. There were also investigations into a number of ships, see GH 28/1, GH 50/1; GH 34/4; CO 11; CO 3858; CO 4825.

62 WCPA, CO, 4437, List of such persons who have slaves in their possession who are either proved or suspected to have been smuggled.

206 nicole ulrich

to Brazil. The establishment of the commission indicated that aboli-tion and other imperial reforms of slavery would be enforced. Similar to their counterparts in the West Indies,63 slaves in the Cape now real-ized that their masters could not rely on the unwavering support of the British state and that change was possible if not inevitable.

Ideologically, the growing opposition to slavery in the late eigh-teenth century, which gave rise to a cross-class international move-ment, was rooted in religious nonconformists and Enlightenment debates around equality, natural laws and the rights of man.64 With the campaign against the slave trade, spearheaded in Britain by the Abolition Committee, attention was drawn to the horrific conditions on slave ships and the high mortality rates of slaves and sailors.65 The campaign was well orchestrated and, according to James Walvin, the abolition of the slave trade was instrumental in “loosening the struc-ture of slavery.”66 This victory came at a high cost. The question of slavery itself was set aside. Increasingly ideas that abolition would lead to the better treatment of slaves and that emancipation should be gradual and orderly gained in prominence. This was especially true within government circles.

Louis, Hooper, Abraham and Kelly did not understand freedom in such narrow terms. For many, unfreedom had become an unbearable contradiction after the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions, which opened new possibilities and radically altered expectations. Hooper and Kelly, who had travelled across the Atlantic and Indian oceans, knew a thing or two about the world during the ‘age of demo-cratic revolution.’ They could have told their enslaved comrades sto-ries about the Irish Rebellion, naval mutinies, or slave revolts in the Caribbean. It is difficult to confirm such speculations, but a familiar-ity with international forms of popular protest is clearly reflected in the ring leaders’ plan. Slightly different versions are outlined by the accused, but their intention was to go into the interior and instigate slaves to revolt and to “make fast all the farmers, to take away all their arms and ammunition, and to bring them as prisoners to Cape Town with their wagons and horses.”67 Once the armed party reached Cape

63 Craton, “Slave Culture and Resistance,” p. 106.64 Craton, Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation, pp. 195–9. 65 See Rediker, Slave Ship.66 Walvin, “Introduction,” p. 15.67 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Hooper, Article 10, p. 67.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 207

Town, they would take the first Battery and dispatch a “letter” to the Governor demanding him to grant slaves their freedom.68 If refused, they would “fight themselves free”, break open the prison, release the prisoners, and take possession of the magazines.69

The ring leaders believed that the slaves in Cape Town would read-ily join the revolt.70 There were also suggestions that the rebellion would be augmented by an outside force. Hooper had apparently told Kelly that “there are people five months hence who will come to join us.”71 It is not clear who Hooper may have been referring to – it could be the KhoiSan he had lived with when he first arrived in the colony or, perhaps, the revolutionary French who were supposed to assist the Irish with their rebellion. The rebels had much to win. Their fight could free all slaves in the colony and lead to the formation of a new government.

Mobilizing Rural Relations

Louis, Hooper, Abraham and Kelly needed the assistance of others in the countryside to implement their plan. It is not clear why the revolt was planned to start in the countryside. Conceivably it was for stra-tegic reasons – outlying farms were more vulnerable and slaves were concentrated in agricultural estates. They may also have drawn on the example of the 1799–1803 rebellion, when KhoiSan servants raided frontier farms for guns, ammunition, and horses to equip themselves for war.72 What is significant is that such a plan, which transcended the urban and rural divide, was possible in the first place.

Key to the plot was Jephta from Batavia, an “old acquaintance” of Louis.73 They had met when Jephta lived in Cape Town with Juffrouw (Miss) Louw and worked together as coolie-slaves.74 Jephta had since been sent back to his owner, Petrus Gerhardus Louw, master of the Vogelgezang farm in the grain-growing distinct of the Zwartland. The

68 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 69, p. 37; First Examination of Abraham, Article 71, p. 168.

69 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 69, p. 37.70 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Kelly, Article 30, p. 202.71 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Kelly, Article 52, p. 210. 72 See Newton-King, “Rebellion of the Khoi,” and Masters and Servants. 73 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 764. 74 WCPA, CJ, 516, CCC First examination of Jephta from Batavia, pp. 265–77.

