The Vow

No verbatim record of the vow exists. The version often considered to be the original vow is in fact W.E.G. Louw's ca. 1962 translation into Afrikaans of G.B.A. Gerdener's reconstruction of the vow in his 1919 biography of Sarel Cilliers (Bailey 2003:25).

The wording of the Vow is:Afrikaans: Hier staan ons voor die Heilige God van hemel en aarde om ʼn gelofte aan Hom te doen, dat, as Hy ons sal beskerm en ons vyand in ons hand sal gee, ons die dag en datum elke jaar as ʼn dankdag soos ʼn Sabbat sal deurbring; en dat ons ʼn huis tot Sy eer sal oprig waar dit Hom behaag, en dat ons ook aan ons kinders sal sê dat hulle met ons daarin moet deel tot nagedagtenis ook vir die opkomende geslagte. Want die eer van Sy naam sal verheerlik word deur die roem en die eer van oorwinning aan Hom te gee.
 

• English: We stand here before the Holy God of heaven and earth, to make a vow to Him that, if He will protect us and give our enemy into our hand, we shall keep this day and date every year as a day of thanksgiving like a sabbath, and that we shall erect a house to His honour wherever it should please Him, and that we will also tell our children that they should share in that with us in memory for future generations. For the honour of His name will be glorified by giving Him the fame and honour for the victory.

The "official" version of the event is that a public vow was taken by a Trekker commando on 16 December 1838 at Ncome River (Blood River) which bound future descendants to commemorate the day as a religious holiday (sabbath) in the case of victory over the Zulu. In 1841 the victorious Trekkers built The Church of the Vow at Pietermaritzburg, and passed the obligation to keep the vow on to their descendants.

As the original vow was never recorded in verbatim form, descriptions come from the diary of Jan Bantjes ,possibly written on 9 December; a dispatch written by Pretorius to the Volksraad on 23 December 1838; and the recollections of Sarel Cilliers in 1871. A participant in the battle, Dewald Pretorius, wrote his recollections in 1862, interpreting the vow as including the building of churches and schools (Bailey 2003:31).

Jan B. Bantjes (1817–1887), Pretorius' secretary, indicates that the initial promise was to build a House in return for victory. He notes that Pretorius called everyone together, and asked them to pray for God's help. Bantjes writes that Pretorius told the assembly that he wanted to make a vow, "if everyone would agree" (Bailey 2003:24). Bantjes does not say whether everyone did so. Perhaps the fractious nature of the Boers dictated that the raiding party held their own prayers in the tents of various leading men (Mackenzie 1997:73). Pretorius is also quoted as wanting to have a book written to make known what God had done to even "our last descendants".

Pretorius in his 1838 dispatch mentions a vow (Afrikaans: gelofte) in connection with the building of a church, but not that it would be binding for future generations.

we here have decided among ourselves...to make known the day of our victory...among the whole of our generation, and that we want to devote it to God, and to celebrate [it] with thanksgiving, just as we...promised [beloofd] in public prayer

Andries Pretorius, 

Contrary to Pretorius, and in agreement with Bantjes, Cilliers in 1870 recalled a promise (Afrikaans: belofte), not a vow, to commemorate the day and to tell the story to future generations. Accordingly, they would remember:

the day and date, every year as a commemoration and a day of thanksgiving, as though a Sabbath...and that we will also tell it to our children, that they should share in it with us, for the remembrance of our future generations

Sarel Cilliers, 

Cilliers writes that those who objected were given the option to leave. At least two persons declined to participate in the vow. Scholars disagree about whether the accompanying English settlers and servants complied (Bailey 2003). This seems to confirm that the promise was binding only on those present at the actual battle. Mackenzie (1997) claims that Cilliers may be recalling what he said to men who met in his tent.

Up to the 1970s the received version of events was seldom questioned, but since then scholars have questioned almost every aspect. They debate whether a vow was even taken and, if so, what its wording was. Some argue that the vow occurred on the day of the battle, others point to 7 or 9 December. Whether Andries Pretorius or Sarel Cilliers led the assembly has been debated; and even whether there was an assembly. The location at which the vow was taken has also produced diverging opinions, with some rejecting the Ncome River site for (Bailey 2003).

Disagreements exist about the extent to which the date was commemorated before the 1860s. Some historians maintained that little happened between 1838 and 1910. Historian S.P. Mackenzie argues that the day was not commemorated before the 1880s. Initial observations may have been limited to those associated with the battle at Ncome River and their descendants. While Sarel Cilliers upheld the day, Andries Pretorius did not (Ehlers 2003).

