"Surrended men" vs. POW

I came across this post by Padraic Kenney, a history professor at Indiana University, who is reading a memoir of a Boer War POW, Wim Hopford.

Hopford mentions at some point he asked what status he would be assigned to him, to which the answer was "surrendered man", and when he asks exactly what that means, he is told it means he recognizes the British government. He refuses to do so, and then is relabeled as a "prisoner of war" (POW). 

Kenney's question is what the difference between a "surrendered man" and a POW is, and if the two were treated differently. 

Here is the original post:

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Albion&month=1301&week=a&msg=odF6MtS7ctNYoKI8RDvEUQ&user=&pw=

And a response that I found interesting:

Dr. Dave M. Leeson, Associate Professor and Chair Department of History
Laurentian University post: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Albion&month=1301&week=a&msg=1Z%2bmVkdHIrPTmlbLsjFMew&user=&pw=

"a "surrendered man" would be just
that: a Boer fighter who had accepted that the war was over, that the
Boers had lost, and that the Orange Free State and the Transvaal had
been defeated and conquered.  A "prisoner of war," by contrast, would
have been a Boer fighter like Hopford who refused to accept these
things, or to recognize British sovereignty.

This distinction would be most important if surrendered men were
released, and subsequently took up arms again.  It's not a crime for
enemy soldiers to wage war, and for this reason, they are not liable to
punishment if captured (unless they've committed war crimes).  But
having accepted their new status as British subjects, surrendered men
who took the field again would not be enemy soldiers, but rebels.
Sending "prisoners of war" to places like Ceylon sounds like a way of
inducing bitter-enders to surrender and accept their new status as
well."