208 nicole ulrich

market for grain grew steadily during the eighteenth century, but it was the early nineteenth-century price hike that allowed grain farmers to join wine producers and secure a place in the Cape gentry.75 Louw, who was one of the farmers contracted to provide ‘His Majesty’s Cav-alry’ with barley and chaff, owned twenty-eight horses, sixty oxen, and 300 sheep and his farm cultivated a total of thirty morgen of land.76 He also owned twenty-one slaves and employed five KhoiSan servants. Slave holdings in the Cape were relatively small and very few slave owners owned more slaves than Louw.77

Jephta appears to have been more skilled than most farm slaves, who mainly labored in the fields, and on occasion he drove Louw’s wagons to market. This meant he visited Cape Town regularly. He tried to convince the Court of his innocence by claiming he had not been to Cape Town for some time, but the testimony of others con-firmed that he visited Louis often.78 Louis spoke to Jephta and Piet,79 also one of Louw’s slaves, and they agreed to spread the word of the planned revolt to their fellows in the countryside.80 Rural slaves did not have the same opportunities as their urban counterparts for inter-action. This, however, did not mean that they were totally secluded. As in Jephta’s case, the lives of slaves were not static. Their circum-stances changed and they moved between the urban and rural parts of the colony. Wagon drivers and other slaves or servants who travelled regularly also served as important conduits of information.

Louw and his neighbor William Basson were suspected of being in possession of smuggled slaves and were two of the farmers who appeared in front of the committee that investigated the illicit trade in slaves.81 Louw’s slaves and servants must have been aware of the controversy surrounding the two new Mozambicans on the farm. They must have also known about the abolition of the slave trade and had seen that their own master would not be able to flout the law. In Octo-

75 Mason, Social Death and Resurrection, p. 26.76 NLSA, Cape Town Government Gazette and African Advertiser, 12 December,

No. 100; 23 January No. 106; Ross, Cape of Torments, p. 99.77 Mason, Social Death and Resurrection, p. 26. 78 WCPA, CJ, 516, First eexamination of Abraham, Article 37, p. 161; First exami-

nation of Louis, Article 12, p. 25.79 Louis testified that Piet was away with his master when the rebellion began. 80 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Abraham, Article 37, p. 161; First examina-

tion of Louis, Article 12, p. 25.81 WCPA, CO, 4437, List of such persons who have slaves in their possession who

are either proved or suspected to have been smuggled.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 209

ber, Hooper and Abraham travelled to Louw’s farm. They instructed Jephta and Cupido from Java, another solid recruit to the plot, to get the other slaves and servants ready.82 There appears to have been some restlessness amongst slaves in the district and Louw and Basson suspected that the slaves on his farm were prepared for the revolt in advance.83

Mimicking Authority

In his assessment of slave resistance in the West Indies, Michael Craton notes slave leaders would often use rumors that decrees of emancipa-tion were being withheld by local slave owners and officials to instigate those long conditioned to submit to rebel.84 In the Cape, slaves and servants had not developed the same tradition of appealing to a higher imperial authority. The ringleaders had to draw on local practices of resistance to encourage slaves to revolt. Disguise was commonly used by subalterns who wanted to avoid detection and advertisements of runaways often noted that a missing slave was pretending to be a free person or “Bastard-Hottentot.”85 Louis and his accomplices decided to strengthen their campaign by mimicking those in authority and physi-cally enacting the declaration of their own freedom.

Clothing was a key signifier of social rank and Louis provided the resources needed to procure imperial military dress and regalia. He con-tracted a tailor, Abraham from the Cape, slave of the widow Rhenius, to make three pairs of pants, a blue jacket, and two waistcoats. Lin-dor, an emancipated slave, decorated the jacket with a red collar and cuffs on the understanding that it was for an “English gentleman.”86 Louis also procured a small sword and gold and silver epaulets from an English shop and bought ostrich feathers to don his new hat.87 He

82 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Abraham, Article 120–122, pp. 174, 802, 731–2.

83 WCPA, GH, 28/2, “Appeared before the Worshipful Court of Justice His Majesty’s Fiscal William Stephanus van Rynveld, prosecutor of criminal cases,” December 5, 1808, Articles 723–5 and 995–6.

84 Genovese, Rebellion to Revolution, p. 24; Craton, “Slave Culture and Resistance,” p. 105.

85 NLSA, The Cape Town Gazette and African Advertiser, April 25, 1807, No. 67; 2 May 1807, No. 68; 1 August 1807, No. 81; December 19, 1807, No. 101.