Informal commemorations may have been held in the homes of former Voortrekkers in Pietermaritzburg in Natal. Voortrekker pastor Rev. Erasmus Smit announced the "7th annual" anniversary of the day in 1844 in De Natalier newspaper, for instance. Bailey mentions a meeting at the site of the battle in 1862 (Bailey 2003:29,32).

In 1864 the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in Natal decreed that all its congregations should observe the date as a day of thanksgiving. The decision was spurred by the efforts of two Dutch clergymen working in Pietermaritsburg during the 1860s, D.P.M. Huet and F. Lion Cachet. Large meetings were held in the church in Pietermaritzburg in 1864 and 1865 (Bailey 2003:33).

In 1866 the first large scale meeting took place at the traditional battle site, led by Cachet. Zulus who gathered to watch proceedings assisted the participants in gathering stones for a commemorative cairn. In his speech Cachet called for the evangelization of black heathen. He relayed a message received from the Zulu monarch Cetshwayo. In his reply to Cetshwayo, Cachet hoped for harmony between the Zulu and white Natalians. Trekker survivors recalled events, an institution which in the 1867 observation at the site included a Zulu (Bailey 2003:35).

Huet was of the same opinion as Delward Pretorius. He declared at a church inauguration in Greytown on 16 December 1866 that its construction was also part of fulfilling the vow (Bailey 2003:35).

Die Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek declared 16 December a public holiday in 1865, to be commemorated by public religious services. However, until 1877, the general public there did not utilize the holiday as they did in Natal. Cricket matches and hunts were organized, some businesses remained open, and newspapers were sold. The name Dingane's Day appeared for the first time in the media, in an 1875 edition of De Volksstem. That newspaper wondered whether the lack of support for the holiday signaled a weakening sense of nationalism (Bailey 2003:37,38).

After the Transvaal was annexed by the British in 1877, the new government refrained from state functions (like Supreme Court sittings) on the date (Bailey 2003:41).

The desire by the Transvaal to retrieve its independence prompted the emergence of Afrikaner nationalism and the revival of 16 December in that territory. Transvaal burgers held meetings around the date to discuss responses to the annexation. In 1879 the first such a meeting convened at Wonderfontein on the West Rand. Burgers disregarded Sir G.J. Wolseley, the governor of Transvaal, who prohibited the meeting on 16 December. The following year they held a similar combination of discussions and the celebration of Dingane's Day at Paardekraal (Bailey 2003:43).

Paul Kruger, president of the Transvaal Republic, believed that failure to observe the date led to the loss of independence and to the first Anglo-Boer war as a divine punishment. Before initiating hostilities with the British, a ceremony was held at Paardekraal on 16 December 1880 in which 5,000 burghers [citizens] piled a cairn of stones that symbolized past and future victories (over the Zulu and the British).

After the success of its military campaign against the British, the Transvaal state organized a Dingane's Day festival every five years. At the first of these in 1881, an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 people listened to speeches by Kruger and others (Gilliomee 1989). At the third such festival in 1891, Kruger emphasized the need for the festival to be religious in nature (Ehlers 2003).

The Free State government in 1894 declared 16 December a holiday (Bailey 2003).

The Union state in 1910 officially declared Dingane's Day as a national public holiday.

In 1938 D.F. Malan, leader of the National Party, reiterated at the site that its soil was "sacred." He said that the Blood River battle established "South Africa as a civilized Christian country" and "the responsible authority of the white race". Malan compared the battle to the urban labour situation in which whites had to prevail (Ehlers 2003).

In 1952 the ruling National Party passed the Public Holidays Act (Act 5 of 1952), in which section 2 declared the day to be a religious public holiday. Accordingly, certain activities were prohibited, such as organized sports contests, theatre shows, and so on (Ehlers 2003). Pegging a claim on this day was also forbidden under section 48(4)(a) of the Mining Rights (Act 20 of 1967; repealed by the Minerals Act (Act 50 of 1991).

In 1961 the African National Congress chose 16 December to initiate a series of sabotages, signaling its decision to embark on an armed struggle against the regime through its military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe.

In 1983 the South African government vetoed the decision by the acting government of Namibia to discontinue observing the holiday. In response, the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance resigned its 41 seats in Namibia's 50-seat National Assembly.

Act 5 of 1952 was repealed in 1994 by Act No. 36 of 1994,  which changed the name of the public holiday to the Day of Reconciliation.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission started its work on 16 December 1995.

