Breaker Morant- Was He A Scapegoat?

Great Debates
1

I’ve used the mae Breaker Morant as it is far more recognisable than the person killed by firing squad alongside him, Lt Handcock.

The majority od members I assume have heard of the movie about Morant, and there have been many, many books written.

The Wiki article ishere.

A very basic summation is this:

The “incidents” occurred during the Boer War, towards the end. The Boers had been losing on the battlefield and had resorted mainly to Commando tactics. Handcock, Morant and others were attached to an irregular unit attached to the British Army (Bushveldt Carbineers). This unit was in a particularly savage and isolated area.

Lord Kitchener was in overall command, and had seemingly issued a “take no prisoners” order. I would add that concentration camps had been built by the British- the conflict was that savage.

Anyway, bottom line- a friend of Morant had been killed by the Boers- whether it was an execution or in battle is unclear. Whatever, it is clear that several Boer prisoners were executed on the orders of Morant after the death.

A time later, word of the executions by Morant surfaced and their was a court martial. Morant and Handcock were sentenced to death by firing squad after a show trial and the sentence was carried out. Kitchener himself signed the death warrants and absented himself on the day of the executions so no appeal for a delay could be made to him.

No advice was given to their families or indeed the Australian Govt of their execution. The transcripts of the court martials disappeared somewhat convincingly.

A 1907 book “Scapegoats of the Empire” made it clear that such executions were widespread by the British Forces and condoned by Kitchener. This book was written by one of the accused who escaped the death penalty.

There is a divide between those who see Morant/ Handcock as war criminals (especially in RSA) and those who believe they were indeed scapegoats for Kitchener.

Anyone care to contribute to the debate?

2

The trial he got made it clear the court wasn’t going to be impartial, I don’t know how anyone can argue otherwise.

I thought the point of his story was to show how a commanders perceived military necessity can be unsavory when morality shines on a soldiers actions. The result is to condemn the soldier rather than reassess the value of the mission or the tactics used. It’s not just about powerful men covering their ass, men fight and die for an objective (hill, town, river) that objective needs to be above reproach.

3

Well two bob each way so to speak. They were sure as shit fitted up but they also did the crime and invoked the “I was never a member of the Nazi party I was just following orders” defence. Remember Morant admitted to killing unarmed prisoners and civilians including a pastor.

4

Sitnam, I’m not sure I follow your argument- I am not disagreeing, I am just saying to me it is unclear- you say and I quote:
“I thought the point of his story was to show how a commanders perceived military necessity can be unsavory when morality shines on a soldiers actions”

Whose story? I think you mean Kitchener’s orders or necessity were unsavoury when Morant performed the actions and the spotlight was on those same actions. And I am trying to not impart too many thoughts, but I also believe that Kitchener was pretty gutless in the exercise.

5

I’ve seen the movie but I don’t know the story otherwise. Which means I’ve probably only heard one side of the story.

You might consider the implications of this:

This can’t be considered an impartial source.

As don’t ask pointed out, even Morant’s supporters concede he killed prisoners. He was guilty. So the only question is whether other people were also guilty.

6

Morant was acquitted of killing Reverend Heese. I don’t believe there was an admission.

7

There is no doubt he killed prisoners. That was admitted and he was executed for it.

I also have no doubt that other military forces killed prisoners.

So we come back to the question- was Morant a scapegoat?

8

And to be quite clear, I have no feelings both way but I have no firm position on whether he is a criminal or a victim.

9

As I say I think he was both and the story made a great movie but I am no fan of requesting pardons for self confessed war criminals because other war criminals got away with it.

10

How many in high command were tried for war crimes? Executing a soldier for his actions implies he acted alone and his course was an anomaly.

You can’t both admit he was following orders and condemn him without condemning the officers. While that’s what appears to have happened, I’m under the impression a scapegoat must ultimately be innocent, which is certainly not the case here.