86 Joubert, “Slawe-Opstand,” p. 14. 87 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 12, pp. 22–6.

210 nicole ulrich

also gave Hooper money to hire a wagon, which was drawn by eight black horses, for their journey into the countryside. The wagon came with three slaves and Hooper also hired another young slave to attend to them on their journey.

The rebels set out on the morning of the 25 October, taking differ-ent routes to Salt River. On their way, Louis and Hooper met Adonis from Ceylon, slave of Leendert Huybrechts. He was unable to catch the quotient of fish required by his master and deserted to avoid pun-ishment.88 Once told of the plan to revolt, “he immediately consented thereto, taking from that moment a very active part.”89 After meeting at Salt River, the party travelled to Brakfontein and spent the night in the open. Before they arrived at Louw’s farm, on the evening of October 26, Louis, Hooper, and Kelly dressed in their “uniforms” in preparation of the revolt.90

Their plan to take Louw captive was thwarted when they found he was not home. Having to improvize, Hooper and Kelly introduced Louis as a Spanish naval Captain while they pretended to be his offi-cers.91 Abraham played the role of a servant. They must have been convincing and Louw’s wife, Jacomina Laubscher, agreed to host them for the night and forage their horses. Her testimony – which details Louis, Hooper and Kelly’s performance in her home – was the only declaration given by a slave owner that was translated into English. This confirms that Court was distressed by the rebels’ usurpation of rank and, as Worden notes, the devious role reversal in which a slave became a guest of honor in a farmer’s home.92

Louw did not return that evening and the rebellion would have to wait until morning. While everyone slept, Hooper and Kelly “made themselves masters” of the epaulets, swords, jackets and Louis’s new hat and escaped out of the bedroom window.93 Hooper and Kelly tried to convince the Court that it was remorse for their actions that had motivated them to flee.94 They hoped their accomplices would follow them and the rebellion would collapse before it started. Louis, who

88 WCPA, CJ, 516, AAA Examination of Adonis, pp. 233–9. 89 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 735.90 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 737.91 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Jacomina Hendrina Laubscher, translation,

pp. 59–67.92 Worden, “Armed with Ostrich Feathers,” p. 11.93 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 739.94 Joubert, “Die Slawe-Opstand van 1808,” p. 50.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 211

claimed to be acting on the instructions of Hooper, told the Court that they had all previously agreed to split up and meet again near Salt River.95 This is apparently the course that Abraham followed. After waking Louis early on the 27 October and assembling Louw’s slaves and servants, Abraham also left the farm. He said that he was afraid and had decided to quit, but was later caught by Louis and forced to join the insurrection.96 Whether abandoned out of fearfulness or design, Louis had to rely on Jephta, Cupido and Adonis to get the rebellion going. In direct defiance of their mistress, they all followed Louis’s instructions to ready the horses and wagons, and proceeded to William Basson’s farm.

Louis, who was referred to as the Captain or General, ensured that the insurgents were well organized and disciplined. Following a simi-lar procedure on each farm, they took farmers and their sons captive and “made themselves masters of ” arms, ammunition, horses, wagons and provisions such as food, clothing and money.97 Once they reached the sixth farm, belonging to Gysbert van der Westhuisen, Louis split the procession into two.98 He appointed Cupido to lead one company with him and selected Adonis and Jonas from the Cape, slave of Amos Lambrechts, to take charge of the other.

Louis and his commanders declared that were acting on behalf of the government (in the form of the Fiscal, Governor, or General) which had given an order for all “Christian men” to be tied up and taken with their slaves to Cape Town. Once in Cape Town, all slaves would be freed.99 Louis also “showed a large paper” (probably written by Kelly) which he said confirmed his instructions.100 As the invasion of farms continued, the Captains divided their companies into smaller “com-mandos” or tactical units, which were placed under the direction of “corporals.”101 Horses and arms (guns, sabres, sjamboks (a small whip)) were given to those slaves in positions of authority and appointed to guard prisoners, wagons, provisions, and other slaves and servants.

The adoption of military organization, with a clear chain of com-mand, was a common feature of resistance movements and slave revolts

95 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Louis, Article 65, p. 36. 96 WCPA, CJ, 516, First examination of Abraham, Article 60, 62, pp. 165–6. 97 WCPA, CJ, 802, pp, 740–1. 98 WCPA, CJ, 515, pp. 40–1. 99 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 741.100 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 773; Worden, “Armed with Ostrich Feathers,” p. 21.101 WCPA, CJ, 802, pp. 730–50.