Those who celebrate the holiday argue that commemoration has nothing to do with racial dynamics; they are simply remembering to give thanks for divine deliverance from certain destruction. Detractors from this viewpoint claim that the victors were of one and the defeated from another race and that celebrating the breaking of the power of a Zulu tyrant creates racial tension. Yet others point out that the defeated Zulu leader, Dingane, was in fact a usurper of the throne who murdered the famous King Shaka; that the ultimate victors of the greater conflict were an alliance of Boers and a Shaka loyalist Zulu force led by Prince Mpande, who was the rightful heir; and that consequently, it is illegitimate to politicize the events at all, whether in a nationalist or liberal sense.

Scholars like historian Leonard Thompson have said that the events of the battle were woven into a new myth that justified racial oppression on the basis of racial superiority and divine providence. Accordingly, the victory over Dingaan was reinterpreted as a sign that God confirmed the rule of whites over black Africans, justifying the Boer project of acquiring land and eventually ascending to power in South Africa. In post-apartheid South Africa the holiday was criticized as a racist holiday, which celebrates the success of Boer expansion over the black natives.

By comparison with the large number of Afrikaners who participated in the annual celebrations of the Voortrekker victory, some did take exception. In 1971, for instance, Pro Veritate, the journal of the anti-apartheid organization the Christian Institute of Southern Africa, devoted a special edition to the matter.

Historian Anton Ehlers traces how political and economic factors changed the themes emphasized during celebrations of the Day of the Vow. During the 1940s and 1950s Afrikaner unity was emphasized over against black Africans. This theme acquired broader meaning in the 1960s and 1970s, when isolated "white" South Africa was positioned against the decolonization of Africa. The economic and political crises of the 1970s and 1980s forced white Afrikaners to rethink the apartheid system. Afrikaner and other intellectuals began to critically evaluate the historical basis for the celebration. The need to include English and "moderate" black groups in reforms prompted a de-emphasis on "the ethnic exclusivity and divine mission of Afrikaners" (Ehlers 2003).

The Battle of Blood River (Afrikaans: Slag van Bloedrivier; Zulu: iMpi yaseNcome) is the name given for the battle fought between 470 Voortrekkers led by Andries Pretorius, and an estimated 10,000–15,000 Zulu attackers on the bank of the Ncome River on 16 December 1838, in what is today KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Casualties amounted to three thousand of king Dingane's soldiers dead, including two Zulu princes competing with prince Mpande for the Zulu throne. Three Trekker commando members were lightly wounded, including Pretorius himself.

In the sequel to the Battle of Blood River in January 1840, prince Mpande finally defeated Dingane in the Battle of Maqongqe, and was subsequently crowned as new king of the Zulus by his alliance partner Andries Pretorius. After these two battles of succession, Dingane's prime minister and commander in both the Battle of Maqonqe and the Battle of Blood River, general Ndlela, was strangled to death by Dingane on account of high treason. General Ndlela had been the personal protector of prince Mpande, who after the Battles of Blood River and Maqongqe, became king and founder of the Zulu dynasty.

The Trekkers called Voortrekkers after 1880 decided to dethrone Zulu chief Dingane kaSenzangakhona after the betrayal murder of chief Trekker leader Piet Retief, his entire entourage, and some of their women and children living in temporary wagon encampments during 1838.

On 6 February 1838, two days after the signing of a negotiated land settlement deal between Retief and Dingane at UmGungundlovu, which included Trekker access to Port Natal in which Britain had imperial interest, Dingane invited Retief and his party into his royal residence for a beer-drinking farewell. The accompanying request for the surrender of Trekker muskets at the entrance was taken as normal protocol when appearing before the king. While the Trekkers were being entertained by Dingane's dancing soldiers, Dingane suddenly accused the visiting party of witchcraft.Dingane's soldiers then proceeded to impale all Retief's men, lastly clubbing to death Retief, while leaving the Natal treaty in his handbag intact.


Immediately after the UmGungundlovu massacre, Dingane sent out his impis (regiments) to attack several Trekker encampments at night time, killing an estimated 500 men, women, children, and servants, most notably at Blaukraans.Help arrived from farmers in the Cape Colony, and the Trekkers in Natal subsequently requested the pro-independence Andries Pretorius to leave the Cape Colony, in order to dethrone chief Dingane.After the Battle of Blood River, the Dingane-Retief treaty was found on Retief's bodily remains, providing a driving force for an overt alliance against Dingane between Zulu prince Mpande and Pretorius.