11

There’s still debate about this. If yoyu visit the Wikipedia page, you find this(among other things):

So you could make the case that they weren’t scapegoats.

I’ve seen the film multiple times, and read Kit Denton’s book, which eloquently make the case for Morant. I recall reading (although neither Wikkipedia page seems to reprint it) that Beresford later learnbed that Morant wasn’t quite as civil and likeable a figure as he’d assumed. But that’s not an excuse to execute him.

12

I don’t know about a scapegoat needing to be innocent. My undertsanding the the said goat is just saddled with all the sins of others. However, I do agree with you and Cal Meacham as below.

I find it difficult to see them as scapegoats, as I can’t understand what they were being scapegoated for. If Kitchener had issued a no prisoners order - and it doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to believe he did- executing two junior officers would not hide that. Others would have known of the existence of the order. It had been a vicious, harsh war on both sides.

As CalMeacham points out, the problem for Morant and Handcock was that they did take prisoners and then shot them.

Perhaps rather than scapegoats, they were seen as "examples’. The shooting of a couple of Australians would not cause too much of an outcry. It didn’t in Australia at the time it was announced.

Also, I think CalMeacham is correct again in pointing out that Morant was not the romantic figure that some see him as. In the book “Gallipoli Sniper”, a Boer War veteran who knew Morant was interviewed. His statement was “If he hadn’t been shot for that, he would have been shot for something else”.

13

Is there any solid evidence that other soldiers were doing this? It’s one thing for Morant, Handcock, and Witton to say it was common practice and condoned by higher ups. But if that was the case, there would presumably be other reports of executions (by the Boers is no one else).

The fact that other soldiers who served in the unit thought these executions were wrong and reported them and the fact that the officers involved were all arrested as soon as the reports were made seems to indicate this wasn’t something that was regarded as normal practice.

14

Definitely a scapegoat IMO. Certainly not an innocent scapegoat however.

I’m not sure you can call them ‘examples’ as the war continued on business as usual for another 3 months after the execution with no change to the scorched earth policy Kitchener had instituted.

In all honesty I can’t really argue with the end result. Particularly given the defense was ultimately “I was just following orders”. (And we all know how well that defense worked 40 something years later.)

The two issues I’ve had with the whole incident, and what stinks to high heaven for me is;

The actual trial process itself was terrible, a total railroading, a forgone conclusion. Kitchener had decide from the outset that it would be a guilty verdict and that was that,

The total contempt shown for reference to Australia when deciding the fate of, and sentencing to death, two Australian soldiers. The worst kind of patronising ‘I’m the the father’ type attitude England expressed towards Australia in that time period.

15

It’s hard to argue they were railroaded when they were in fact guilty of the crimes they were accused of. What would a long slow trial have established? That Morant and Handcock hadn’t shot the prisoners? To me, a court martial that exonerated Morant and Handcock would have been a greater injustice than a court martial that found them guilty.

16

I think this is the main point.

With a hundred years of legal precedent and the example of Nuremberg, everyone now accepts that “I was only following orders” is not an excuse for murder. IOW everyone agrees that Morant *should *have been shot under the justice system of the day.

Whether he got a “fair trial” seems rather irrelevant, since we all agree that he should still have been shot even if the trial had been completely fair.

As for whether he was a “scapegoat”, that depends entirely on how you define scapegoat. In general usage a scapegoat refers to a person who, like the literal scapegoat, has no part in the crimes committed but is forced to bear the consequences of them.

I’m sure there are usages of “scapegoat” that allows the person to be actually guilty of the crimes they were accused of and given a punishment befitting those crimes, but that isn’t the normal usage. Generally for cases where a small subsection of guilty people are punished to appease those who want justice/revenge, we refer to them “being thrown to the wolves”.

Morant was almost certainly thrown to the wolves, insofar as all the evidence indicates that killing prisoners or isuing “no quarters” orders was fairly common in the war, but Morant and Co were the only ones tried for the crime.