212 nicole ulrich

at the time. Toussaint L’Ouverture’s army, which played a pivotal role in the Haiti revolution, and the United Irishmen, which was based on small societies organized into companies and battalions led by offi-cers that were given military titles, are just two cases in point.102 Even locally, the anti-colonial action of the KhoiSan was partly informed by martial structures and expertise. In the eighteenth century the Khoi-San-Dutch wars gave way to constant attacks and raids by independent KhoiSan groupings on frontier farms.103 Unable to halt the constant encroachment of colonial settlement, KhoiSan were systematically dis-possessed of their livestock and access to grazing and watering areas. Many KhoiSan lost their independent way of life and were absorbed into colonial or Xhosa homesteads as a client class. In the case of colo-nial farms, relations of servitude were often enforced by violence.

Shula Marks notes that the ferocity of KhoiSan attacks on fron-tier farms intensified from the 1770s onwards and KhoiSan servants absconded daily to join Xhosa, independent KhoiSan or mixed droster groupings on the outskirts of the colony.104 As the century drew to a close, anti-colonial aspirations converged with large-scale resistance on the part of aggrieved farm servants leading to the 1799–1803 rebellion.105 After briefly courting the new British rulers, the confederacy that led the rebellion rather allied with Xhosa communities that were also in conflict with the colony. The KhoiSan rebels drew on traditional forms of social organization by arranging themselves into large bands. They were led by a number of Captains, including Klaas Stuurman, Boezak, Bovenlander, Wildeman, Jan Kaffer, and Hans Trompetter. The nego-tiated cessation of the rebellion represented the first attempt to extend the state’s reach into the private realm of master-servant relations. In 1801 the Fiscal urged that contracts with KhoiSan servants should be registered with the Court. This system would bind KhoiSan servants to their masters by preventing them from deserting, whilst stopping farmers from beating their servants ad libitum.106

With the abolition of the slave trade, farmers looked to KhoiSan as an alternative source of affordable and subjugated labor. Jacobus

102 James, Black Jacobins, pp. 116–7; Foster, Modern Ireland 1600–1972, p. 274.103 Marks, “Khoisan Resistance.” 104 Ibid., p. 73. 105 Elphick and Malherbe, “Khoisan to 1828”; Malherbe, “Khoi Captains”; Newton-

King, “Rebellion of the Khoi.”106 Dooling, Slavery, Emancipation and Colonial Rule, p. 66.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 213

Arnold van Reenen, a leading freeburger, suggested the recruitment of remaining independent communities living some distance from the colony.107 He maintained that since the Dama were poor and hindered by drought, “whole families might be allured [. . .] to serve the farm-ers at a set and reasonable fee.”108 Lord Caledon championed such concerns. He informed the Colonial Office that the abolition of the slave trade would be “severely felt” and recommended that the Cape Regiment, consisting of KhoiSan and Bastard Hottentots, should be reduced to cut costs and make more labor available.109

The future of slaves and indentured KhoiSan were integrally linked. KhoiSan servants, who developed various forms of collective resistance, joined the 1808 revolt and Arie Abel and Dirk Jager were prosecuted for their involvement. Arie Abel was particularly distressed by the unjust manner in which he had been treated. He was part of the group that broke into Hendrik Prehn’s place and told him, “jou moerneuker [. . .] jij bent altyd zo een uithaalder geweest’ (“you motherfucker, you have always been a boastful fellow”).110 Abel denied swearing at Prehn, but told the Court that Prehn had once given him a beating for no good reason.

Following Orders

Jager claimed that he had been tricked by Louis who was dressed like a military officer.111 Most slaves similarly testified that they were simply following the orders of someone they believed to be a legitimate rep-resentative of the government. They added that they had been threat-ened with violence. For instance, Geduld from Mozambique, slave of Jan Louw, testified that the Captains warned them that they would “knock in” his head if he failed to cooperate.112 Those who resisted the rebels were punished and when Joseph from the Cape, slave of Jacobus

107 WCPA, CO, 3858, Letter from Jacobus Arnold van Reenen to Caledon, n/d, no. 143.

108 Ibid.109 Dooling, Slavery, Emancipation and Colonial Rule, p. 43. 110 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 797. 111 WCPA, CJ, 516, TTTTT Examination of Dirk Jager, Article 12, p. 507.112 WCPA, CJ, 516, NNNN Examination of Geduld from Mozambique, Article 7,

p. 450.

