Let me say a few words more about this term "Guerillas." We will suppose
that England has captured New York, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Paris,
Amsterdam, or any other capital of a free and independent State, Kingdom
or Empire, and that the Government of such State, Kingdom or Empire
still continues to defend itself. Would England then be entitled to call
their antagonists "Guerillas"? Or, we will suppose that England's
capital has been taken by another nation, but the English Government
still remains in existence. Could England then be considered to be
annexed by the other nation, and could the enemy term the English
"Guerillas"? Surely it would be impossible!

The only case in which one can use this word, is when one civilized
nation has so completely vanquished another, that not only is the
capital taken, but also the country from border to border is so
completely conquered that any resistance is out of the question.

But that nothing like this had happened in South Africa is clear to
every one who recalls the names of Lindley,[94] Roodewal, Dewetsdorp,
Vlakfontein, Tafelkop[95] and Tweefontein, not to speak of many other
glorious battle-fields on which we fought _after_ the so-called
annexation.

Nor must we forget to mention the defeat that Lord Methuen received at
the hands of General De la Rey immediately before the conclusion of
peace; a defeat which put the crown on all our victories.

But, as I have already said, it very soon appeared that when England
stamped us as "Guerillas," they really did not mean to use the word at
all.