But he wasn’t a scapegoat in the normal sense of the word.

17

I tried to think of any stories I had read for Little Nemo at #13 above- I do know I have here (somewhere) a book by the War Correspondent Banjo Paterson of his times in the Boer War. It has been a few years since I have read it, but I can’t remember any indications of such shootings.

However, in trying to determine the name of the book (I failed) I did come across a newspaper article in relation to Morant written after the execution.

In part it states:

Such as
he was, he was the same to all men. With a good commander over him he
might have made a fine soldier. As it turned out he got into exactly the
worst company that a man of his temperament could have met–it was
always so with him. He gambled with his chances all through life, and
the cards ran against him. What is it that such men lack–just a touch
of determination, or of caution, maybe–to turn their lives from
failures to successes? His death was consistent with his life, for
though he died as a criminal he died a brave man facing the rifles with
his eyes unbandaged. For him Gordon’s lines would make a fitting
epitaph:

An aptitude to mar and break
What others diligently make
That was the best and worst of him.
Wise, with the cunning of the snake;
Brave, with the sea-wolf’s courage grim;
Dying hard and dumb, torn limb from limb."

(This is public domain so there are no copyright issues.)

Meanwhile, the search for my book continues.

18

Maybe railroaded is the wrong term. But the court martial was the furthest thing from a fair trial you could find. I’m not advocating a long and slow trial, but a bit of due process as opposed to the kangaroo court that was held should have been in order.

Thanks Blake for coming up with Being thrown to the Wolves, I completely agree that’s a much more appropriate term than Scapegoat in this case.

19

Cicero et al, time to catch up with the news about the Breaker! Check on line and my web site, www.breakermorant.com

I have been working on this case for nearly 3 years, having petitioned the Queen, made submissions to the British and Australian governments. The case is delicately poised as the Australian government considers a submission to the British government.

I do not rely on the movie or play on the Breaker nor do I indulge in fanciful and self serving debate about the history of the matter. I am only interested in whether Lieutenants Morant, Handock and Witton were arrested, tried and sentenced in accordance with the laws of 1902. The superior orders issues is also relevant and one that I have focused on, having uncovered indisputable evidence that orders to take no prisoners did exist and were followed by British units as they battled the Boers.

I believe I have produced sufficient doubt about the legality of the convictions and sentences to justify an independent judicial inquiry. Of course, conservative forces in support of the British government’s position are resisting judicial scrutiny on a case that has remained controversial for 110 years.

This case is b being taken very seriously by the Australian government. In October 2011, the then Attorney General of Australia, Mr McClelland, MP informed me that he was concerned about the denial of due process after a review was done by his department. In part he stated:

‘I am impressed by the significant work that you have undertaken on the men’s cases. You have undertaken significant research into the men’s convictions and sentences and it is clear that you are dedicated to ensuring that this matter is comprehensively reviewed. I am sure your efforts are appreciated by the men’s descendants. I want to ensure that the British government is aware that questions exist as to whether the men received fair treatment in accordance with the standards accepted at that time.’ I have been persuaded in large part by the work that you have undertaken, that this case does raise procedural concerns’

In conclusion,. while historians debate the issues and patrons continue to enjoy the play and movie, the fact remains, doubts about the legality of the convictions and sentences will not be settled until an independent inquiry is convened. The descendants of these men expect a fair and professional review. Resistance to a transparent review fears what the truth may reveal, that these men were scapegoats for a flawed military policy in fighting the Boers, (a determined foe!) and denied fair trials according to the laws of 1902. I will keep the forum advised on developments>

20

James Unkles, I did read the reference to your good self atthe bottomof the wiki article.

Obviously, all input is welcome here and your knowledge could well be invaluable.

Just for absolute clarity for other members, I had not heard of James Unkles prior to the Wiki article and have not had any prior communication.