214 nicole ulrich

Louw, tried to run away he was held at knife point, stabbed in the hand, dragged to a wagon and tied up.113

Yet, everyone managed to keep their heads and relatively little force was required to encourage slaves and servants to participate. Craton has drawn attention to the important role of leaders in West Indian slave revolts.114 It is probably due to the idea that such leaders were usually “elite” slaves that historians have incorrectly identified Louis as a skilled tailor.115 It is remarkable that a slave who could not read or write could lead a rebellion. Louis was obviously astute – his work in the tapperij allowed him to make the necessary contacts and he utilized the skills of his accomplices to plan and implement the revolt. The principals of the revolt accurately assessed the aspirations of their fellows and, in spite of their pronounced innocence, many enthusiasti-cally supported the rebellion.

Jacob from Mozambique, slave of Petrus Gerhardus Louw, even elaborated on the initial plan. He believed that all the “Christian men” had to be taken to Cape Town so that they could be placed on ships and transported to another country.116 Similar rumors were spread during the KhoiSan rebellion. According to V.C. Malherbe, such rumors were rooted in the quelling of the 1799 freeburger uprising in Graaf-Reinet when British troops arrested the leaders and transported them via a troopship, the Rattlesnake, from Algoa Bay to Cape Town.117 The re-emergence of such stories did not only reflect desires of freedom and anti-colonialism, but also reaffirmed the weaknesses of local famers in the face of imperial authority.

Victims of Violence

Reports of the insurrection only reached Lord Caledon after nine o’clock that night.118 By the time he had dispatched the infantry and cavalry to crush the uprising, thirty four farms had already been

113 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Josph van de Kaap, p. 145.114 Craton, “Slave Culture and Resistance,” p. 117.115 Worden, “Revolt in the Cape Colony,” p. 13; Ross, Cape of Torments, p. 97. 116 WCPA, CJ, 516, HHH Examination of Jacob van Mozambique, Article 14,

p. 412.117 Malherbe, “Khoi Captains,” pp. 78, 90.118 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 752.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 215

invaded and slaves were making their way to Salt River.119 Letters were dispatched to inform landdrosts in surrounding districts of the upris-ing and request their assistance in rounding up the rebels.120 To avoid any further panic, the government also assured farmers that they could rely on the effective and speedy protection of the military, should the revolt spread.121 Hooper, Kelly, Abraham, and Louis were eventually apprehended and joined more than 300 of their fellows who had been taken captive and imprisoned.

The 1808 revolt was remarkably non-violent and not one human life was lost. Later such restraint was also displayed by slaves in the 1816 revolt in Barbados, described as “relatively peaceful,“ and the 1823 revolt in Demerara, in which slaves similarly imprisoned rather than executed their masters.122 Slave owners in the Cape had much to lose – slaves punished by death could not be replaced. Nevertheless, farmers viewed the revolt as dangerously subversive. Their declara-tions provided the Court with evidence of disorder and helped identify those slaves and servants who played an active part in the revolt.

The colony’s government had changed numerous times over the last two decades and farmers were still very weary of their new Brit-ish rulers. The abolition of the slave trade and investigation into the illicit trade in slaves contributed to their anxieties. Some even believed that Louis was acting on behalf of the government and Michiel de Kok’s wife fled her farm because she had heard that English troops were rounding up all the “Christian” people and transporting them to Cape Town.123 Slavery had lost a lot of legitimacy with the abolition of the slave trade and farmers realized that they would have to make an effort to win the sympathy of their imperial rulers and restore their authority. They now had to justify and defend their role as masters. This was a new experience and marked the destabilizing impact of reforms on master-slave relations. Farmers attempted to invert power relations and portrayed themselves as the victims of violence. They stressed the barbarism of the rebels, whilst highlighting their paternal care and kind treatment of their slaves and servants.

119 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 753–4.120 WCPA, CO, 4826, Circular from Bird to Faure et al., 28 October 1808; Letter

from Bird to van der Riet, October 28, 1808. 121 WCPA, CO, 4826, Letter from Bird to van der Riet, October 28, 1808.122 Craton, “Proto-Peasant Revolts?,” pp. 102 and 106.123 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Michiel de Kok, pp. 309–10.

