[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
Time: 9:47:33 PM
Remote Name: 188.8.131.52
One thing the Davey book does is make you ask yourself the question what made Morant think he was justified in doing what he did? Naturally, this is open to speculation because it's not evidence we can point to. Our best bet is to also look at what was happening around Morant and includes the role of his superiors and subordinates. Davey quotes a circumstance where a Boer was shot after surrendering. The Tasmanians who shot him were exonerated because the Boer shot one of their Officers, threw down his gun and held up his hands. Are they any less guilty than Morant in the eyes of Military Law? Technically, no but who would say they weren't justified?
Taylor appears to be a very cruel man. He kills "kaffirs" indiscriminantly and would appear to be the type of guy who would maliciously burn a village if he couldn't get the information he needed. He is constantly quoted as saying not to take Boer prisoners punishing Morant when he disobeyed him by making him pay for their rations. That Morant flips out when Hunt is killed causes him to go on a rampage that, to a point, had been a way of life for him. How else could he let all and sundry know he was very very annoyed?
Heese's killing is a problem to. If it was to wipe out another wittness, wouldn't Morant already know that some of the BVC troopers had disagreed with his methods and they would talk? Then again, this is why Handcock kills him away from the camp. Next question? Who pressured the Boer women to give him an alibi?