216 nicole ulrich

With the assistance of their loyal dependents, farmers identified those rebels who gave orders; walked and rode about with their weap-ons drawn; took and held them captive; entered into their homes and broke widows, cupboards, and cabinets; stole guns, ammunition, food, clothes and money; emptied their cellars of wine and brandy; and took possession of their wagons and horses. They told the Court of how they were threatened and insulted. When Pieter van der Westhuisen exclaimed “Oh God what befalls me!”, Louis answered, “Do you now think on God?”.124

Melt van der Spuy had a particularly difficult time. In addition to being discovered hiding in the bushes and driven in front of horses back to his house, he was threatened with a gun, hit, called a “schelm” (scoundrel) and “moerneuker” (motherfucker), and his desk was bro-ken into and papers destroyed.125 Christian Storm was dragged almost naked from his bed, taken captive and his house ransacked.126 Farmers were also humiliated by being treated as servants. With a sjambok in hand, August of the Cape, slave of Adriaan Louw, ordered Hermanus Gryling to pour wine for the rebels and fetch him a larger glass.127 Tibe-rius of the Cape, slave of Amos Lambrechts, compelled Dirk Vermey to harness his horse.128

Women were not taken captive, but this does not mean that farm-ers’ wives, daughters, and widows were left unharmed. Rebels tried to tie up Elizabeth Christina Laubscher, but she was able to make a quick escape, and Maria Christina Louw was threatened with a knife.129 Some were also ordered about like servants, such as Adriaan der Waal’s wife or Arend de Waal’s daughter who were summoned to fetch wine for the rebels.130 The most serious acts of violence were directed towards Jacoba Christina Baard, who was raped, and Adriaan Louw, an old man over 70 years who was dragged by the hair and beaten.131

124 WCPA, CJ, 515 Deposition of Pieter van der Westhuisen, p. 103, 802, p. 743. 125 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Melt van der Spuy, pp. 325–31.126 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Christian Storm, pp. 263–9. 127 WCPA, GH, 28/ 2, Appeared Before the Worshipful Court of Justice [. . .], Article

45. 128 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 803; Joubert, “Die Slawe-Opstand van 1808,” p. 45.129 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 741. 130 CJ, 802, p. 793; GH, 28/2, Appeared Before the Worshipful Court of Justice

[. . .], Article 27.131 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Jacoba Christina Baard, pp. 107–10; Adriaan

Louw pp. 127–35; 802, pp. 749–50.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 217

A few of the farmers admitted to lashing out. Melt van der Spuy warned Fortuyn that, if he had not been a Christian, he would have stabbed him with a knife.132 Thomas Fredrik Dryer threatened to blow the head off of Geduld from Mozambique, slave of Jan Louw, when ordered to surrender his gun.133 After a successful getaway, Prehn loaded his gun with small shot and fired on the rebels (although the Court pointed out that he did not wound a single man).134 For the most part, “Christian men” were surprizingly subdued, or at least por-trayed themselves as such in their attempt to distance themselves from any unjustified or brutal violence exercized by a male in authority. Any attempt to thwart the rebels was usually attributed to actions of their wives and daughters. Elizabeth Christina Laubscher, for instance, tried to prevent her son from being tied up and questioned the rebels about which Fiscal had given them their orders.135 The wives of Nicho-laas Everhardus Mosterd and Evert Laubscher bribed Tiberius of the Cape with four Spanish dollars, six silver shillings and a silver watch to conceal their husbands.136

Farmers wanted to be viewed as loving patriarchs who inspired devotion and loyalty. Hugo van Niekerk, for instance, recollected that his slave Isaac asked for permission to fetch his kris (ceremonial knife) so that he could kill the Captain of the slave gang.137 Van Niekerk refused because he did not want any unnecessary violence or murder. Loyalty of slaves was rewarded. Abraham from the Cape, slave of Adri-aan de Waal, was able to convince the Court that he only participated in the revolt because he was following the instructions of his master.138 Abraham drove the wagon in which his master was taken captive with the view of protecting him from insurgents and quickly got rid of any weapons given to him. He only entered houses when his master gave him permission and intervened when a woman was threatened with a knife. The Court absolved Abraham from further prosecution and released him from detention back into the care of his master.

132 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Melt van der Spuy, p. 328.133 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 781.134 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Hendrik Prehn p.356; 802, p. 751.135 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Elizabeth Christina Laubscher, pp. 76–83. 136 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Nicholaas Everhardus Mosterd, pp. 301, CJ, 802,

pp. 770–1.137 WCPA, CJ, 515, Deposition of Hugo Hendrick van Niekerk, pp. 152–3.138 WCPA, 802, pp. 805–7.

218 nicole ulrich

After the trial, farmers wrote a letter to Lord Caledon. They expressed their gratitude for the Governor’s protection, arguing that their “wives and children would inevitably have fallen victim to the fury of the insurgents” if he had not acted with such haste.139 They were also quick to point out that “they themselves gave no cause whatsoever for the revolt” and not one of the slaves on trial complained about ill treat-ment. Even before the introduction of ameliorative measures in the 1820s, slaves could lodge complaints of ill treatment with authorities.140 They were rarely taken seriously and they were punished if their com-plaint could not be substantiated. The claim that slave owners at the Cape treated their slave well is questionable – Adonis had runaway from his master to avoid harsh punishment and Abel told the court he had received an unjustified beating from Prehn. Nevertheless, the concern about treatment during the rebels’ trial marked a significant shift in the discourse around slavery after abolition. Their arguments implied that slave owners’ authority was not absolute and it was much more acceptable for slaves to protest against ill abuse.

Setting an Example

Members of the Court were also slave owners and identified with the farmers’ ordeal. In the Court’s summary of the evidence the rebels’ excesses, committed “under exclamations of Huzza [encouragement],” were emphasized.141 Yet, in addition to examining a large number of prisoners and witnesses, the Court had to find a balance between proc-lamations, such as the Statutes of India, that regulated slavery and the concerns of the War and Colonial Office. Since slaves and servants unanimously declared to have been well treated by their masters, the Court argued that their crimes could not be tolerated and they would have to be punished according to the vigor of the law. Their punish-ment would serve “as an example and deter others from doing the like.”142

139 WCPA, CO, 11, Letter from G.A. Miller et al. to Caledon, December 3, 1808.140 Dooling, “ ‘The Good Opinion of Others’,” p. 29.141 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 748. 142 WCPA, GH, 28/2, Appeared Before the Worshipful Court of Justice [. . .] (pre-

amble, no page number).

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 219

The Court argued that slaves not under the strictest subordination of their masters were amongst the most dangerous enemies of the state.143 Plakkaten of September 5, 1754, and August 22, 1794 stipulated that any slave found guilty of acting violently without the knowledge of their master must be sentenced to death.144 The Court maintained, however, that it would be “cruel” and “dangerous” to kill all of the accused, especially since not a single slave lifted a hand against his own master.145 The Court argued that some of the rebels were guiltier than others and went to great lengths to determine different degrees of punishment. Seven of the accused were found guilty of high trea-son, including Louis, James Hooper, Abraham, Michael Kelly, Adonis, Jephta, and Cupido. Even though Hooper and Kelly fled before the revolt started, the Court did not believe that their remorse was sincere and argued that they knew of and intended to take part in an insur-rection against the state.146 The remaining prisoners were found guilty of public violence and punished in proportion to their crime.147

The punishments proposed were very harsh. At first the Court pro-posed that twenty nine of the rebels should be sentenced to death, but this was later reduced to sixteen.148 In line with the spectacularly violent punishment of criminal and political dissidents during the eighteenth century, Louis, Hooper, Abraham and Cupido (accused of raping Baard) were sentenced to hang and their quartered bodies to be placed on stakes in different districts and displayed in public.149

In his report to the War and the Colonial Office, Lord Caledon downplayed the seriousness of the revolt, whilst highlighting his swift and effective action.150 He claimed that most of the insurgents, who were “half naked and for the most part unarmed,” had been deluded into following someone they believed to be a government messenger.151 They scarcely questioned “one whom they looked upon as

143 WCPA, CJ, 514, p. 87. 144 WCPA, CJ, 514, pp. 89–90.145 WCPA, GH, 28/2, Appeared Before the Worshipful Court of Justice [. . .], Arti-

cles 1665, 1560.146 WCPA, GH, 28/2, Appeared Before the Worshipful Court of Justice [. . .], Arti-

cles 637–92.147 WCPA, GH, 28/2, Appeared Before the Worshipful Court of Justice [. . .], Article

1619.148 WCPA, CJ, 802, pp. 810–1.149 WCPA, CJ, 802, p. 811.150 WCPA, GH 28 2, Letter from Caledon to Castlereagh, 11 November 1808, No. 58. 151 Ibid.

220 nicole ulrich

the harbinger of their good fortune”.152 No lives were lost and “scarcely any property was destroyed.”153 In line with the Court, the Governor emphasized that “no slave used violence in securing the person of his master” and all the prisoners “bore testimony of the humanity invari-ably observed towards them by their proprietors”.154

Lord Caledon was anxious to “protect the ignorant and misled from the consequences of their folly” and radically revised the rebels’ sentences.155 He commuted eleven death sentences and only five of the ringleaders were to be hanged. Their corpses – still condemned to rot in the open – were not to be quartered. Caledon claimed that while Adonis and Michael Kelly were guilty of wrongdoing, they did not participate in the initial plot.156 Their punishment was suspended until the “pleasure of His Majesty” was known.157 Nine (as opposed to thirteen) rebels were banished and sentenced to hard labor for fifteen years or more. Three (as opposed to sixteen) were confined to chains, and then only for a maximum period of five years. Contrary to the Court’s usual reliance on corporal punishment, only seven of the reb-els were to be whipped and none were to be otherwise mutilated. More than half of those found guilty were not to be punished directly. After witnessing the scourging and hanging of their comrades, they were returned to their masters.

Compared to the bloody reprisals of slave owners and local admin-istrations in subsequent slave rebellions in the West Indies, the Cape Governor treated the rebels mercifully. Worden argues that Caledon returned most slaves and servants to “reinforce the authority of their owners to inflict retribution”.158 However, the complexities of the rela-tionship between the first civil Governor under the British Empire and the Cape’s upper class should not be underestimated.159 Caledon was constrained by the imperatives of a modern empire and shared many of the War and Colonial Office’s concerns. It is likely that Caledon, a relatively young official, would have drawn on the examples of other

152 Ibid.153 Ibid.154 Ibid.155 WCPA, CJ, 90, p. 197. 156 WCPA, GH, 34/3, Letter from Caledon to Court of Justice, 29 December 1808. 157 WCPA, CJ, 90, p. 198.158 Worden, “Armed with Ostrich Feathers,” p. 27. 159 Dooling, Slavery, Emancipation and Colonial Rule, pp. 100–1.

the 1808 revolt in the cape colony 221

unsuccessful revolts in the Empire before he acted. Viscount Cas-tlereagh, who was still serving as Secretary of State for War and the Colonies at the time, had previously played a key role in the crushing of the Irish Rebellion, in which he argued that only the leaders should be punished harshly. Caledon appears to have adopted a similar strat-egy in dealing with the 1808 rebels in the Cape.

In addition, Caledon went on to play a key role in regulating labor relations in the colony, which would prove a key feature of early British rule in the Cape. In 1809 he passed a code that curtailed the movement of KhoiSan within the colony, forcing them into service. Master-slave relationships were still infused with violence, but farm-ers were prevented from using excessive force when correcting their indentured servants. With the defeat of the rebels, the radical voices of slaves and servants were briefly silenced. For the next few years, the debate on labor centered on the humane regulation of unfree workers as opposed to emancipation.

Conclusion

By questioning methodological nationalism and placing the Cape in a global context, the 1808 revolt takes on new meaning. It shows that slaves in the Cape were not separated from other subalterns. Slaves and servants forged social networks that spanned significant socio-graphical spaces, connecting the port with the hinterland and the local with the international. They were part of the multiracial laboring poor who worked, lived and socialized in the port and participated in a maritime world that stretched across oceans and connected different continents. Their social networks facilitated the spread of ideas and enabled resistance. Subalterns in the Cape, who were schooled in vari-ous forms of protest, were profoundly influenced by the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire as well as the world of revolution that characterized the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

The 1808 revolt should not be viewed as an isolated challenge to colonial rule and bondage, but was part of a global trend. The rebels’ fight for freedom was at the forefront of a renewed cycle of protest in the British Empire that was inspired by the reform of slavery and contributed to the ending of slavery. The rebels were unable to wait for gradual and orderly emancipation. They did not articulate a desire for a new egalitarian order, but their call for freedom was echoed by

222 nicole ulrich

radicals including Robert Wedderburn and early Chartists such as G.J. Harney and William Cuffay.160

After the rebels’ defeat, slaves in the Cape were quick to take advan-tage of the ameliorative measures called for mainly by missionaries. Worden argues that slaves developed a new consciousness of rights that transformed both slavery and slave resistance.161 The hope of freedom was rekindled by Lord Somerset’s proclamation, designed to Chris-tianize and uplift slaves, and in 1825 Galant led a small disturbance by slaves and KhoiSan farm servants.162 Such outbursts were apparently not unusual and, according to Galant’s prosecutor, represented “the fire of discontent at the frustrated hope of general freedom.”163

160 McCalman, “Anti-Slavery and Ultra-Radicalism,” pp. 99–117.161 Worden, “Revolt in the Cape Colony,” p. 13. 162 Mason, Social Death and Resurrection, pp. 66, 46.163 Quoted in Mason, Social Death and Resurrection, p. 66.